: Lincoln MKS does 13's



Mark0101
05-22-09, 10:23 AM
MKS 0-60 5.5 sec 1/4 13.9 @ 104mph

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/luxury_sedans/2010_lincoln_mks_with_ecoboost_first_drive_review

Not bad considering the size and weight of that thing

Blackout
05-22-09, 12:57 PM
I cannot wait to see what a tune and the usual CAI, exhaust will yield.

MauiV
05-22-09, 01:06 PM
I like the interior but the exterior is still FUGLY and Im not going to drive an ugly car regardless of "speed", A Plan pricing or not.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-22-09, 01:53 PM
The article didn't come up on the iPhone, but I'm assuming it's the Ecoboost V6? Either way, I'm very impressed. Lincoln hasn't had a truly fast car since the Mark VIII LSC.

Jesda
05-22-09, 05:13 PM
Pretty damn impressive for a big luxury car full of goodies.

96Fleetwood
05-22-09, 06:11 PM
Nice! I do like the commercials, they make it look bigger than in real life... bastards.

Blackout
05-22-09, 06:55 PM
Also you gotta keep in your mind that the MKS is actually 3" longer than an Audi A8 and it's running 13's. Damn impressive

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-22-09, 07:33 PM
I rather like the idea of calling it the Twinforce V6....

http://www.salem-news.com/spimg/april142008/ashley-force.jpghttp://www.salem-news.com/spimg/april142008/ashley-force.jpg

Yeah, that's much better....

Rodya234
05-22-09, 09:09 PM
Also you gotta keep in your mind that the MKS is actually 3" longer than an Audi A8 and it's running 13's. Damn impressive

The A8 runs 13's too.

Playdrv4me
05-22-09, 09:26 PM
Too bad it does nothing for the hideous rump.

The SHO looks much better.

Jesda
05-22-09, 09:31 PM
i rather like the idea of calling it the twinforce v6....

http://www.salem-news.com/spimg/april142008/ashley-force.jpghttp://www.salem-news.com/spimg/april142008/ashley-force.jpg

yeah, that's much better....

who is this and why dont i have her number

EDIT: Oh, one of John Force's kids. Awesome.

Blackout
05-22-09, 09:46 PM
The A8 runs 13's too.
I know it does. I'm just saying that this is impressive for Lincoln because they've never really had a "fast" car and for their first true attempt if you will at a performer they did pretty good

Rodya234
05-22-09, 10:22 PM
^Yeah, I never thought Lincoln really had a good car. They gave us a brand new '98 Town Car as a loner way back when our Dodge Caravan was in for service, and none of us were too impressed. Because the car handled like a boat and just didn't have the kick of the 4.9 Deville, my dad actually would find himself actually saying "Boiler Room, More Steam!"

I'm hoping to see even better things from both American luxury marquees in the future. :thumbsup:

V-Eight
05-23-09, 12:04 AM
^Yeah, I never thought Lincoln really had a good car. They gave us a brand new '98 Town Car as a loner way back when our Dodge Caravan was in for service, and none of us were too impressed. Because the car handled like a boat and just didn't have the kick of the 4.9 Deville, my dad actually would find himself actually saying "Boiler Room, More Steam!"

I'm hoping to see even better things from both American luxury marquees in the future. :thumbsup:

Glad to hear our cars do well against much newer cars :D


The A8 runs 13's too.

Really, then what does the S8 run? :D

Rodya234
05-23-09, 12:08 AM
The S8 breaks into the high 12's with a good driver. Most magazines tested it around 13 flat.

gary88
05-23-09, 12:16 AM
I rather like the idea of calling it the Twinforce V6....

http://www.salem-news.com/spimg/april142008/ashley-force.jpghttp://www.salem-news.com/spimg/april142008/ashley-force.jpg

Yeah, that's much better....

If we still had points, you would get some.

Aron9000
05-23-09, 02:46 AM
I'd like to see this motor in the Mustang. It'll outrun that stupid joke of a motor they call the SOCH 4.6 V8

Night Wolf
05-23-09, 03:50 AM
I like the styling of the MKS. I don't think it's avalible with a manual trans.... thus it dosen't really have my interest :( But, it's goo to see Lincoln in the game. I decided to take mine down to Florida... man it made 366 miles/5.5hrs seem like a drive across town, I was here before I knew it and it felt like I hardly drove.


I'd like to see this motor in the Mustang. It'll outrun that stupid joke of a motor they call the SOCH 4.6 V8

I don't get the joke...... whats funny about it?

Aron9000
05-23-09, 04:20 AM
I like the styling of the MKS. I don't think it's avalible with a manual trans.... thus it dosen't really have my interest :( But, it's goo to see Lincoln in the game. I decided to take mine down to Florida... man it made 366 miles/5.5hrs seem like a drive across town, I was here before I knew it and it felt like I hardly drove.



I don't get the joke...... whats funny about it?


Its reliable, but way down on power and torque. Especially in the panther powered cars. I could deal with it if it had prodiguous torque to move those big cars off the line, but its pretty weak sauce IMO. I've put the hammer down in a Crown Vic, and it won't even turn over the tires from a stop.

The 3 valve version in the newer mustangs is better, but its still down 30hp vs the LS1, which is a 13 year old design now. Compared to what GM is doing with the LSx motors, Ford's modulars are a joke in terms of power output in N/A applications. The GM V8's are much smaller in terms of external dimensions, easier to work on, get better gas mileage, and produce more hp.

Night Wolf
05-23-09, 05:17 AM
Its reliable, but way down on power and torque. Especially in the panther powered cars. I could deal with it if it had prodiguous torque to move those big cars off the line, but its pretty weak sauce IMO. I've put the hammer down in a Crown Vic, and it won't even turn over the tires from a stop.

The 3 valve version in the newer mustangs is better, but its still down 30hp vs the LS1, which is a 13 year old design now. Compared to what GM is doing with the LSx motors, Ford's modulars are a joke in terms of power output in N/A applications. The GM V8's are much smaller in terms of external dimensions, easier to work on, get better gas mileage, and produce more hp.

