6 vs. 8....

alfadriver wrote: Anyway, thanks for the compliments- to even think that we had to have fixed the competition to be competetive just tells me we are doing the right job. Eric

Umm? What?

So having to handicap your competition to be competitive is a compliment?

I'll run a 100m race with you. But I'm going to make you untie your shoes so I have a chance. That looks good for me?

If that's the kind of logic you guys are relying on, my sympathies.

If you wanted to look good, you should have come up with a fair(ish) test. The only reason not to do so is knowing you'd look bad in a more reasonable test.

To me it says, "We know we're inferior, but instead of getting better are trying to trick people into not realizing it.:" Exactly the wrong message to send when you are getting better. And should be at least competitive.

alfadriver wrote: You guys make me laugh. We take 4 world class sedans from Europe that all cost a ton, and we manage to come up with a single test that shows that our car is not just barely competetive with it at a fraction of the cost, and you still find excuses why it was so good relatively.

Exactly. It's a single test. It's a biased one. It doesn't prove a thing. If anything, it proves the opposite to what it's supposed to. The selection of venue makes it obvious what you're trying to do. And the end result is that some people will realize it was rigged, and this will color their perceptions of the car.

Had this been done at sea level or without a blatantly skewed single test, I probably would have said "huh, cool". But instead I lose respect for Automobile and Lincoln. I can't lose respect for MT, that's not possible

Of course, I'll have a stronger reaction than most, as I'm much more aware of the effects of altitude on naturally aspirated and turbocharged cars. I used to run an autocross series at 8000'

Funny comparison:

Cars test on a single venue in Germany to compare all the time, you know this place as "the ring" and GM has cleverly used it to showcase the ZR1 and CTS-V capabilities, impressing the hell out of a lot of people.

Ford chooses to do a similar single-venue comparison, but instead, does it at a bajillion feet above sea level at a more local venue. Is it really so different?

Frankly, I think alfa should at least acknowledge that the higher the altitude of the test track, the better the turbo car will fare. Otherwise it's a fine comparison, but it seems obvious that the altitude of the comparison wasn't picked accidentally and was intended to showcase the turbo car.

Bryce

Keith wrote: Exactly. It's a single test. It's a biased one. It doesn't prove a thing. If anything, it proves the opposite to what it's supposed to. The selection of venue makes it obvious what you're trying to do. And the end result is that some people will realize it was rigged, and this will color their perceptions of the car.

DingDingDing!

My very rough rule of thumb on (standard, non-tweaked, factory) turbo cars is the turbo bumps you up ~two cylinders. I expect a turbo 4 to be competitive with a 6. And a turboed 6 to be competitive with an 8.

So picking a turbo 6 vs an 8 seems a good start. Changing the conditions to blatantly favor the turbo after a fair(ish) start conveys (to me) a message diametrically opposed to the one you should want to convey.

Nashco wrote: Cars test on a single venue in Germany to compare all the time, you know this place as "the ring" and GM has cleverly used it to showcase the ZR1 and CTS-V capabilities, impressing the hell out of a lot of people. Ford chooses to do a similar single-venue comparison, but instead, does it at a bajillion feet above sea level at a more local venue. Is it really so different?

Definitely. For one, the 'Ring is used by everyone. It's a standard test like 0-60 is a standard test. It's a fairly gruelling test and one that's pretty well-rounded. But the fact that it's a standard is what really matters, and especially to the Germans. In the case of the ZR1 and CTS-V, GM took their cars to someone else's playground and that's what made it so impressive.

That's the exact opposite of what Ford did.

Man you guys are hard on American car companies! Loveland pass is not a dragstrip at 10K ft. Sure the Lincoln had a bit of an advantage over the 8cyl cars due to the altitude, but that big tank still had to deal with snaking it's way up a very winding road.

Maybe I'm just a homer, but I'm impressed that a big Lincoln could hang with the super $$$ Europeans on such a challenging course. The power advantage helped, but it still needed to be pretty darn agile.

