1st pic of the production design Lincoln MKS
09-23-2007, 03:58 PM
#18
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
The new Twin Force V6 (dual turbochargers and direct injection) will put out a minimum of about 410 horsepower. Could go as high as 450. Chrysler's SRT8 300s are conservatively rated at 425, and are likely slightly heavier than the MKS will be.
Moving that power through AWD, these cars are going to be no joke performance wise.
Moving that power through AWD, these cars are going to be no joke performance wise.
09-23-2007, 04:39 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Roseville, MI, USA
Posts: 1,496
I like it. However, I think that Lincoln has a serious perception gap to over come. In my opinion, they are great cars, however I don't think the general public things that to be true.
The MKS looks great, and a "star role" in Batman is nothing but positive news.
The MKS looks great, and a "star role" in Batman is nothing but positive news.
09-24-2007, 07:37 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
The new Twin Force V6 (dual turbochargers and direct injection) will put out a minimum of about 410 horsepower. Could go as high as 450. Chrysler's SRT8 300s are conservatively rated at 425, and are likely slightly heavier than the MKS will be.
Moving that power through AWD, these cars are going to be no joke performance wise.
Moving that power through AWD, these cars are going to be no joke performance wise.
They were fools to stop that car like they did.
09-25-2007, 03:28 AM
#25
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Keep in mind Ford has been underdeclaring the horsepower of many of it's engines since the 2000 Cobra debacle.
I can see V6 versions of these engines becoming the Mustang powerplant of choice in the not too distant future. Not sure what (or IF there is) currently any actual Shelby plans that far into the future, but if these engines can do what I'm hearing they do (6 liter V8 power at V6 economy), you can bet they'll end up in more than just low production Shelbys.
09-25-2007, 07:26 AM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Yadkinville, NC USA
Posts: 3,180
Would you take a 400hp V8 that porked 4000lbs on a scale and 47/53...
Or a 400hp V6 that allowed 3800lbs with a near-perfect 49/51 ratio?
I know which one I'd vote for.
Your estimations above are not very far off IMO. Stick to your guns.
09-25-2007, 03:07 PM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: TX Med Ctr
Posts: 4,000
In any case obviously if that V6 is a turbo motor and does end up with weight advantage it would be very nice. Only question is if a TT V6 is really going to be 200lbs lighter than a V8. Guess if your V8 is stupidly heavy it could be. Otherwise I wouldn't expect a twin turbo V6 to be much lighter than say a certain 6.0L aluminum V8.
Additionally, although a 3.5L making 400HP is certainly possible, it doesn't really seem like it would be very mainstream in that trim (I suppose if the XJ220 could make 500HP from a TT 3.5L V6 15 years ago we should be able to do the same nowadays).
If I do some fake calculations on a 65*F day with a 3.5L motor with good intercooler, decently efficient turbo and give it a generous 90%VE at 6500RPM and A/F of 11.5:1, it can make a little over 400HP with BSFC of 0.5 at about 8psi of boost. Probably more realistic is a touch over 12psi to make 400HP with BSFC of 0.6. Obviously if it spins higher or lower it will need more or less boost.
09-25-2007, 06:00 PM
#29
West South Central Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kilgore TX 75662
Posts: 3,372
09-25-2007, 09:12 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Melb, Aust
Posts: 848