In 1996 Panther vehicles, such as my Town Car, the 4.6 makes 210hp/275 tq. Lets compare that with Cadillac, whos 4.9 made 10 less HP, same torque while being .3L larger. Both engines came out in 1991. (1991 4.6 numbers are the same)

I hear people say the Panthers are slow, mostly from folks on this site. I dunno what your standard is, I mean, anything can be slow if you are comparing it to far faster vehicles. I'll personally say that I have yet to be in a position where I felt my Town Car was underpowered. Honestly, with the exception of the LT1 Fleetwood everyone here praises to no end, which was only avalible for 3-yrs, the big body RWD Lincoln/Cadillac sedans were dead even. I'm not saying my, or any Town Car/Panther is fast, but for it's intended purpose, it is adequate. In fact, if it wasn't for the short run of the LT1 in the GM RWD cars, even the 210hp version would be faster then any of the "modern" GM RWD boats. The 1993 350 (again, 5.7 vs 4.6L) made what? 180HP? Really, if it wasn't for the 3-yr run of the LT1, Lincoln would have been the faster of the two, and overall as a whole, that's not saying a lot.

This is a rather grippy stretch of pavement, my stock 119k Town Car will spin the tires from a stop if provoked.

Yilx1-oUepo

Now you are saying the new 4.6 is 30hp down then the LS1. How much displacement is the LS1? 5.7L? I'd sure hope with the extra 1.1L it can produce 30hp more.

In comparison, what other GM engine is also 4.6L? Lets use the Northstar as an example. 300hp. What other GM engine also happens to be 1.1L less (difference between Ford 4.6 and LSx)? The 3.5L "Shortstar" V6 comes to mind, from the same N* family. Ironically, that engine produced 50hp less then the 4.6.

If you want a (slightly) more fair comparison, compare the 5.4 to the LSx, but even then, it is still a smaller engine. Also, we are only comparing the SOHC, and not the DOHC verions.

Of course GM's pushrod engines are smaller in physical dimensions then the 4.6 Ford, you are comparing pushrod to OHC. Ever see the comparison pictures of a Ford 5.0 vs 4.6?

If not, here ya go:

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

OHC/DOHC engines are physically larger, thats nothing new.

I just get a chuckle out of hearing the semi-often 4.6 bashing on this site, and it seems to always come down to one thing - power output, and how it just dosen't compare to GM's (larger) displacement engines. Weather the power output of a stock engine may not be up to your expectations, is it still really a joke? Personally from my own first hand experience, as well as what I've seen from many other vehicles, the Ford 4.6 SOHC is an -excellent- engine. I'd glady give up some HP to the competition in exchange for reliability, durability, cheap parts, ease of working on etc...

The messed up thing is, I'm not really a Ford guy, but I'll defend something if it's worth defending. I am more of a GM guy, but part of me actually dosen't like the GM V8's anymore, which in part is due to hearing how much worse off the Ford 4.6 is in comparison, which, atleast as far as I am concerned is just not true. Kind of like the LT1 Fleetwood, it is a really cool car that I once (really) liked, and still like alot. But honestly, after the now years of Town Car bashing and Fleetwood praising I've heard from alot of folks here, it really killed the Fleetwood as a whole for me, and makes me really not want one in the future.

What is easier to work on the LSx series over a 4.6? The 4.6 is rather maintenance friendly. Like most engines, there isn't a whole lot of "tune up" items needed as it has coil pack ignition. Spark plugs take about 20 mins to change, and are conviently located on the upper part of the engine, not down between the exhaust manifold. Gas mileage seems to be a toss up, going back and fourth depending on vehicle and way it is driven.

So, other then power output, which isn't as bad as it's made out to be, as well as the fact that we are comparing it to an engine with a good bit less displacement.... what does the 4.6 fall short on? Why is it a joke?

Like I said, I'll defend something if it's worth defending, I don't really have any loyalty either way.... heck if you want to start talking about engine power output and displacement I'll even throw a wrench into the mix and say that both Ford and GM fall short compared to BMW, especially back in the 90's, in the time period we are comparing these engines in.

For what it's worth, I'm very happy with my Ford 4.6 SOHC. I accepeted what it is, and what it isn't, before I even bought the car. Given what it is, what it is required to do and the car it is in, I'm happy with the acceleration, mpg and all else related. While I've had issues in the past with the car itself, the engine has been very solid throughout my ownership, 2yrs/25k so far.

Ah well, it's a Caddy/GM site, of course there are going to be fans here. I've also defended Cadillac on the Lincoln site, and both Cadillac and Lincoln on the BMW site.

Aron9000
05-23-09, 05:33 AM
Have you ever worked on a 4.6 V8 in a Mustang? Its a total pain in the ass, there is absoluetly no room under the hood. And the LSx platform is very mod friendly in terms of parts exchangibility, and aftermarket parts avaiablity. Its a less complex engine that makes more power than the Ford modular V8.

The larger displacement is a very big advantage that makes the LSx engines great. Ford somehow managed to make a motor that is 1.1L down in displacement and is quite a bit larger/heavier than an LS1.

I'm not bashing them from a durability standpoint, but from a hp, weight, and performance perspective, they are quite inferior to the LSx series.


You can make 600+rwhp with a naturally apsirated LSx, any modular Ford making that much power is running a supercharger, turbo, or twin turbos.

Night Wolf
05-23-09, 05:51 AM
Have you ever worked on a 4.6 V8 in a Mustang? Its a total pain in the ass, there is absoluetly no room under the hood. And the LSx platform is very mod friendly in terms of parts exchangibility, and aftermarket parts avaiablity. Its a less complex engine that makes more power than the Ford modular V8..

No, I've never worked on a 4.6 in a Mustang. I'd imagine it would be similar to comparing what it's like to work on an LT1 in a Fleetwood vs F-body/ Corvette? Does the entire front end of the car need to be removed to change the failure-prone ignition system?


The larger displacement is a very big advantage that makes the LSx engines great. Ford somehow managed to make a motor that is 1.1L down in displacement and is quite a bit larger/heavier than an LS1.

Ford also managed to build an engine that is less displacement then the engine it replaced, while also being larger... here, let me post it again:

http://www.vorshlag.com/pictures/motor-4.6-4V-004.jpg

It is a different engine design, you are comparing 1 engine with a single camshaft in the block, to another engine with 1 or 2 cams atop the heads. Of course it is going to be physically bigger. Have you compared the physical dimensions of a 4.6L DOHC Northstar to a 5.7L pushrod LSx? GM managed to make the same "problem"


I'm not bashing them from a durability standpoint, but from a hp, weight, and performance perspective, they are quite inferior to the LSx series.