USA....USA....USA.......Ok, I'll stop now

Joe Gearin wrote: Man you guys are hard on American car companies! Loveland pass is not a dragstrip at 10K ft. Sure the Lincoln had a bit of an advantage over the 8cyl cars due to the altitude, but that big tank still had to deal with snaking it's way up a very winding road. Maybe I'm just a homer, but I'm impressed that a big Lincoln could hang with the super $$$ Europeans on such a challenging course. The power advantage helped, but it still needed to be pretty darn agile. USA....USA....USA.......Ok, I'll stop now

I feel the same way.
As far as the ring.....it seems like traffic would come into play and effect times. I don't really see it as some huge awesome standard for the world, although I do pay attention to the results. At least Loveland pass was closed off.

Don't detract though from what this test shows, a massive improvement in product from Ford. Ford has come a long way and it's a nice car that has some balls.

Good job for that.

So easy to criticize without providing any solutions.

Cotton wrote: As far as the ring.....it seems like traffic would come into play and effect times. I don't really see it as some huge awesome standard for the world, although I do pay attention to the results. At least Loveland pass was closed off.

The Ring is usually closed off (or at least closed to the public for an industry day) when the manufacturers are going for time, FYI. The rest of the world views the Ring as a huge awesome standard.

You want a solution? Do it again at or near sea level. Even up Mt Washington would be better. Not only is an established hillclimb circuit, but the 6300' peak elevation will still play to the turbo car without being quite as blatant as starting in the Rockies.

"A bit of an advantage". The correction factor for our dyno for naturally aspirated cars at our shop tends to run between 16 and 20% depending on weather. And we're at 4800'.

ignorant wrote: So easy to criticize without providing any solutions.

Umm...

Solution #1: If you want to change perceptions (and you should, because they are putting out some very nice stuff) try to not create such a ridiculously biased test.

Solution #2: If you actually have a good reason for doing your test at high altitude, pick turbocharged/supercharged sixes as your competition.

keethrax wrote:

ignorant wrote: So easy to criticize without providing any solutions.

Umm... Solution #1: If you want to change perceptions (and you should, because they *are* putting out some very nice stuff) try to not create such a ridiculously biased test. Solution #2: If you actually have a good reason for doing your test at high altitude, pick turbocharged/supercharged sixes as your competition.

sorry..

Let me change that to "So easy to be that guy who does no wrong and only presents snide comments on the int4rw3b5.... "

I should know, I'm usually the ass with the snide comments.

ignorant wrote: Let me change that to "So easy to be that guy who does no wrong and only presents snide comments on the int4rw3b5.... "

Ahh... right. Don't like the message, but at the same time. you know darn well it's dead on. So your only recourse is to attack the messenger.

There were plenty of ways to do this test that don't make a mockery of the point the guys doing the test are trying to make (one that I even mostly agree with). They very intentionally chose not to.

You'll find that I'm hardest on people who I agree with (in this case that the car is a nice alternative to the ones it was tested against) and torpedo their own claims by sheer counterproductive bullE36 M3 (like the actual test). The only people who should be swayed by this sort of test are, frankly, idiots.

So what they're really saying is "we think that you, the customer, has the IQ of a turnip and won't be able to see how bad this test is." That attitude from any company offends the hell out of me. It's doubly offensive coming from a company I want to succeed. And triply offensive from one that I want to succeed and that seems to be on the right course.

keethrax wrote:

Keith wrote: Exactly. It's a single test. It's a biased one. It doesn't prove a thing. If anything, it proves the opposite to what it's supposed to. The selection of venue makes it obvious what you're trying to do. And the end result is that some people will realize it was rigged, and this will color their perceptions of the car.

