LexBob2

It's not unusual for manufacturers to hold back on some things as an incentive to upgrade to a higher trim level. When the last gen ES350 was launched it was rated at something like 4hp higher on premium vs. all of the Toyota models with the same engine on regular. It could be what Ford/Lincoln is doing although the 400 ft. lb. seems like an awful lot for FWD.

mmarshall

It's not unusual for the same engine to produce a few more HP (and, in some cases, a few more ft-lbs. of torque) when running 91 or 93 octane fuel compared to 87 octane regular. That's because, all else equal, the higher octane in the fuel allows the air/fuel mixture to be ignited in the cylinder without harmful pinging or spark-knock. Modern engine controls sometimes allow the use of either regular or premium fuel. When premium is used, the computer automatically advances the spark-timing a little, allowing the premium fuel to be burned at its most efficient setting for the available compression-ratio in the cylinder (engines usually make more HP with advanced timing, but advanced timing increases the likelihood of pinging). When regular fuel is used, any ping or spark knock detected in the cylinder will cause the computer to retard the timing to the point where ping can no longer be detected.....that is where the regular fuel will be burning at its most efficient setting. But, because the timing will have been backed off a little, a few HP will probably have been lost. Usually, the way most people drive, it won't be enough to really notice. The computer, if necessary, can also do other tricks to deal with the pinging, like enrich or lean the air-fuel mixture by sending a signal to the fuel-injectors (a lean air/fuel mixture, all else equal, will ping before a rich one) or turn the turbo intercoolers on or off (all else equal, heat will increase the likelihood of pinging).

LexBob2

I'm aware of all this. I was speculating on why Lincoln might be offering different HP ratings on the FWD and AWD trims.

mmarshall

The HP difference between the two, I can easily believe, given the typical characteristics of torque-steer. But the same 400 ft.-lbs in the torque department for FWD and AWD is a little more interesting, though it may (?), as suggested earlier, either be two different torque curves with the same max at the same RPM (quite unusual), or simply an misprint on the web-site. Errors on automotive web sites are not common, but they do occasionally happen.

Toys4RJill

That is why I said misprint. I have never seen this exact scenario before where the torque numbers and RPM numbers are the exact same but there is a 50hp difference. Can anyone provide a scenario where this has happened?