6 vs. 8....

alfadriver wrote: 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 does a test that's blatantly slanted achieve that goal?

Want to showcase it in a way that doesn't treat your potential customers like idiots? Repeat this test at a reasonable altitude. Unless you know that it isn't equal to the task.

I see two cases here:

1) The car is up to being at least competitive. If this is case, your test design leads one to believe exactly the opposite. And the test does a terrible disservice to the motor/car.

2) The car isn't up to being at least competitive. In which case the test makes more sense, but it still doesn't say anything good about the car.

Don't really see a reasonable third choice.

I lean towards #1 personally. Good car, bad test, worse presentation.

And the reaction towards criticism does lead me to believe that my favorite big 3, Ford (well Lincoln I guess), isn't as far along as I had hoped.

Relying on bogus stunts deserving of being on Top Gear as entertainment as opposed to any demonstration making a real point about the car. In that case, why not hook caravans up to them? Top Gear silly "tests" are always more fun with caravans.

alfadriver wrote: 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.

You chose the cars, not us. If you knew you couldn't compete in a fair test, you should have chosen other cars. If the rubo isn't that big a deal (as you keep saying) why not perform it at a reasonable altitude? Oh right, it was biug deal. that's why you did it there (or it really wasn't and whoever decided to do it there is an idiot) You can't have it both ways.

If the PR dept, engineers or whoever take "you had to handicap what you consider your competition" as a compliment, remind me to not buy something they were involved with. If I were an engineer on that project and saw the test, I'd be pissed as it makes my project, and thus me, look bad.

Okay, I guess the only way to settle this is to send one of each car to GRM HQ for an unbiased test. It's about as close to see level as you'll get.

Tom Heath wrote: Okay, I guess the only way to settle this is to send one of each car to GRM HQ for an unbiased test. It's about as close to see level as you'll get.

Love to see it. Better yet, how high does the Tail of the Dragon get? 2000 feet or so? Seems low enough to me if we want a twisty mountain road. And the thought of taking such heavy beasts up and down it appeals to me (having done it in an MR2)

alfadriver wrote: 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.

No argument here. We have the advantage of being able to educate our customers one at a time, and they are generally motivated to treat their cars in a certain way. The manufacturers don't have that luxury.

When Mazda came out with the 2004-05 Mazdaspeed turbo, we got to see the difference between an OE implementation and our own. First off, we cannot make a turbo car make that little power Their IHI combined the response of a big turbo with the power of a little one. There were a number of aspects that were designed to control the boost - for example, if a boost controller was added, the intake system was restrictive enough to prevent any extra boost from being produced.

There were all sort of problems with the engine management on those cars as well. Lots of people said it was due to ineptitude on the part of the Mazda engineers, but I'm pretty sure it was due to emissions regulations. The end result was a car that really didn't drive all that well and got some flak because of it, but there were good reasons for why it was done that way. And it's also the only turbo Miata I've ever driven that needed to be downshifted to go over Eisenhower pass

We can see the difference between Mazdaspeed owners and turbo Miata owners. The latter usually put some effort into their choice and tend to be fairly knowledgeable about their cars. The former bought a car with a turbo on it, and they want it to be faster. We have to be much more explicit about our instructions - there's a two-page forum thread with pictures on how to install one of our products that involves two wires and a vacuum line, for example. Not to denigrate Mazdaspeed owners, it's simply a different demographic. And one that illustrates the differences between OE customers and "tuner" customers.

Still, if the turbo isn't having an effect at altitude in the 6 vs 8 comparison, it was an unfortunate choice of venue simply due to the public perception.

keethrax- exactly which 4 large European perfornace sedans should have been chosen??

M3 and any 3 series isn't the same class. M5 is not the intended target for the MKS. EVO and STI aren't even close to the same size, the G8 would have not fared much better, etc etc.

So tell me, which LARGE perfornace sedans should have been chosen?