DingDingDing! My *very* rough rule of thumb on (standard, non-tweaked, factory) turbo cars is the turbo bumps you up ~two cylinders. I expect a turbo 4 to be competitive with a 6. And a turboed 6 to be competitive with an 8. So picking a turbo 6 vs an 8 seems a good start. Changing the conditions to blatantly favor the turbo after a fair(ish) start conveys (to me) a message diametrically opposed to the one you should want to convey.

For one thing, the point WAS to highlight a turbo v6 vs an EXCEEDINGLY HIGH END N/A v8, in equal weight and sized class cars.

Second, the reason I'm barely recgonizing the turbo/atlitude thing is that I'm far more familiar with this product, and actually know how much our turbos suffer at altitude. The fact that you are all hanging your hat on that aspect of this whole comparison really highlights how good our powertrain really is.

Which really makes it that much more amusing that some of you decide to be utterly insulted by this comparison.

Check the data- in the head to head runs, they post power data- you'll see that all of them are sub 400hp cars, so there's no real ringer here. Our car stops having a significant advantage at about 4000 ft, after that, we loose just as fast as everyone else. And IF you actually knew something about about turbos (besides the common claim that they are SO much better at altitude), you'll also know that turbo lag is far, far worse at altitdue than anywhere else. So our car deals with most of the altitdue power loss, plus tha added benefit of extra special turbo lag, and we still manage to be competetive. (BTW, I did recogize the altitude issue a while ago, but if you choose to ignore that, fine- I can't force you to alter your preceptions)

And, once again, outside of ignorant, NOBODY has seen the turns in the road- even WITH a power advantage, without decent handling, this still would have been a walk in the mud for the MKS. Beuler, Beuler???

I don't know who suggested the test, but I know that whatever program did want to highlight the MKS with Ecoboost- not unlike ANY of the programs that highlight single cars on Speed- there have been a ton of those.

For your "solution 2"- find 4 other Euro luxury sport sedans IN THE SAME SIZE CLASS that have turo V6's. The point was to raise the playing field for Lincoln.

Again, the fact that you all think this is SOOOO staged is actually a very high compliment for our car. And I appreciate all of that.

Flat out, we chose a different engineering solution to a given problem. Seems to have worked quite well, if you ask me.

If you are out to find faults so that your sense of ballance is still maintained- that's fine. Thankfully, there are enough open minded people out there who will see that 1) it's not a perfect test, but at least the cars are equal size/class, but not quite on price, and 2) the MKS with EcoBoost is a pretty significant improvement over previous Lincolns, one that might be considered as a worthy product for much lower price.

The fact that you continue to complain that it was SO unfair to compare a Lincoln land barge to a Ferrari powered Maserati (do I really read that right???), and 3 +5.0l European sedans just because we had a different solution- I'll pass those regards onto the engineering teams here. They will be proud.

As a side note- we keep getting e-mails that the community finds ways to make this thing fast- right now the current Ecoboost record for the 1/4 mile is 12.79.

I know I've been told I don't know anything about turbos and altitude - how could I? - but I'd like to suggest that while it's true that turbo lag (more specifically spoolup time) does suffer at altitude, when the car's being run up close to its redline the effect is far less pronounced. If you were doing 30-50 mph top gear pulls, you'd notice it. Hauling ass up a pass? Not so much.

But I don't know anything about turbos and altitude. Although it could be suggested that if the only goal was to find a twisty road for the comparison, then perhaps finding a twisty road that didn't involve a couple of miles of altitude and would thus present the appearance of a rigged test to an uneducated audience would have been a better choice. After all, if the cars are competing on an even basis, then you'd want to make sure there was no appearance of a rigged test.

Must be one tiny little turbo. If it can't compensate for more than 4000' of altitude loss (a couple of extra pounds of boost), I fail to see how it can be tuned too much higher at sea level. But what do I know.

What is obvious is that anything we say is taken as a triumph for the engineers. Even if the MKS had burst into flames as it understeered off a precipitous drop at an average speed of 25 mph as the onlookers pointed out the skid marks on the door handles, it would have been a triumph.

