TFL tests Hybrid vs. LOBO Maverick

[LSchicago]

beats me... bandimere is closed, but it's still in much better/newer shape than the surface shown, and of course, you have grandstands and tower which we don't see.

[email protected] for the Lobo is absolutely the slowest time I've ever seen from a stock ecoboost awd Maverick. likewise, I would assume [email protected] is slow for '25 hybrid awd.

no idea what this looks like at a more normal altitude. or, honestly, what it looks like going even higher, as 5k is just getting started in the rockies.

There is one in Western Colorado.

Sponsored

 

[thev8man]

Test at a mile high, so a bit slower than low altitude.

Bo

There's no replacement for displacement!

Hahaha, HRG

Welcome back sir, so sorry to hear about what you've been thru.

Booyah

Thank you, I appreciate it. Glad real closer to normal.

 

[dalola]

ah. so you magically went from not realizing 85 was a death sentence for an ecoboost, to now being fully read on this subject? so was it google or chatgpt that educated you?

do you even know what a compressor map is? do you know how the ecoboost manages different octane fuels, what it's doing? I'll give you a hint for your research: perhaps you should not rely on data published in 2002.

Don't even bother, the dude is a Google keyboard warrior with no idea what he is talking about. Ignore button comes in handy sometimes....

 

[heady]

Don't even bother, the dude is a Google keyboard warrior with no idea what he is talking about. Ignore button comes in handy sometimes....

Friend, there's a reason I was able to easily produce an SAE technical paper that agreed precisely with my description of the effects of octane at higher and lower altitudes in forced induction engines. It can be ascribed to some magic AI machine or whatever you'd like, but when sources can be easily provided that prove the example that someone previously failed to refute, the ball is in your court to prove your unsupported counterfactual claim. The reasons it was easy to find from a simple search is because I've read most of that material before over the course of many, many years. Ignore at your leisure.

 

[colinl]

Friend, there's a reason I was able to easily produce an SAE technical paper that agreed precisely with my description of the effects of octane at higher and lower altitudes in forced induction engines. It can be ascribed to some magic AI machine or whatever you'd like, but when sources can be easily provided that prove the example that someone previously failed to refute, the ball is in your court to prove your unsupported counterfactual claim. The reasons it was easy to find from a simple search is because I've read most of that material before over the course of many, many years. Ignore at your leisure.

just because you have more idle time than I do and a pathological desire to google for stuff that you certainly don't understand, and then attempt to pass that off as knowledge, does not mean that I 'failed to refute' your pathetic argument.

you cited a study published in 2002. you specifically snipped a piece about a 1999 Mercedes C200 Kompressor, which is a 2.3l with a roots supercharger that has very little in common with a Maverick 2.0 ecoboost, other than running on gasoline.

you know nothing about how a modern turbocharged engine deals with altitude as I stated before. I don't have time or interest in explaining it to you, but you can start with reading this thread:

 

[heady]

While I appreciate the link to a basic discussion of how engine management works, I really don't mind being proven wrong, in fact I welcome it. Just because I've never seen a published test of FI engines that respond as strongly at altitude to octane as they do at lower elevations, does not mean such examples don't exist. I would love to see any real test results of your assertions, specifically using the EB Maverick if possible, at high elevation using different octane pump fuels that does not conform to my understanding or previous reading on the subject. I wouldn't mind seeing test results of power vs. octane at both high and low elevations that go against the information I relayed myself or from the SAE, from any engine or platform.

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

Wow, Lobo wins by 🤏 much

 

[colinl]

While I appreciate the link to a basic discussion of how engine management works, I really don't mind being proven wrong, in fact I welcome it. Just because I've never seen a published test of FI engines that respond as strongly at altitude to octane as they do at lower elevations, does not mean such examples don't exist. I would love to see any real test results of your assertions, specifically using the EB Maverick if possible, at high elevation using different octane pump fuels that does not conform to my understanding or previous reading on the subject. I wouldn't mind seeing test results of power vs. octane at both high and low elevations that go against the information I relayed myself or from the SAE, from any engine or platform.

that post from Reddit is hardly basic, but in case you missed it, someone quite knowledgeable specifically stated that octane required by an engine / map does not change with altitude which is the incorrect thing you stated and apparently are sticking by.