As far as I know, a Mercedes 550, and BMW 550, a Jaguar XF, and a Maserati Quatroportte are pretty much top of the line large sedans. Which were missed? ALL of the above could have also chosen smaller turbos, but they didn't.

Which cars that are of equal size and weight would make you happy?

Honestly, the test pissed me off, just because we didn't win for a very fixable problem. If you worked here, and had to deal with the preception issues we have to deal with, it would make you proud too.

And thanks for telling me that this whole thing make me and my fellow engineers look bad.

Eric

PROUD AND HAPPY ENGINEER.

Tom Heath wrote: Okay, I guess the only way to settle this is to send one of each car to GRM HQ for an unbiased test. It's about as close to see level as you'll get.

On that note, I have no idea why GRM wasn't invited to some of the SHO drives...

E-

I was just re-reading the Feb. '07 issue with the MKR concept in my porcelain library. On E85, it says that it produced 415hp and 400tq.

I'm not joining the test "perception" pissing match, just saying that I look forward to any and all articles on this car, and that engine in the future.

alfadriver wrote:

Tom Heath wrote: Okay, I guess the only way to settle this is to send one of each car to GRM HQ for an unbiased test. It's about as close to see level as you'll get.

On that note, I have no idea why GRM wasn't invited to some of the SHO drives... E-

Me either.

alfadriver wrote: As far as I know, a Mercedes 550, and BMW 550, a Jaguar XF, and a Maserati Quatroportte are pretty much top of the line large sedans. Which were missed? ALL of the above could have also chosen smaller turbos, but they didn't.

So they can be worse everywhere but up a mountain in the clouds? Why? And if that's not the case, why test it there? Can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try.

I give up. Feel free to think this reflects well on your car. Feel free to keep thinking this sort of thing fights (as opposed to reinforces) the image issues American car companies have.

I think you're too close to deal with this remotely rationally or objectively (strange for an engineer), and I don't want to keep raining on your parade. It makes me feel bad, because I'm biased too, I want you guys to do well. And it's sorta like kicking a puppy.

alfadriver wrote: keethrax- exactly which 4 large European perfornace sedans should have been chosen??

You're not going to make this guy happy...

I got one like him at work... I get an ergo chair for a dude who's nearly crippled and needs some help. He endlessly complains about the ergonomics of his workstation because he wants a new chair... Then he's got the balls to tell everyone in the shop he's not doing any work until he gets a new chair because he deserves one. Today I told him how much those chairs cost... He didn't care. Hmm...

Going to be a long time before this dude sees a new chair.. Especially since we're getting rid of his workstation...

DELETED response to ignorant's trolling attacks with no contributions. If he wants to be taken seriously, he can actually contribute something relevant.

Hey now. Iggy has earned the right to not contribute anything relevant.

alex wrote: Hey now. Iggy has earned the right to not contribute anything relevant.

damn right.

keethrax wrote:

alfadriver wrote: As far as I know, a Mercedes 550, and BMW 550, a Jaguar XF, and a Maserati Quatroportte are pretty much top of the line large sedans. Which were missed? ALL of the above could have also chosen smaller turbos, but they didn't.

So they can be worse everywhere but up a mountain in the clouds? Why? And if that's not the case, why test it there? Can't have it both ways, no matter how hard you try. I give up. Feel free to think this reflects well on your car. Feel free to keep thinking this sort of thing fights (as opposed to reinforces) the image issues American car companies have. I think you're too close to deal with this remotely rationally or objectively (strange for an engineer), and I don't want to keep raining on your parade. It makes me feel bad, because I'm biased too, I want you guys to do well. And it's sorta like kicking a puppy.

So you can't come up with a line up that would be a good comparison that's different than what Automobile/MotorTrend did?