I have no doubt the engineers are proud of what they have done, as those who build any modern engine should be. I think the Lincoln marketing team should be ashamed for setting up a test that can be so easily misinterpreted by uneducated consumers. As if it matters what they think. I'll bet Lincoln's PR guys have dislocated their shoulders patting themselves on the back.

My first post on this thread was my gut reaction...

I do admit, though, that many people have a mental block where they are so skeptical of/burned out by the American car companies and TV that it's hard to accept anything that shows an American car at an advantage (or, for that matter, competitive). Adding to that, it's an accepted understanding (whether entirely correct or not) that turbos generally deal with higher altitudes better than N/A engines.

I do think that it's significant that it did so well, particularly because handling was so involved in the test.

I'd like to have seen how the Hyundai Genesis Sedan V8 would've compared, just for grins. (I'd imagine it would probably be last in there, but I could be wrong.)

Keith I know you know something about turbos and altitude. But you keep insisting that essentially our marketing guys are bunch of liers and our customers are idoits for beliving in this comparison.

My point is that it's not all about the turbos.

I'm trying to actually be positive instead of combative in this thread, since enough people want to disparage this "test" for whatever reason. Why you don't give any credit to the car's chassis is beyond me, and blame the entire thing as a turbo charade- it's quite frustrating.

yes, the turbos are very small- that's to get better than V8 torque at low speeds and no turbo lag. Thankfully, all the published reports on the cars do point that out. For production releases, it's not all about boost, it's about keeping everything within safe boundaries- can't overspeed the turbo, no matter how much boost you want. Can't over temp the exhaust no matter how much more power you want. We have boundaries that we can't go beyond to make sure these things don't break.

Finally- I'll go back again to the idea that- is this SO rigged that 4 cars that are some of the best of the best Europe can offer use a such a different engineering solution at a huge cost penalty that you can't give any credit to the MKS? We are talking Lincoln vs BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar, and Maserati. These cars are so poorly engineered that a simple run from 9500 ft to 11400 ft are going to make them look foolish?

Oh, and Lincoln PR guys had nothing to do with this. That, I kid you not. Brett Hinds is my boss (well bosses boss), and Corey Weaver is a Tech Specialist in my department- both in Research and Advanced Engineering- not PR. Nobody here dreamed that the MKS would have done that well.

Eric

Been up and down that pass a few times. Mostly staying at the top.

I liked the video. If I were shopping for a big luxo-car, I'd look harder at Lincoln after watching that than before watching. Strap that turbo 6 into something I want, like a new Cougar based on the Mustang, and I'd be itching to shop.

FWIW, Keith knows some stuff about turbochargers and altitude. Like, lots of stuff. And he does it with sketchy 91-octane crap gas.

I'd also like to strap bigger turbo on that V6, find some big sticky meats, and go drag racing for an evening. I like AWD.

Great job lincoln! Looks like a great car, but I'll never buy one. A huge power FWD car is never a good idea.

I would however like to see this comparison at the ring. I bet the MKS would be dead last with at least 15 seconds between it and the next car.

Eric,

Just keep telling us that we don't understand. Tell yourself if you explain it better we will. Tells us that our eyes and brains are wrong. Tell us that we've come to the wrong conclusions. Keep telling us that. Make sure you convince yourself. Then wonder why, even though you know all the answers, we aren't buying your cars.

I grew up in Detroit and I have always loved Ford. But you need to understand that we are not dumb and no amount of you telling us we are is going to change anything.

NBS2005 wrote: But you need to understand that we are not dumb and no amount of you telling us we are is going to change anything.

I guess I don't see where he's calling anyone dumb. He said that the issue of turbos and altitude is a bit more complex than most folks in this thread have been saying. He acknowledged Keith's expertise and provided an answer to his question about small turbos. He's been nothing but positive from what I've seen. Is he biased? Well, yeah, but it's not like he's hiding his loyalties. Let's face it, a lot of people on this board are biased against American cars, so I don't see anything wrong with a little balance.