HP has been established, it's a smaller engine that produces less power. Weight? Is weight even mentioned in Ford vs GM V8 debates? What is the weight difference between the two anyway? Other then the Corvette, it's not like the cars these engines are in are any sort of handling masterpiece. I take it by "performance" you mean power output, which was mentioned as HP?

The only thing that is still "inferior" about the 4.6 over the LSx is power output, which, stock for stock, I'd say is right about even when you compare the ratio of displacement/HP



You can make 600+rwhp with a naturally apsirated LSx, any modular Ford making that much power is running a supercharger, turbo, or twin turbos

I don't get this?

So now we are not talking about stock for stock, but modified engines?

Honestly I don't know what can/can't be done aftermarket wise with either engine. I'll say this though, if you want to compare modified LSx to modulars, then start looking at the 5.4, which, as mentioned before, is still smaller then the LSx. Either way, I don't see any valid point being made with that statement.

I'm going to say it again - other then the debateable power output between the LSx and modular, wherein lies the "superiority"?

BTW, FWIW, here is an N/A 12-sec 4.6 DOHC Mark VIII for sale:

http://www.lincolnsonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=64246

Aron9000
05-23-09, 06:15 AM
All I am saying is GM makes a motor that is less complex, weighs less, is smaller physically, has greater displacement, is just as reliable, makes more hp, makes more tq at a much lower rpm, and doesn't require forced induction to make more than 400rwhp.

The Ford modular motor is great from a reliability standpoint. It simply does not make the hp/tq that a GM LSx V8 makes, unless you supercharge/turbo it.

All I am saying is that GM's "old, outdated" pushrod technology makes more hp/tq than Ford's OHC design. All the while being less complex, cheaper, easier to manufacture, less weight, equal or better MPG, and every bit as quite/refined.

Jesda
05-23-09, 06:32 AM
The pushrods are also cheaper to manufacture and service.

Blackout
05-23-09, 09:21 AM
I'd like to see this motor in the Mustang. It'll outrun that stupid joke of a motor they call the SOCH 4.6 V8It will be in the V6 version of the Mustang when the new 5.0 V8 gets dropped into the next Mustang GT.


Its reliable, but way down on power and torque. Especially in the panther powered cars. I could deal with it if it had prodiguous torque to move those big cars off the line, but its pretty weak sauce IMO. I've put the hammer down in a Crown Vic, and it won't even turn over the tires from a stop.It's a Lincoln. They're not made to be race cars. They're fleet vehicles and sold to people 50+ years old. You honestly think for a millisecond when they were shopping around for a big American V8 powered luxury sedan that they were really worried about it's 0-60 time or what it runs in the 1/4? This is the problem with just about everybody now adays. Not everything is made to be a race car, hence why there's these things called "different segments".


The 3 valve version in the newer mustangs is better, but its still down 30hp vs the LS1, which is a 13 year old design now. Compared to what GM is doing with the LSx motors, Ford's modulars are a joke in terms of power output in N/A applications. The GM V8's are much smaller in terms of external dimensions, easier to work on, get better gas mileage, and produce more hp.Typical GM mentality. While the 4.6 SOHC in the Mustang is nothing amazing in stock trim have you been alive for the past decade? Performance and big power numbers do not equal sales. Notice how the Camaro is making it's "comeback" after being gone for 7 years. And the same still holds true today. Mustang is still less powerful but when you look at the shootouts they have done the Mustang is right there with the Camaro in some tests and in others it beats the Camaro. Once the 5.0 V8 gets dropped into the Mustang the Camaro does not stand a chance. 400 hp/400 tq while the engine weighs 200-300 lbs less then the out going 4.6 lol adios Camaro SS


Have you ever worked on a 4.6 V8 in a Mustang? Its a total pain in the ass, there is absoluetly no room under the hood. And the LSx platform is very mod friendly in terms of parts exchangibility, and aftermarket parts avaiablity. Its a less complex engine that makes more power than the Ford modular V8.

The larger displacement is a very big advantage that makes the LSx engines great. Ford somehow managed to make a motor that is 1.1L down in displacement and is quite a bit larger/heavier than an LS1.

I'm not bashing them from a durability standpoint, but from a hp, weight, and performance perspective, they are quite inferior to the LSx series.


You can make 600+rwhp with a naturally apsirated LSx, any modular Ford making that much power is running a supercharger, turbo, or twin turbos.lol you act as if the Mustang doesn't have aftermarket support. It probably has thee biggest aftermarket available for it then any other car out there. Once you start getting into the modding of the engines then your argument has officially gone out the window.


All I am saying is GM makes a motor that is less complex, weighs less, is smaller physically, has greater displacement, is just as reliable, makes more hp, makes more tq at a much lower rpm, and doesn't require forced induction to make more than 400rwhp.

The Ford modular motor is great from a reliability standpoint. It simply does not make the hp/tq that a GM LSx V8 makes, unless you supercharge/turbo it.

All I am saying is that GM's "old, outdated" pushrod technology makes more hp/tq than Ford's OHC design. All the while being less complex, cheaper, easier to manufacture, less weight, equal or better MPG, and every bit as quite/refined.And look who's going to file for bankruptcy next week and look who's not. The 4.6 is a hell of a reliable engine as well as the LT1 and the LS series but different strokes for different folks.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-23-09, 09:58 AM
I've driven a few 4.6's, mainly in Town Cars, and have never been truly impressed by them. They're a solid motor in all respects, but lack the immediate low end torque of the 4.9 and SBC's. I seem to remember the SOHC 4.6's having a lot of midrange power, more so than the 4.9, and being a lot smoother too. I will say that when given a good exhaust system, the 4.6, whether in SOHC or DOHC configuration, sounds DIVINE!!

Now if you look at the DOHC 4.6 in a 1996 Mark VIII LSC v. the Northstar in a 1996 Eldorado ETC, from an real-life ownership perspective (meaning I'd have to pay for any repairs that may happen on a $5,000, 13 year old car, I'd take the LSC over the ETC, just because it's not gonna have the chance of the HG failure. So in that respect, I do like Ford's twin cam V8 more than GM's.