From my perspective- up until this "episode" nobody in their right mind would even consider the word Lincoln when you spoke of Mercedes, BMW, or Maserati (Jag was a different story for obvious reasons). Unless we are talking limos. Now, even though the test was slanted, one can say that it can at least compete. That, in of it self, is a HUGE step forward for Lincoln.

Moreso- if it makes our marketing and chassis guys think about making a Lincoln R or stuff this bad boy into the MKZ ot make an MKZr- that would be totally awesome.

Objectivity is relative. If we were talking about going to LeMans and competing in some series with this car, yes- it's a rather poor pat on the back. But we are looking for any small crack that makes our product look good. This does that. In spades.

(oh, and most of the "proud" feeling was more to irritate you, and not be too argumetative... )

Eric

As this thread takes many turns, now seems like a good time to make a comment to alfa driver.

Last week I put 1,000 miles on a rental car Ford Fusion SE with the new 2.5L (not 2.3L) 4 cyl and of course automatic. Wow, was I impressed. I actually opened the hood to see if the engine was a 6 cyl and had not realized a new 4 cyl was in place. Not buzzy at all like the 2.3L tends to be. Smooth, well appointed and overall a car that I could really see owning.
My point. Keep up the good work. The sceptics (like myself) are starting to notice!

I see a lot of uninspiring rental car time. If entering the rental car lot and faced between the choices of basic Camry, Altima, Impala-G6, I would take the Fusion every time.

Over that 1,000 miles the trip computer told me that I was getting 29mpg which was about 80% highway but most always just over 70mph. I was very happy with that.

If I can place one complaint about the Fusion, it is the turn signal stalk. When the lever is at rest it is at a near 45 degree angle to the steering wheel. I would prefer a more traditional 90 degree at rest. I also do not like the wiper controls being on the turn signal stalk. i would much prefer they be on a sperate stalk on the right side of the wheel. The Fusion has no stalk on the right side of the wheel but the Mazda 6 does.

jrw1621 wrote: As this thread takes many turns, now seems like a good time to make a comment to alfa driver. Last week I put 1,000 miles on a rental car Ford Fusion SE with the new 2.5L (not 2.3L) 4 cyl and of course automatic. Wow, was I impressed. I actually opened the hood to see if the engine was a 6 cyl and had not realized a new 4 cyl was in place. Not buzzy at all like the 2.3L tends to be. Smooth, well appointed and overall a car that I could really see owning. My point. Keep up the good work. The sceptics (like myself) are starting to notice! I see a lot of uninspiring rental car time. If entering the rental car lot and faced between the choices of basic Camry, Altima, Impala-G6, I would take the Fusion every time. Over that 1,000 miles the trip computer told me that I was getting 29mpg which was about 80% highway but most always just over 70mph. I was very happy with that.

That's very good to hear, since normally the bottom of the bottom trim are chosen for rental fleets (and that goes for all OEM's). So to be that happy with the base car is quite encouraging.

If I can place one complaint about the Fusion, it is the turn signal stalk. When the lever is at rest it is at a near 45 degree angle to the steering wheel. I would prefer a more traditional 90 degree at rest. I also do not like the wiper controls being on the turn signal stalk. i would much prefer they be on a sperate stalk on the right side of the wheel. The Fusion has no stalk on the right side of the wheel but the Mazda 6 does.

1000% agree. Same problem on our Edge.

I think the turn signal/wiper thing is a hold over for stalk mounted shifters. It's possible that this steering column will see police action in some vehicle- this it almost has to have column shifter to fit the police stuff. None the less, there's a lot of validity in your points.

For the angle, for whatever reason, it's better on the Taurus/MKS, but it seems like such an easy fix on the other cars. Hopefully, we are migrating that direction- there's been a LOT of changes in how interiors are designed and thought out over the past 4 years. In a very good way.

Eric

Count me on the impressed with where Ford is headed these days bus, too. I also had a Fusion rental last year, with the V6, and was quite impressed. It reminded me a lot of my Volvo (which makes sense given the family heritage) but I liked the V6 more than the 5-banger in the Volvo. I was very pleasantly surprised.

