Guy at the Mark forum is selling his red '93 with 120k for two grand. No pics yet, but I just emailed him with questions about the suspension and AC. He's in Tulsa OK and willing to drive it here! If their air ride lasts six months, I'll be happy. I cant wait to throw Bulitt wheels on it! :bouncy:
I prefer the sumptuous grand touring goodness of the Seville and Eldo, but with grad school around the corner, I cant afford the maintenance yet. *sigh* I guess I'll put off getting the girl of my dreams and settle for a good lay.
Ummm.....if he doesn't have a 1 position then something is up with the car. The Mark's have a 1, 2 gear option and then for third you just throw it in drive. In the Mark's case manually rowing the gears nets you much better times. My best time in drive was a 15.1. While rowing the gears I was breathing on a 14.8.
I was wrong it does have a 1 and a 2, I knew it had 3 positions but the light's burned out and I've never noticed it in the day. My mistake. From what I remember it still shifts at 6k regardless of what you do with the shifter. (Just about every electronically controlled automatic I've driven shifts itself before the rev limiter.) His is a 96 btw.
Once again you keep going back to the 1/4 races. Were talking about racing from a roll and who has the better power at top end. Not the top end of the 1/4. When I ran my 14.921 my trap speed was 96.75 mph. Now if you know how to propperly read a 1/4 slip with a ET of that but with a trap speed that high it shows you that the car is a dog off the line but is pulling hard once it gets up and going. When Katshot ran his 14.5 I believe his trap speed was only like 97-98 mph.
Well I'm going back to 1/4 mile racing because you get hard data from a 1/4 mile run. I honestly don't remember what he was trapping, I don't think it was higher than mine. I'll have to remember to ask next time I talk to him, alont with 60' times. My 60's were within .5 of 2.4, now that's a dog off the line, I was trapping at 90. (Keep in mind I'm at altitude.)
I miss read what you meant. For some reason I thought you meant that having an automatic on the Mark would mean that it was setup for an automatic and a stick wouldn't net you much of a difference. Sorry for the confusion.
Ya know, I wouldn't bet that it would benefit much if any at all Randy. The engine's calibrated flowrate is set to work quite well with an automatic. I really don't think the road to performance increases in the Northstar cars lyes in the transmission choice.
Well one 'assume' that the pcm would be calibrated to take advantage of the manual if that were the transmission used. I have yet to meet a small high revving engine that would not benefit from a manual transmission, if properly driven.
Well one 'assume' that the pcm would be calibrated to take advantage of the manual if that were the transmission used. I have yet to meet a small high revving engine that would not benefit from a manual transmission, if properly driven.
It's not actually the PCM that's the issue here. Engines with low, flat powerbands do better with automatics, and engines with narrow, peaky powerbands do better with manuals. Two cars that come to mind that illustrate this point quite well are the LT1-powered Fleetwood and the Mercury Marauder. IMO, the Fleetwood would not benefit much (if at all) from a manual because the powerband is low and flat. On the other hand, the Marauder would be helped out greatly because it's engine has a rather weak low rpm range. I think this theory also proven by the '05 GTO where the low, flat powerband of the LS2 engine allows the car to take full advantage of an automatic, and in that application, the automatic car is quicker than the manual version in both 0-60 and 1/4 mile.
It's not actually the PCM that's the issue here. Engines with low, flat powerbands do better with automatics, and engines with narrow, peaky powerbands do better with manuals. Two cars that come to mind that illustrate this point quite well are the LT1-powered Fleetwood and the Mercury Marauder. IMO, the Fleetwood would not benefit much (if at all) from a manual because the powerband is low and flat. On the other hand, the Marauder would be helped out greatly because it's engine has a rather weak low rpm range. I think this theory also proven by the '05 GTO where the low, flat powerband of the LS2 engine allows the car to take full advantage of an automatic, and in that application, the automatic car is quicker than the manual version in both 0-60 and 1/4 mile.
It's true that the GTO is quicker with the auto, but the LS2 is anything but a small high revving engine. It revs alright, but it's not small. Even in the case of the GTO the manual puts more horsepower to the rear wheels but the traction control program in the pcm makes the automatic car a point and shoot affair when it comes to laucnhing it, the manual still requires driver input to properly launch. If you check the trap speed, the manual is faster indicating higher horsepower output to the wheels. As a rule, the smaller the displacement the more it will benefit from a manual tranny. That's not my opinion, that's fact. I owned an LT1/4L60E equipped '67 Impala SS for over 5 years, my son had '96 LT1 Formula Ram Air with M6. I can tell you that his car was quicker than the same car with an automatic.
The pcm is an issue as well, fuel and timing curves are quite different from manual to automatic. Having done several late model efi engine conversions into other vehicles requiring custom tuning, I can tell you the pcm matters.
It's true that the GTO is quicker with the auto, but the LS2 is anything but a small high revving engine. It revs alright, but it's not small. Even in the case of the GTO the manual puts more horsepower to the rear wheels but the traction control program in the pcm makes the automatic car a point and shoot affair when it comes to laucnhing it, the manual still requires driver input to properly launch. If you check the trap speed, the manual is faster indicating higher horsepower output to the wheels. As a rule, the smaller the displacement the more it will benefit from a manual tranny. That's not my opinion, that's fact. I owned an LT1/4L60E equipped '67 Impala SS for over 5 years, my son had '96 LT1 Formula Ram Air with M6. I can tell you that his car was quicker than the same car with an automatic.
The pcm is an issue as well, fuel and timing curves are quite different from manual to automatic. Having done several late model efi engine conversions into other vehicles requiring custom tuning, I can tell you the pcm matters.
Randy,
I never said the PCM doesn't matter, I said that in THIS instance the engine design (particularly the heads and cam) is more of an issue than the PCM tuning. And if I'm reading your first sentence right, you misunderstood my post. I said that big engines with low, broad powerbands do better with automatics, and that's what the GTO has, and why it does better with an automatic IMO. Having more gears helps to a point and that's always been another advantage of the manual but nowadays, automatics have as many gears as the manuals.
Automatics have really only become quicker than manuals thanks to computerized traction control systems that are designed to launch the car with as little wheelspin as possible, IE GTO.
Anyway, the Northstar's powerband isn't as 'peaky' as the Ford 4.6 but it's still no 500 - a manual would definately benefit it.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Cadillac Owners Forum
4.8M posts
369.7K members
Since 2002
Cadillac Forums is the perfect place to go to talk about your favorite Caddys including the ATS, CTS, SRX, Escalade, LYRIQ, Vistiq, concept and future Cadillac models.