But like what was said before, I'm a GM guy and I tend to stick with what I know and like for the most part.

Blackout
05-23-09, 10:03 AM
I've driven a few 4.6's, mainly in Town Cars, and have never been truly impressed by them. They're a solid motor in all respects, but lack the immediate low end torque of the 4.9 and SBC's. I seem to remember the SOHC 4.6's having a lot of midrange power, more so than the 4.9, and being a lot smoother too. I will say that when given a good exhaust system, the 4.6, whether in SOHC or DOHC configuration, sounds DIVINE!!

Now if you look at the DOHC 4.6 in a 1996 Mark VIII LSC v. the Northstar in a 1996 Eldorado ETC, from an real-life ownership perspective (meaning I'd have to pay for any repairs that may happen on a $5,000, 13 year old car, I'd take the LSC over the ETC, just because it's not gonna have the chance of the HG failure. So in that respect, I do like Ford's twin cam V8 more than GM's.

But like what was said before, I'm a GM guy and I tend to stick with what I know and like for the most part.

But you also forgot the other reason, RWD > FWD

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-23-09, 10:32 AM
Also that, but to a lesser degree. I don't do much heavy racing (other than the occasional stoplight sprint), so the RWD benefits mean less to me, other than doing a CORRECT (lol) burnout, and it hinders me in the snow also, especially with 280hp.

Oh and I should say that I'm not totally anti Ford V8's. I like their OHV engines, especially the 460. The 351 was always solid too, atleast in the trucks made in the '80s and '90s. I don't know as much about the 302, but it always did good in the Mustangs. I don't know enough about the OHV Ford V8's. I need to learn more.

--------------> Runs to Wikipedia------------------->

96Fleetwood
05-23-09, 11:12 AM
But you also forgot the other reason, RWD > FWD

Amen!

Night Wolf
05-23-09, 12:30 PM
It's a Lincoln. They're not made to be race cars. They're fleet vehicles and sold to people 50+ years old. You honestly think for a millisecond when they were shopping around for a big American V8 powered luxury sedan that they were really worried about it's 0-60 time or what it runs in the 1/4? This is the problem with just about everybody now adays. Not everything is made to be a race car, hence why there's these things called "different segments".

I guess some just have a hard time understanding this concept..... for me it is rather easy to accepet.

Every car made is not all about it's acceleration. When I'm driving the Town Car, for example, I drive much more laid back then the BMW. MOST of my driving I accelerate easily, just don't need more then 1/2 throttle to accelerate faster then traffic. At times when I do need to move out fast, either to pass someone, merge etc... and I step on it, the seemingly newfound powerboost is refreshing. Obvisouly the faster it is going the slower it accelerates, but even from a 70mph roll, it'll pass rather quick.

Again, it's all realitive though. I expect real world performance from it, not neck-snapping 0-150 runs. If I daily drove a 13s car, it probably would feel slow.

It would be just like buying an F-body and saying it dosen't have much rear seat legroom, trunk space or a comfortable ride. If you start talking about that, you'd get looked at funny. Same school of thought. That's why I think with everything considered, the SOHC 4.6 was a great match to the Panther vehicles, providing nice low end torque to get the thing rolling, as well as decent mid and upper range power to keep it rolling.

Sandy
05-23-09, 01:57 PM
Rick, I know that you love(d?) your Town Car, as I do mine, the 2003, as well as my 1998 before it.
I know my T.C. can realy move out, when I want to. I also know how comfortable it is and how it seemingly travels 1 inch over the road - which I know it doesn't, but it makes every road feel repaved. I like the hugh trunk, the size of the thing and the looks of it. It looks impressive! As long as we like our Town Cars, that is all that matters. By the way, I was 39 years old when I bought my 1st one ! Not fifty. today? Today i am now 62.
so I've been in (and out) of Town Cars for 22 years, in between were 2 Caddies and 2 Imperials.
To this day, I still maintain the best of the three were the Imperials.
(Good thing they killed them off after 1978, as I can't imagine what stretched K-Car a 2009 Imperial would be)

thebigjimsho
05-23-09, 05:20 PM
I have driven about 750,000 miles in Town Cars from a '92 to an '08.

The 4.6's saving grace is its reliability. The reason the Town Car is the car of choice for livery vehicles is the RWD and reliability of the drivetrain. And Ford will be around, sure. But the Town Car will not. They have extended the TC run to '11. But Ford has not done a thing with this vehicle since '03, as is the case with in R&D with a good deal of its lineup.

And I've had it with Ford on these TCs. My '04, which was the first TC I bought as I ventured into being a contractor, was a great car. But my '07 has just turned me off to Ford BIG TIME. The quality is horrible. You don't even need to guess where Ford went to more "affordable" suppliers. There were problems with the TCs being sent to limo makers who stretch them out regarding the air suspensions. So they gave every '07 stiffer and stronger suspensions for those that ended up stretched. And the rest of us suffered. Hit any speed bump at faster than crawling speeds and feel the crash of a suspension that has awful rebound. Impact harshness is actually more abrupt than in my CTS-V.

The electrics are worse. The leather interior is worse. Standard features are fewer, which is bad enough in the spartan executive series. The a/c system is a disaster. They've never been a TC strong suit but I had my blend door actuators replaced at 8,000(!!!) miles. They're being replaced again at 87,000. The a/c can't blow consistent between the dual zones, even when the dual zone feature is turned off. The driver's vents can't blow nearly as strong as the other's, which forces me to shut one of the vents to get a somewhat strong flow on those really warm days.

Ford let the Town Car go to rot. Of course, there is a market for rental fleets and livery fleets. But I've already informed the company I work for that I'm looking elsewhere, drivtrain reliability be damned...