You know those right wing radio guys who go on endlessly about liberal bias? I think that there's a lot of pent up Eurojap bias. Most of it is kharmic retrobution for Detroit pimping garbage for so many years, but it also obscures the fact that Detroit does actually make some good stuff. A good case in point is that where I live Prius' are ubiquitous. There's several on evey block. If you told these guys that Ford's Hybrid Fusion is more spacious, has better road feel, is more powerful, uses less gas, and uses Toyota's hybrid technology, would they consider one? Probably not, 'cause it's a Ford.

What Detroit needs to do is commit to excellence on an ongoing basis, not treat quality and engineering as slogans, but ways of life. Then they have to be patient. All the foreign brands went through periods when they were considered junk, but most of them persevered. In parts of America, Toyota, Honda, BMW and Volvo ARE the domestic brands in the public's mind, and FORD and GM the junk.

What's critical to the comeback are guys like Eric, who take great pride in their work. If the top engineers get frustrated and leave, Ford is doomed. Keep up the good work Eric!

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

+1

Just got back from the advanced screening. Pretty cool- lots of smiles, lots of kidding toward the two Ford guys features on the show.

But one funny thing- google is an interesting tool So I've suggested to post this data that Automobile and Motortrend list as the sea level performance data... Sea Level Performance (per Automobile / Motor Trend):

0-60mph/ 1/4mi

Lincoln MKS 5.2 sec/13.7 sec

BMW 550i 5.2/13.7

Jaguar XF 5.5/14.0

Maserati Quattroporte 5.3/13.9

Mercedes Benz E550 4.8/13.4

it will be interesting to see how that looks to you guys. But the MKS is pretty mid pack at sea level, too.

Also:

MKS has lowest power / weight ratio, compensated for by broad, linear torque curve MKS has highest EPA highway fuel economy rating @ 25 mpg (vs. average of competitors @ 22 mpg, with Maserati @ 17 mpg = gas guzzler tax) MKS has only full five star front & side NHTSA crash test rating MKS is tied with Maserati with largest interior volume MKS is tied with Jaguar with largest trunk volume MKS is $10K - $72K less expensive

And none of that is mentioned in the show. Neither is the sea level performance.

Eric

Eric - any idea why they are pronouncing it "SHO" in the commercials, rather than "S-H-O"?

DILYSI Dave wrote: Eric - any idea why they are pronouncing it "SHO" in the commercials, rather than "S-H-O"?

No idea. Being here for so long, I've heard it refererenced both ways, but more often as SHO and not S H O. So I think the general public moved it that way.

E-

jrw1621 wrote: Rental car Ford Fusion SE comments

It's getting away from the original intent of this thread, but to echo JRW1621's comments, I spend a lot of time in rental cars for work as well. I have not spent any time in Fusion, but am continually blown away by the Malibu LTZ every time I get in one. Not only is it gorgeous, the interior is laid out well, the radio kicks arse, it would freeze an Eskimo out and gets ~30mpg on the highway. I always chose one over a Camry, Accord, Sonata, etc.

Eric, I don't have an issue with the 6 vs 8 comparison. My opinion is that the Lincoln could hang at all is a testament to what Detroit is doing right these days. There hasn't been much good news from the U.S. auto industry lately, so let's cheer the good news that is happening!

DILYSI Dave wrote: Eric - any idea why they are pronouncing it "SHO" in the commercials, rather than "S-H-O"?

Funny. I always thought the correct pronunciation was "SHO". :head scratching:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Eric - any idea why they are pronouncing it "SHO" in the commercials, rather than "S-H-O"?

I've heard it both ways forever, too. Including when I owned one back in 1993. And, of course, the SHO-engined Festiva was called "SHOgun", too. I think folks just do it to be more succinct (one syllable vs. three).