Lincoln MKS EcoBoost earns second place in 6versus8.com showdown, should we care?
Click above to watch videos after the jump
Car magazines do crazy things for money these days. Case in point: Automobile Magazine (and co-testers from sister mag Motor Trend) got roped into an interesting comparison test that you will not be reading in the latest issue. Why? The whole thing lives at 6versus8.com, a domain set up just to host this single comparison test that highlights the result of Lincoln's bet that its V6-powered MKS EcoBoost can beat some of the best naturally aspirated V8-powered sedans from Europe.
The test pits the 2010 Lincoln MKS EcoBoost against the Jaguar XF, Mercedes-Benz E550, BMW 550i and Maserati Quattroporte. As you might imagine, the test has to be un-leveled a bit for the MKS EcoBoost to stand a chance. The challenge is a 3.76-mile hill climb up Colorado's Loveland Pass... at 11,900 feet above sea level. Ah, there it is. The MKS EcoBoost makes the least horsepower and is the second heaviest car in this group, but at these elevations, the twin-turbo EcoBoost V6 will maintain its power level while the naturally aspirated V8 engines gasp for breath.
Pike's Peak champion Rod Millen was hired to drive, the Colorado State Patrol closed off Route 6 in 30-minute intervals for each car's run and a top notch film crew with a helicopter was hired to document the proceedings. Long story short, the grand production produced five videos (you can view them at 6versus8.com or after the jump) in which we see the Lincoln MKS EcoBoost claim second place behind the BMW 550i, though it did nab honors for the highest top speed during the hill climb.
So... back to the original point we were making. It seems to us that this is less editorial than advertorial. Automobile and Motor Trend say they rented the other vehicles for this test because, honestly, would you loan your sedan for a comparison test that was clearly tilted in your opponent's favor? And what did the magazines get in return? From what we can see, two double-page spreads in the current issue of Automobile (and perhaps MT) that we're guessing cost more than enough to cover the price of producing this elaborate "comparison test". And why does it not appear in the magazine itself? Probably because Automobile and Motor Trend don't think it's editorial either.
Follow the jump to watch all five videos for yourself and let us know what you think in the comments.
[Source: 6versus8.com]
The Challenge
The Engine
The Course and Driver
The Competitors
The Final Run
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
BigMcLargeHuge 4:20PM (10/05/2009)
I'd still have the Jaaaaaaaaag.
Better looks and interior than the lot, and the 5.0 is still plenty torquey.
Reply
Tyler 8:01PM (10/05/2009)
Same here, Lincoln can't get out the "good enough" stage when you haver to be in the "outstanding excellency" stage to compete against luxury brands, Cadillac learned that and even Ford who owns Lincoln is getting that down. The MKS has nothing unique about it except it's grill, but other than that it looks like a forgettable sedan. I have only seen four MKS's since it's been launched while I see countless numbers of every other brand daily, hell I've seen more Maserati's and Bentleys than MKS's.
Pengwin 9:07PM (10/05/2009)
They totally forgot about the Audi A6 V8...what a terrible thing to do, its sly and just an underhanded move. Lets compare a turbo charged car vs N/A cars on top of mount Everest.
Yaroukh 10:56PM (10/05/2009)
@Pengwin: They did not forget about it. They just used in another commercial comparo.
Clay Garland 12:40AM (10/06/2009)
Commercial, or not, the location was the deciding factor. You're pitting a naturally aspirated engine in the oxygen starved air at nearly 13000 feet.
mkM3 9:37AM (10/06/2009)
@Pengwin
As I did with the BMW's V8 vs. their own turbo 6, I would similarly question whether the Audi V8 would even be able to outperform it's own forcefully-inducted sibling (in Audi's case a supercharged V6, as opposed to BMW's turbocharged I6) here as well.
It's not just that they left out some obvious competitors, it's that they picked a test that favored engines with forced induction and then proceeded to ignore both competitors that would have been similarly as ideally suited for said test as the MKS turbo was. Sure, the whole EcoBoost line is that it's as good as (or better than) a V8. Great, we get it. But if you have to drive one up a frickin' 12,000 ft mountain to demonstrate that, then who cares? Plus - hey, here's an idea - lets throw a Mustang GT in there and see how that does. Or better, lets grab a V8 powered Falcon from the Aussies and show how much better the MKS is than that car too, yeah? Oh but wait a minute, Ford would quickly point out that there is also a turbo-I6 powered Falcon that would be much better suited for these conditions, right? Well gee, of coure they would.