Night Wolf
05-23-09, 07:56 PM
Rick, I know that you love(d?) your Town Car, as I do mine, the 2003, as well as my 1998 before it.
I know my T.C. can realy move out, when I want to. I also know how comfortable it is and how it seemingly travels 1 inch over the road - which I know it doesn't, but it makes every road feel repaved. I like the hugh trunk, the size of the thing and the looks of it. It looks impressive! As long as we like our Town Cars, that is all that matters. By the way, I was 39 years old when I bought my 1st one ! Not fifty. today? Today i am now 62.
so I've been in (and out) of Town Cars for 22 years, in between were 2 Caddies and 2 Imperials.
To this day, I still maintain the best of the three were the Imperials.
(Good thing they killed them off after 1978, as I can't imagine what stretched K-Car a 2009 Imperial would be)

I do still like the Town Car. What happened as of recent is that I much perfer to drive more involving vehicles, such as my BMW and Jeep.

However a last minute decision to take the Town Car in place of the Jeep on my current Florida trip (1,000 miles total) has left me really enjoying the car again. It made the 5.5hrs/370 miles seem like a drive across town. Another reason why I haven't been driving it as much is because normally it's just me. The TC is not a "fun" car when you are driving by yourself. Lately though, it's been a few friends and I when we go places, and in that case, the Town Car is a far superior vehicle then the BMW or Jeep when you have more then 1 other person. I really enjoy traveling in the Lincoln when there are more then 2 people.


I have driven about 750,000 miles in Town Cars from a '92 to an '08.

The 4.6's saving grace is its reliability. The reason the Town Car is the car of choice for livery vehicles is the RWD and reliability of the drivetrain. And Ford will be around, sure. But the Town Car will not. They have extended the TC run to '11. But Ford has not done a thing with this vehicle since '03, as is the case with in R&D with a good deal of its lineup.

And I've had it with Ford on these TCs. My '04, which was the first TC I bought as I ventured into being a contractor, was a great car. But my '07 has just turned me off to Ford BIG TIME. The quality is horrible. You don't even need to guess where Ford went to more "affordable" suppliers. There were problems with the TCs being sent to limo makers who stretch them out regarding the air suspensions. So they gave every '07 stiffer and stronger suspensions for those that ended up stretched. And the rest of us suffered. Hit any speed bump at faster than crawling speeds and feel the crash of a suspension that has awful rebound. Impact harshness is actually more abrupt than in my CTS-V.

The electrics are worse. The leather interior is worse. Standard features are fewer, which is bad enough in the spartan executive series. The a/c system is a disaster. They've never been a TC strong suit but I had my blend door actuators replaced at 8,000(!!!) miles. They're being replaced again at 87,000. The a/c can't blow consistent between the dual zones, even when the dual zone feature is turned off. The driver's vents can't blow nearly as strong as the other's, which forces me to shut one of the vents to get a somewhat strong flow on those really warm days.

Ford let the Town Car go to rot. Of course, there is a market for rental fleets and livery fleets. But I've already informed the company I work for that I'm looking elsewhere, drivtrain reliability be damned...

I agree with what you are saying.

Personally, in a vehicle such as the Town Car, I'd rather have an engine that is extremely reliable over really powerful. Part of the reason why I am as fond of the 4.6 is because it IS very reliable. It's also very smooth, sounds good, returns decent fuel mileage etc... thats why I say, all things considered it was probably the best engine to go in the Panthers from what Ford was offering at the time. the DOHC version would not have done as well in the Panther, the powerband is too high. it's already off in the Mark VIII with the automatic, it would have just been made worse in the TC.

Actually just today on my way back from Anna Maria Island, I had to make a quick acceleration run once I was already moving, put it to the floor from a 25mph roll, I was surpised to hear it bark the tires, something it hasn't done before.

I don't dislike the '98+ Town Car/styling.... but personally they do much for me. I'd say I like the '03 front end redesign alot. The interior is OK, but eh, if I was in the market to replace my '96 with another similar car, I don't know if it'd be a '98+

There was an '04 or '05? Town Car at the local Ford dealer, so I stopped by and looked at it. I was in my '96 at the time. While it was "nice" and new(er) I sat in it a bit and just, overall wasn't that impressed with it. When I finally got back in my '96, I like it alot more.

I will say that, in the past (as in before I got my Town Car) I really wasn't drawn to modern Town Cars much at all. I knew of the '90-'97 generation, but for whatever reason, the only ones that I remember seeing and riding in were '90-'94, and I didn't like the front end styling, nor the interior on them.

I then sorta stumbled upon the '95-'97 restyle, and that is what got me really interested in the car. It addressed the 2 main issues I had with the '90-'94 - the front end and the interior. I like the aerodynamic, almost streamlined looking '95 restyle front end with the jewel style headlights, and the "organic" dash and updated interior was quite a surprise to me when I first saw it too, almost offering the same simple flowing design that I really like about the '90's Cadillac tear-drop dash.

There there were the little details that really stuck out, like the digital dash, which, IMO is one of the neatest things a car can have IMO. I also liked how the radio antenna was built into the rear window etc...

Today, as undecided as I am, going back and fourth every single day if I should keep it or sell it, I find myself liking it, and the styling more and more. As far as the engine/drivetrain goes, it's got modern fuel injection, coil pack ignition etc... Inside even today it is rather well-equiped. Then there is the whole styling, which I really like. It's long, sleek and low looking. A slightly aerodynamic front end, long and flat hood, tri-angled fenders/quarters, slab sides, and a large squared off back end. The roofline is very formal, it's got the really nice curve in the sail panel that adds a bit of style to the otherwise flat car. The rear window is nearly vertical, the opra windows are something that isn't seen on cars today, but adds to the design factor. It carried on alot of Lincoln styling cues too, such as the rear light bar from the 70's, that didn't make it on to the '98 style.

Last night I went to a place that was valet parking only. When I went to pick the car up, it was at night and in a parking garage, I saw it drive around from the corner of my eye, and the car just had a certain presence to it. The Ivory Pearlescent paint with contrasting tinted windows. I dunno, maybe it's just because it is my car and I noticed it more then others. But part of the reason why I like it so much is because it is unmistakably Lincoln and dosen't look like anything else on the road today.... yet it dosen't stand out enough to draw negative attention.

Now after all that, it's making me want to keep it.

