MKS with ECO Boost at Milan

60 foot times probably suck, because turbos really scream more on the top end. You might pull away from one off the line, but once they get rolling, theyll start really moving. I wonder if they launch like the old GMC Syclones, that would be a sight. then their 60 foot times will be real good.

Probably will launch more like the GMC Syclone or the Nissan GTR seeing as they're all wheel drive. In other words, the launch will be no problem.
 
12-15 PSI out of a Turbo can last years, its a stock setting, its how you take care of them that matters. 10-12 PSI is stock setting on most turbos. Make sure you let the car idle for a while to cool off, highway speeds for long periods of time make them red hot. Its when you get to the 17-27+ PSI that really kills the turbos. :) The engines get better mileage because they are smaller and have a lower compression ratio than all NA cars, like 8:1 not 11:1 like some of the higher output cars out there without power adders.

Actually these have a pretty high compression ratio. 11 or 12 to 1 I think. I read it in car and driver. Apparently the direct injection does wonders for charge cooling and allows much higher compression with a lot of boost.

Hopefully these prove to be durable motors. Ford could be the destination for "green" enthusiast cars once all that battery and hybrid stuff fizzles out.
 
Actually these have a pretty high compression ratio. 11 or 12 to 1 I think. I read it in car and driver. Apparently the direct injection does wonders for charge cooling and allows much higher compression with a lot of boost.

Hopefully these prove to be durable motors. Ford could be the destination for "green" enthusiast cars once all that battery and hybrid stuff fizzles out.

I found 10.0:1 for its compression ratio, which is insanely high. Static Compression ratio is gonna be through the hood (13.5:1 is what I could find). I wonder if these engines will be like most Grand National/Syclone/Typhoon, rebuilt at 36,000 miles with rebuilt Turbos. Only time will tell.

Applications
365 hp (272 kW) @5500 rpm, 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) @3500rpm
2009- Ford Taurus SHO 2010 model year
355 hp (265 kW) @5700 rpm, 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) @1500-5250rpm
2009- Ford Flex 2010 model year
2009- Lincoln MKS 2010 model year
2009- Lincoln MKT 2010 model year

The production engine uses the Duratec 35 V6 engine block, which also includes the Plasma Transferred Wire Arc (PTWA) thermal spray coating from the contemporary base block.[5] The fuel charging and delivery systems can attain high fuel pressures of up to 2150 PSI, necessary for efficient operation of the direct fuel injection system. It uses 2 Garrett GT15 turbochargers which can spin at up to 170,000 rpm and provide 12 PSI of boost. The engine can consume up to 25% more air over the naturally-aspirated counterpart.
 
My 87 Buick Turbo lasted 110k hard miles before i put in a new one and it had 125k on the engine before i sold it to by my Mark VIII and it was fine.
 
Correct me if i am wrong, but all turbocharged/supercharged engines from the factory run a higher compression. Thus the reason you can't run lower octane fuel because the higher compression would cause predetonation.
 
Correct me if i am wrong, but all turbocharged/supercharged engines from the factory run a higher compression. Thus the reason you can't run lower octane fuel because the higher compression would cause predetonation.

Just the opposite, they are lower compression because off the added air from compressing it. 8:1 i think is normal for the average blown factory car.
 
Sad that it's a wrong wheel drive 4 door. I'd rethink it if it was a 2 door RWD coupe. I highly doubt the 13 second model was AWD either.
Personal preference, I suppose....but also keep in mind that the Mazdaspeed 6 (toot, toot? :D ) is a 3600 lb car, dry and empty, but is still capable of a 13.9s quarter with its stock 270 hp (225-ish awhp). Granted, the MS6 has the advantage of dumping the clutch to launch like a bat outta hell, but with the right level of power-braking as well as the right gearing, I wouldn't doubt those numbers. Apparently the launch was also just right; they didn't get that time on their first run!

So why do they require higher octane fuel if the compression is less?
The same reason, to prevent detonation and knock retard (or something). While the MS6 (2.3L + 16 psi = 274 hp), was on its 93-octane diet back east, I took a trip up the highway into Maine after mistakenly asking the gas attendant to put in "premium" and not "super" at the Sunoco. I didn't realize that "Premium" there was 91, unlike EVERY other station where it's 93. Anyways, I had to take it easy and not roll too much into the throttle or the motor would stumble and hesitate. Good thing that highway trip up there and back burned off all that stuff. (Oddly enough, after the car was given a steady diet of 91, the highest octane I have seen west of the Appalachians, it runs just fine, in fact it puts down 246 hp to the wheels with only an intake and a resonator-delete.)
 
So why do they require higher octane fuel if the compression is less?

Chemistry 101, the ideal gas law pv=nrt where p is the absolute pressure of the gas; V is the volume of the gas; n is the amount of substance of the gas, usually measured in moles; R is the gas constant (which is 8.314472 JK−1mol−1 in SI units[4]); and T is the absolute temperature.
 
Nice motor. GM sourced trans. Friend at GM said a few things about the torque rating of that trans that makes me doubt that you're getting all of that power in every gear. But then again, every new car with reasonable power employs torque limiting of some sort to save the trans.

The trans is 6F55 Automatic, paddle shifted 6 speed made at the Ford Van Dyke plant. GM makes a manual shift unit that they share with Ford
 
Last edited:
With a little tuning, the MKS/SHO can be a serious SRT8 Charger/300C competitor... NICE!
Some tuning, and maybe a diet! My 4-door Ford Explorer 4x4 weighed less than those porkers! ;) I wonder, though, if it's a matter of time before this replaces the 3V 4.6L in the Mustang.... *cringe*
 
Lol, the 4.6 is going away after 2010 anyway. 2011 the Mustang gets a 4V 5.0L, but thats another topic. I know they are considering an ecoboost motor for the Mustang, not sure which one, and they are working on getting the 3.5 Eco into the F150.

So far from what I've heard theres the 3.5L seen here, as well as a 2.0L I4 Ecoboost, making 230hp that is capable of 40+ mpg.
 
Back
Top