good point.  and considering all the hairpins from the video, especially the one before the finish, there were lots of down shifting and braking needed in this test.  Therefore, there was slower uptake to get back to full power thereby essentially degrading the power.  i think this helps clarify that the V-8 were not at the disadvantage many are assuming.  all good news for the lincoln.

Just a note about altitude effects on a turbo vs. non-turbo engine.  All of the V-8's in the comparison undoubtedly will adjust fuel mixture for the available intake charge to get optimal power for the available air pressure.  But clearly, as altitude increases, there is less oxygen available for combustion, and power will invariably decline - you can't overcome physics and thermodynamics.  On the other hand, the turbos have this little ace-in-the-hole called a wastegate - the turbo will spin ungoverned, pushing as much air into the intake as it can until it reaches the trip point of the wastegate which limits the intake pressure to a preset limit.  If under the conditions of this test, the turbos in the Lincoln are spinning up fast enough to trip the wastegate (likely under extended full throttle driving), then there should be no loss of combustion efficiency with altitude, so long as the wastegates are dumping excess intake charge.  However, whenever the Lincoln is off the throttle long enough for the turbo to wind down, it will take longer (turbo lag) to reach full power as altitude increases - thus while peak power is the same, the time that the peak power is available may decrease for anything less than a peddle to the floor flat out run.

despite the price difference one car is forgotten here and its the ecoboosts american rival which is the ctv-v see it smoke that at anything. because it cant and the cts-v not only can beat any of the cars in this comparo it can beat any of their sport models i.e. M5, E63amg, or the XFR

the mks with awd means it had more of weight disadvantage.  also, those who say that normally aspirated engines lose 33% at 12,000 feet are dead wrong.  they lose about 20%.  and the dual turbo loses 12-15% at 12,000 feet.  not 0%.  those who keep saying 0% do not know what they are talking about and are simply repeating something they heard somewhere.  these are facts folks.  not gear-head hearsay.  plus the mks is heavier.  plus it's a v6 and the others are v8's.  to me, the playing field is level and not skewed at all.  and the reason they didn't include the audi a6 is because the taurus sho already smoked it in a drag race.  it would of come in dead last in this bunch.  i love that the performance gap is tightening.

Wow the MKS is beastly, even if it has a turbo. What a step up for domestic carmakers. It has a V6 compared to the Europeans V8's, and it beats nearly all of them, what more do I need to say?