There is another car I am really fond of that offers much of the same styling traits that I like about my Town Car - W126 Benz. Also, the '77-'92 RWD Fleetwood/DeVille fit this category. IMO it is just the best looking design when talking fullsize 4-door luxury cars. It's not about speed, looking the most aerodynamic or handling. When I think of what a proper full size premium luxury car should be, there are certain traits that stick out in my mind.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/Lincoln/4-19-09/4-19-09003.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/Lincoln/4-19-09/4-19-09004.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/Lincoln/4-19-09/4-19-09006.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/Lincoln/4-19-09/4-19-09010.jpg

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e363/InoventionsEast/Lincoln/4-19-09/4-19-09011.jpg

With all of it's downfalls and shortcomings, I'm still rather impressed with the '96 Town Car. Part of the reason is because I just don't see another car being designed like it again.

From everything I've heard on the Lincoln site(s) what you say about quality really going down the drain in the latest versions sounds about right. It's a shame Ford is ending such a great car series this way.

Destroyer
05-24-09, 01:23 AM
Have you ever worked on a 4.6 V8 in a Mustang? Its a total pain in the ass, there is absoluetly no room under the hood. And the LSx platform is very mod friendly in terms of parts exchangibility, and aftermarket parts avaiablity. Its a less complex engine that makes more power than the Ford modular V8.I have owned 4rth gen fbody cars and a DOHC Cobra Mustang and a blown '04 Mach 1. The Mustangs are MUCH easier to work on than the fbody cars. Think about it, fully exposed motor vs half hidden motor. Duh!


The larger displacement is a very big advantage that makes the LSx engines great. Ford somehow managed to make a motor that is 1.1L down in displacement and is quite a bit larger/heavier than an LS1. Stick a Vortech on a DOHC Ford and you have one hell of a screamer! You are not well versed. The 4.6 Ford and a blower are a match made in heaven. No major wheel spin off the line but when that tach goes past 4k rpm's......it's on.


I'm not bashing them from a durability standpoint, but from a hp, weight, and performance perspective, they are quite inferior to the LSx series.The LSx motors are sweethearts and they do enjoy a substantial displacement advantage but don't underestimate the competition.


QUOTE=Aron9000;1886377]You can make 600+rwhp with a naturally apsirated LSx, any modular Ford making that much power is running a supercharger, turbo, or twin turbos.[/QUOTE]
So? Do you have a 600hp LSx motor or a blown modular Ford?. Where are you going with this anyway?

Aron9000
05-24-09, 02:52 AM
Stick a Vortech on a DOHC Ford and you have one hell of a screamer! You are not well versed. The 4.6 Ford and a blower are a match made in heaven. No major wheel spin off the line but when that tach goes past 4k rpm's......it's on.


That's my point, you aren't really going to do anything with it unless you supercharge it, which is at least $3,000. They really don't respond well to cam swaps, headers, and other bolt ons in N/A form. So unless you got a lot of $$$ to drop on a supercharger for your Mustang GT, its going to be slow.

As far as the SOCH 4.6 V8 in the Town Car, the whole point of a luxury car is excess and to have more than you really need. The power is adequate, but wouldn't it be nice to have an extra 100hp? I mean the LT1 Cadillac FWB just decimates a Town Car in terms of power output.

Rodya234
05-24-09, 03:12 AM
^ thats kinda what my dad says about a Ford engine. It's different from a Chevy because the Chevy responds very well to work. Change the timing on a small-block and it feels like a different engine. He says that the Ford takes more work to achieve a similar effect.

I'm not getting into this argument though, I don't really care whether a 4.6 or a LSx is better, because I don't have either one. :hide: :D

Night Wolf
05-24-09, 04:20 AM
As far as the SOCH 4.6 V8 in the Town Car, the whole point of a luxury car is excess and to have more than you really need. The power is adequate, but wouldn't it be nice to have an extra 100hp? I mean the LT1 Cadillac FWB just decimates a Town Car in terms of power output.

You just don't want to give up on this, do you? Either that or you just have something really against Town Cars.

Maybe in a PERFORMANCE luxury car one would want an excess amount of power. This is a LINCOLN TOWN CAR. It is a luxury car made for highway comfort/long range travel. Furthermore, to put it simply, atleast in my car, there is already more power then I need. Under what logic? Most of my driving has me applying 1/2 throttle to accelerate, which is usually faster then traffic. Normally unless I am in a spirited mood, I drive it conservatively. That means that when I do need it, there is more power to be had. I dunno, maybe my Town Car is a factory freak? Maybe all the others can barely move under their own power but mine somehow manages to accelerate with authority? Maybe I just expect real world performance from a car not built for speed? Maybe the city of Tampa uses a different, less grippy asphault compound then in GA, because I was driving around tonight, the ground was bone dry, and accelerating a few times from the stop light under 2/3 throttle I was getting wheel spin. Actually driving in the rain I have had to be easy on the gas too. The tires (Goodyear Assurance ComforTreds) are supposed to have very good dry/wet traction.

Why are you so caught up on the LT1 FWB!?!? "decimates"? The LT1 produces a ground breaking *50HP* more then the similar year SOHC 4.6. 50hp. 210 vs 260. Same with torque, 275 vs 330, 55 ft-lbs.

I mean that is not a large gap in numbers... furthermore, my Town Car has a curb weight right at 4,000lbs. An LT1 FWB has a curbweight of 4,500lbs. So now your extra 50hp/55ft-lbs torque has to move an extra 500lbs. The LT1 is 1.1L, or 69cu in. larger. I would hope it can produce more power.

What you are also saying is that unless a luxury car of this sort puts out the ground breaking 260hp/330tq of the LT1, that it can barely get out of it's own way?

So the '77-'93 RWD DeVille/Fleetwood must be a dog no matter what engine it had, as a 4.6 Town Car is faster then them. The 2 most powerful engines used in this generation were the TBI Chevy 350 that produced 180hp/285tq? (I don't remember the exacts) as well as the Cadillac 425 that was 180hp/325tq.

I remember driving my '79 Sedan DeVille d'Elegance, and I remember that car having adequate power for what it was. It wasn't a speed demon, but it was quick enough. Power alone dosen't equal super fast acceleration though. I also ran that car at the dragstrip, my fastest time I could pull off, which actually was consistant thru the whole night down to a tenth of a second was 17.5 @78mph in the 1/4mi.