FWIW, they also left out the Mercedes E-class, Lexus GS and Infiniti M from the test as well. And although none of those employ forced induction it would still be particularly interesting to see how the 5.6L Mercedes and 5.6L Infiniti performed. And, as I said in my other post a few pages forward, throw in the BMW 750i with it's 4.4L turbo-charged V8 - and Let's see how the MKS one does against that one.
l.i.dave 4:10PM (10/05/2009)
I love when autoblog questions the integrity of other publications. How many extra click throughs do you guys put up a week? How many loaded posts designed to spike the comment numbers do I see on a given day?
Glass houses? Stones? You know what I'm saying.
Reply
Das Borgen 4:11PM (10/05/2009)
you're from L.I. your argument is invalid
HonkyCat62 4:24PM (10/05/2009)
Whoa, Sparky -
From where I sit, there's a HUGE difference between creating compelling stories that warrant click-throughs %u2013 or even byzantine information displays that require more clicks %u2013 than there is with advertorial that has editors from a publication outright shilling for a particular product or service (as appears to be the case here). You can blame bad information design or the desire for more clicks for revenue, but the whole internet is guilty of that - this is something altogether different and more disconcerting.
BigWill 5:10PM (10/05/2009)
+1 HonkyCat.
If Source Interlink (parent of Automobile and Motor Trend), which is in bankruptcy reorganization, ever thinks about why they're in bankruptcy maybe they'd realize that their ex-readers discovered that Source Interlink mags can't even make the effort to sustain a pretense of objectivity anymore and now blatently show what whores they are for their advertisers.
BTW the ONLY reason to do this test at 12,000 feet is to give the EcoBoost an advantage the normally aspirated cars don't have. So right off the bat that makes me suspect that EcoBoost would have its ass handed to it if this test were run at normal altitudes.
GoldenState 4:18PM (10/05/2009)
Is it me or it's just amazing that a 5+ year old car (5-series) keeps on winning most of reviews with various match-ups.
Considering that it doesn't really look great (unlike Maserati or whatnot), that's pretty amazing. BMW really knows how to make great cars.
Reply
Rev Junkie 4:18PM (10/05/2009)
That's just not fair. All of those sedans are RWD, and the Lincoln is front-drive based part-time AWD. Plus, the MKS has no sporting pretensions whatsoever. For example, it offers no manual gearbox (like the BMW), and it has no sport package like the Benz and BMW. And a Quattroporte, regarded as a four-door Ferrari, against a Lincoln!? The MKS may be great, but if you drive one, you can tell Ford wasn't going after the Germans and the CTS, performance-wise. It's light-years ahead of the ancient Town Car, but it still drives like a Lincoln.
Reply
shethj 4:26PM (10/05/2009)
no it is fair. The top spec Lincoln is going up against the V8 German cars. the MKS isnt offered with ecoboost and FWD so it has to be AWD. Besides, AWD on the E class would've only added weight. on top of that the MKS is cheaper than any of those cars which makes the performance pretty impressive. Just give credit where its due. A $47k Lincoln can perform as well as $65K E550. Period.
German cars never give you the most performance for the money. Its nothing new.
Slizzo 4:52PM (10/05/2009)
No, it's not fair. The only thing they could do to make the Lincoln do as well as it did is put the cars at an elevation of 11,000feet.
At sea level? No chance.
Ligor 5:10PM (10/05/2009)
The only reson it's not fair is the AWD advantage in unpaved/gravel roads - AWD helps a lot to get hte power down
the fact that it's in high lelevation is not un-fair - what If I live in Aspen, i'd care for this test
shethj 4:23PM (10/05/2009)
Nice videos. Stop hating on MT and Automobile for getting involved. They didnt say anything biased in the videos and the BMW won. What's to complain about?
Reply
Rar 4:25PM (10/05/2009)
Kinda like a Genesis marketing. (They compare Genesis sedan with porsche, Mercedes)
http://www.hyundaigenesis.com/sedan/
Reply
Steve 4:32PM (10/05/2009)
Definately sounds like a paid placement on the part of Lincoln. I don't see a problem with it, they have a right to promote their brand.
I have to reitterate GoldenState's point though. It's funny that even in this rigged test, the Lincoln still got beat by a BMW which is essentially a 2007 design.
Conclusion: readers / viewers should go out and buy a CPO 550i.
Reply
Jake 4:39PM (10/05/2009)
Yep, that'll come in handy for my commute up Pike's Peak every day.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 4:42PM (10/05/2009)
Being spotted 2 miles of altitude, it should have been first.
Did they use sea-level gas or the low-octane Colorado stuff?
Reply