Having said that, I'd like to have seen this done at Road America or VIR or something, just to eliminate even the perception of a stacked deck.

alfadriver wrote: I know you know something about turbos and altitude. But you keep insisting that essentially our marketing guys are bunch of liers and our customers are idoits for beliving in this comparison. My point is that it's not all about the turbos. I'm trying to actually be positive instead of combative in this thread, since enough people want to disparage this "test" for whatever reason. Why you don't give any credit to the car's chassis is beyond me, and blame the entire thing as a turbo charade- it's quite frustrating.

Then the test was unfortunately chosen. If the altitude makes no difference, then a low-altitude test would have been better because it would have removed the "but turbos do better at altitude" complaint. The emphasis in the marketing (and it is marketing, despite whoever's idea it is) is the engine size and power. Heck, even this thread and the website are called 6 vs 8. So it's not surprising that people latched on to the engine size and power. It's positioned as a powerplant showdown, thus people look at the powerplants.

In terms of handling, sounds like Lincoln makes a big sedan that will dance with the big sedans from other marques. Cool.

Maybe dumb isn't the word I should have used. Confused?

The point being, Detroit has a long and nasty of habit of telling us what they think we should want. Maybe this has nothing to do with it. But listening to Eric calmly deflect all criticism, I couldn't help having a Big 3 flashback.

They should have put them all on a dynapack at 12,000ft

NBS2005 wrote: Maybe dumb isn't the word I should have used. Confused? The point being, Detroit has a long and nasty of habit of telling us what they think we should want. Maybe this has nothing to do with it. But listening to Eric calmly deflect all criticism, I couldn't help having a Big 3 flashback.

So I should angerly explain why the turbo advantage isn't as much as you think it is??? I'm confused.

While Keith's experience with turbos is quite extensive, his version of it ISN'T what we are allowed to do. While I really don't want to insult Keith, but to be blatently nasty about it, he's a tuner, we are and OEM. The BMW 335 has the exact same problems we do- they won't exceed turbo speed limits any more than we will, else the turbo supplier won't warrent them.

Where am I telling you what you should think? Fact- turbos are an advatage at altitude; Fact- OEM applications tend to NOT have as much advantage as aftermarket kits, due to lifetime requreiemts; Fact- other durability requirements also reduce any precieved advantage. I'm not making this up.

Does the MKS have an advantage, of course it does- and I've said that before- the point IS to shocase that a turbo V6 is equal to the task of what can be considered very high end N/A v8's. How many times do I need to repeat that? Is it as much as you think it is (the MKS only looses 10% vs 50% for the N/A as an exaggeration)? No.

How about this- the BMW has an unfair advantage since it has better brakes and chassis?? The Maserati has an unfair advantage since it reportedly has really sharp steering? Nobody took the high performance tires off any of the BMW, Jag, Mercedes, or Maser- but I know that the tires on the MKS are not so great (listen to the tire squal going around the corners).

(Keith- it's really not that great- but I say that as a Miata driver)

Is it a mixed message? Yea, be smart, filter it. But all in all, is the challenge SO one sided that the turbos just overwhelm everything else? No, but from a powertrain engineer, that's flattering. Is it SO bad that people who belive it are a bunch of morons? Open your mind to the possibility that the MKS is a darned good car.

Eric

Wow, uncharacteristic levels of catiness here! In a way, I think both basic arguements are true. It's kind of a stupid test (infomercial, actually), and the Lincoln still does damn well against much more expensive competition. If I was in the market for something of that ilk, I'd test the Lincoln, the Cadillac CTS as well as the foreign competition. I might still go Euro, but it's nice to see the Lincoln worthy of inclusion in the conversation anyway. It might even get some drivers under the age of 60!