By your logic, that car would barely be able to get out of it's own way. In fact, lets just throw in ALL the 70's big block barges into this category.... they produced lots of power because there was alot of car to move. With that said, even a 472/hi-comp 500 would not be running much faster times.

100hp in my Town Car would be "nice" but it just isn't needed. Other then getting caught up on the whole LT1, I'd say Lincoln was running faster then Cadillac. If you compare the 4.6 to the TBI 350 (which both engines were avalible at the same time, the LT1 came out later) the 4.6 was more powerful. When talking 80's, even in low output form, the 5.0 was more powerful then the Olds 307 in the FWB.... which was more powerful then the HT4100. You are basing this whole thing off a limited 3-yr run of the LT1 in the FWB.

Perhaps a more fair comparison would be the DOHC Marauder, which still happens to be a 4.6, with the LT1. Who is producing more power, and running the 1/4 mi faster now? Actually, I think that is a much better comparison. Take the highest powered example of both vehicles, both were limited run etc... The DOHC 4.6 was out and offered in the Mark VIII the same time the LT1 was offered in the FWB.

What does a stock LT1 FWB run in the 1/4? 15.5s? I'm really tempted now to run my Town Car at the local track just so I can get some actual numbers on what it can do. In comparison, my '93 4.9 Coupe DeVille ran a 15.9 @85mph and my N/A 3800 '89 Olds 88 ran a 16.9@79mph. Both of which didn't feel "slow" either.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-24-09, 10:53 AM
Rick, it's all relative to what you're used to. I'd be willing to bet that all three of your cars are a 16.0-17.0 second quarter mile (even the Jeep, that 4.0 can move when it needs to, plus I'd bet it's got really short gearing). The quickest car you've had is your '93 CDV, right? Well Aaron is used to F-bodies (13 second cars) so the 16 second Town Car is gonna feel slow to him. Fact of the matter is anything less than a 13 second car is gonna feel slow, no matter what it is. So you'd think that a LT1 FWB would feel slow to him, even though it's faster than the 4.6 TC.

Basically, the 4.6 in the Town Car is on the same performance level as the TBI 350 Brougham, as far as acceleration times are concerned. To match the LT1, Ford would have had to used the SOHC 5.4, as I believe they put out similar hp/torque numbers, but they didn't, but the 4.6 seems to put out enough power for it, so all is well.

Now, to play devil's advocate, the Marauder and LT1 FWB run very similar quarter mile times.

This website lists the Marauder at a 15.4, and I've seen Brian's '94 FWB, with 176k, run a 15.33
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60_Quarter_Mile_Times/M_0-60times.html

I'm sure that the Marauder would outrun the FWB/Roadmaster/Impala/Caprice at high speeds, but out of the hole, it has problems because the twin cam 4.6 doesn't have the low end torque of the LT1, which hinders it in the lighter Mark VIII, now when you've got another ~400 lbs in the Marauder, then it adds up..

Night Wolf
05-24-09, 11:42 AM
Rick, it's all relative to what you're used to. I'd be willing to bet that all three of your cars are a 16.0-17.0 second quarter mile (even the Jeep, that 4.0 can move when it needs to, plus I'd bet it's got really short gearing). The quickest car you've had is your '93 CDV, right? Well Aaron is used to F-bodies (13 second cars) so the 16 second Town Car is gonna feel slow to him. Fact of the matter is anything less than a 13 second car is gonna feel slow, no matter what it is. So you'd think that a LT1 FWB would feel slow to him, even though it's faster than the 4.6 TC.

Basically, the 4.6 in the Town Car is on the same performance level as the TBI 350 Brougham, as far as acceleration times are concerned. To match the LT1, Ford would have had to used the SOHC 5.4, as I believe they put out similar hp/torque numbers, but they didn't, but the 4.6 seems to put out enough power for it, so all is well.

Now, to play devil's advocate, the Marauder and LT1 FWB run very similar quarter mile times.

This website lists the Marauder at a 15.4, and I've seen Brian's '94 FWB, with 176k, run a 15.33
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60_Quarter_Mile_Times/M_0-60times.html

I'm sure that the Marauder would outrun the FWB/Roadmaster/Impala/Caprice at high speeds, but out of the hole, it has problems because the twin cam 4.6 doesn't have the low end torque of the LT1, which hinders it in the lighter Mark VIII, now when you've got another ~400 lbs in the Marauder, then it adds up..

The Jeep has an excellent powerband for daily driving and wheeling, it feels "quick" around town but I really doubt it is anything special/impressive in the 1/4. I have thought about takingit to the track to find out. I'd have to say my Town Car is faster then the Jeep, my friend in his '06 4.0 TJ raced me (in the TC) and I beat him by a good bit, but his Jeep has the 3.07 gears, mine has 3.73, which makes quite a difference.

I'd say the fastest car I've owned would be my BMW. From what I have read by other owners, they should run the mid-high 15s, mine felt quick, I've since done more work on the engine and it is running better, just no wheels (and other suspension parts) on it to go for a spin. It's all realitive though, because around town the Jeep feels "quicker" then the BMW. Even though it wasn't made for drag racing, I'd still like to take it to the track as well, just for a baseline.

But that is exactly what I am saying, it's all in the eye of the beholder to what you are used to. If one is used to driving 13s cars, then a 16s car will feel slow.

As I've stated many times though, I am not trying to make the Town Car out to be some sort of a crazy dragstrip sleeper, but simply saying that, IMO from someone who has owned and driven one for 2yrs/25k miles now, I am content with the power output and it is plenty quick enough for what it is, and what it was made to do. From reading the various posts here, it's almost like one begins question how any car that runs a ~16s 1/4 can even drive at all.

I would say something about those that get really caught up in 0-60 and 1/4 mi times, but I used to be one of those people. When reading a review in a car mag I'd go stright to the specs and see what it would run, it's like that was the only thing I was basing most of the car off of. I've since matured in my way of thinking when it comes to cars, and able to look past simply how fast a car accelerates in a stright line from a stop - both in performance cars and espeically cars that are not made for performance, such as the Town Car. All I am saying is, the power output is not overwhelming, it's not lacking, but it's adequate. The only variables performance wise on these cars were single vs dual exhaust and gearing. The "quickest" feeling TC would be one with dual exhaust and the towing package. For whatever reason, I have only came across a few with the towing package, it's not that common. My Town Car has 3.27 gears and dual exhaust, base were 3.08. Trailer tow packages had 3.55. Perhaps this slight change in gearing is what's making the difference, either perceived or in reality? Also, depending on year/trim level/options, if you drove a TC with single exhaust, it was down 20hp/5tq, that coupled with the higher gears would possibly make a noticeable difference in acceleration, thus making the car feel slower.