 

[heady]

I mean I agree that person seems knowledgeable about engine management, and they did state "A turbocharged car will keep up fairly well with the airflow and for it to use the timing for that load (airflow) it’ll need the same octane at all elevations." (after they gave the same caveat I did in my earlier post that airflow =/= mass) - the only thing missing is any concrete supporting evidence for the octane claim. Again, all I have to go off so far is available published test results of power vs. octane vs. altitude, and so far I don't have any available to me that support that person's alternate conclusion.

 

[colinl]

that's datalogging to prove the positive, and unfortunately for anyone trying it, proving the negative involves detonation and likely engine damage.

so, no. I'm content with you being wrong. I don't live in Denver but I visit sometimes, and I'm not going to run lower octane to validate your incorrect beliefs.

 

[heady]

I wouldn't run lower octane, just run higher, and see if it helps. People often claim that it helps at what I assume are lower elevations that most people likely live at, which is consistent with what I believe based on the SAE and other reports I've seen for other engines as well.

 

[AutobahnSHO]

Meh you should see Heady's other ramblings to know it's not personal against you.

 

[AVC]

Turbocharger performance at altitude has been understood since the 1930's and extensively researched during WWII, along with fuel octane, detonation, etc. While metallurgy, fluid dynamics/modeling, fuels, lubricants and electronic controls have probably introduced some improvements in performance (like max spool RPM and blade design), the basic physics has not changed.

While we're all Googling....
https://www.dieselarmy.com/tech/boosting-altitude-elevation-effects-turbochargers/

So, based on this and other WWW "facts", the turbo Mav probably experienced a 7 to 10% power reduction at the Denver track, while the naturally aspirated ICE on the hybrid experienced maybe 15% power reduction--unsure if modern Atkinson cycle engines follow same power reduction at altitude-- while the electric motor of course suffered no degradation, and had a slight edge (for 30 to 45 sec, we're guessing) motivating the hybrid due to reduced air density (~15% ?).

There also of course other factors, including the hybrid's ability to keep its ICE optimally in power band through a wide range of road speeds.

Interesting test run, for sure.

 

[dalola]

Turbocharger performance at altitude has been understood since the 1930's and extensively researched during WWII, along with fuel octane, detonation, etc. While metallurgy, fluid dynamics/modeling, fuels, lubricants and electronic controls have probably introduced some improvements in performance (like max spool RPM and blade design), the basic physics has not changed.

While we're all Googling....
https://www.dieselarmy.com/tech/boosting-altitude-elevation-effects-turbochargers/

So, based on this and other WWW "facts", the turbo Mav probably experienced a 7 to 10% power reduction at the Denver track, while the naturally aspirated ICE on the hybrid experienced maybe 15% power reduction--unsure if modern Atkinson cycle engines follow same power reduction at altitude-- while the electric motor of course suffered no degradation, and had a slight edge (for 30 to 45 sec, we're guessing) motivating the hybrid due to reduced air density (~15% ?).

There also of course other factors, including the hybrid's ability to keep its ICE optimally in power band through a wide range of road speeds.

Interesting test run, for sure.

The Lobo was down on power ~15% simply because of the 87 fuel they were using. It's well known fact Ford gets it EB HP/TQ specs using 91 octane fuel. The only way the Lobo runs a mid-7 0-60 is from 87 octane fuel and/or a completely incompetent driver, even at 5K' elevation. Optimum fuel takes at least a full second off that time.

 

[dochawk]

So where is this mile high track at ???

why, a mile up, of course!



As far as boost, octane, altitude, etc . . . the ecoboost has both variable timing and variable boost. It apparently starts with a tune for 97 octane (US, not CA/EUR), and backs off depending up what it finds in the tank. Its sensors have 30 years more engineering than the Cadillac Northstar had (which only adjusted timing, anyway). It can supposedly figure out knock/pre-knock cylinder by cylinder.

So, if it's clever enough, it could run more boost at altitude than it would with the thicker air at sea level, thus getting the same air/fuel mix as it would have at lower altitude. The question is whether or not it does this successfully, not whether or not it can.

And if it's relying on monitoring for knock/detonation, I can't see how it would possibly choose the same mix as at sea level.

[the unrealistic assumption of the same temperature intake air permeates everything I wrote]

Sponsored