I'm going to see when the next test n tune is at the local track and run the thing. I'm just interested to find out myself, weather it's a 15.0 (for the record, that's not being serious), a 16.0 or a 17.0 it dosen't matter and I'll report back.

Blackout
05-24-09, 11:52 AM
Rick, it's all relative to what you're used to. I'd be willing to bet that all three of your cars are a 16.0-17.0 second quarter mile (even the Jeep, that 4.0 can move when it needs to, plus I'd bet it's got really short gearing). The quickest car you've had is your '93 CDV, right? Well Aaron is used to F-bodies (13 second cars) so the 16 second Town Car is gonna feel slow to him. Fact of the matter is anything less than a 13 second car is gonna feel slow, no matter what it is. So you'd think that a LT1 FWB would feel slow to him, even though it's faster than the 4.6 TC.Who cares? Like I said there are reasons why every car manufacturer out there has different segment vehicles. Not everything out there is a race car. You keep on bringing up the LT1 FWB well it has a 1.1 displacement advantage on it so I would hope it would have some more power then the 4.6 especially considering the 5.7 in the FWB is a detuned version of the Corvette's motor.


Basically, the 4.6 in the Town Car is on the same performance level as the TBI 350 Brougham, as far as acceleration times are concerned. To match the LT1, Ford would have had to used the SOHC 5.4, as I believe they put out similar hp/torque numbers, but they didn't, but the 4.6 seems to put out enough power for it, so all is well. Even if Ford threw in the 5.4 it's still a smaller engine size. At the same time the LT1 is a far from perfect motor. I've owned both the 4.6 from Ford and an LT1 FWB and out of the two of them I love the power the LT1 puts down but between the two I'd go with the 4.6. I owned my Mark VIII for a year and a half and the worst problem it gave me was it needed a tune up. I've owned my the FWb for about the same amount of time and I use it no where near as much as the I did the Mark VIII and now I have both exhaust manifolds leaking on me because GM decided to put bolts into the exhaust manifold that are too big and after years of expanded and retracting due to the heat and bolt heads have broken off and now it leaks. If you can't tap the bolts out then you gotta take the whole top half of the engine off to get to them to put in the proper bolts that GM should have put on in the first place, then there's the Optispark issues, and I guess many of you haven't done plugs and wires to a LT1 versus the 4.6 from Ford because the 4.6 is a shit ton easier to do. Plugs on the bottom of the engine = FTMFL


Now, to play devil's advocate, the Marauder and LT1 FWB run very similar quarter mile times.

This website lists the Marauder at a 15.4, and I've seen Brian's '94 FWB, with 176k, run a 15.33
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60_Quarter_Mile_Times/M_0-60times.html
Well the 15.33 isn't from a stock Fleetwood seeing as to how the Impala SS's only run 15.1-15.0's in stock trim. Fleetwood's in stock trim iirc run high 15's to low 16's.


I'm sure that the Marauder would outrun the FWB/Roadmaster/Impala/Caprice at high speeds, but out of the hole, it has problems because the twin cam 4.6 doesn't have the low end torque of the LT1, which hinders it in the lighter Mark VIII, now when you've got another ~400 lbs in the Marauder, then it adds up..I raced my dad in the FTS which run's 14.5's in the 1/4. We took his car to go and pick up my 1995 Mark VIII which was bone stock and god only knows what kinda condition the car was in. But we went onto I-95 and had a clear road so we both hit it and the Mark VIII was barely pulling away from the FTS. The DOHC 4.6 sucks off of the line when mated to an automatic but with a stick it's great. From a roll though even with an automatic the DOHC flies. If they wanted to give the Marauder or the Mark VIII more off the line power they should have stuck the SOHC in there instead.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-24-09, 12:33 PM
Well the 15.33 isn't from a stock Fleetwood seeing as to how the Impala SS's only run 15.1-15.0's in stock trim. Fleetwood's in stock trim iirc run high 15's to low 16's.

The only mod it had was the first base and home plate removal, and that was it, other than that, it was bone stock, and it didn't have the trailer tow package. Here's the video I shot during the race.

NERtR2w8wA4

96Fleetwood
05-24-09, 05:51 PM
Lidio tune + 4.11s will wake a Marauder up ;)

The DOHC 4.6 is a nice motor.. and if mine was not a daily driver, I would supercharge it in a heartbeat.

MauiV
05-24-09, 07:56 PM
How many Fords in the last 40 years top 303 hp N/A? I remember a batch of Cobras that were recalled because that didnt get anywhere near the published hp claims.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/ford.jpg

Night Wolf
05-25-09, 12:20 AM
Its interesting to note that those that actually own modular fords are supporting them, even when they owned the competiton' while those that don't own one are bashing them and trying to discredit them.

Ah well, I'm posting this from the blackberry while in my Lincoln. I've been driving an hour and a half now and it feels like I just sat in the car. The 4.6 is content - getting 22mpg with cruise set at 78, climate control set to 72*, all I hear is the clear JBL system playing my dance/techno/house music from the ipod. The miles are floating by - a superb long range highway cruiser it most definitly is.

Destroyer
05-25-09, 12:31 AM
Also that, but to a lesser degree. I don't do much heavy racing (other than the occasional stoplight sprint), so the RWD benefits mean less to me, other than doing a CORRECT (lol) burnout, and it hinders me in the snow also, especially with 280hp.

Oh and I should say that I'm not totally anti Ford V8's. I like their OHV engines, especially the 460. The 351 was always solid too, atleast in the trucks made in the '80s and '90s. I don't know as much about the 302, but it always did good in the Mustangs. I don't know enough about the OHV Ford V8's. I need to learn more.

--------------> Runs to Wikipedia------------------->Chad, why exactly to you like the 460 compared to a 454 for instance?. If you like the 351 made in the 80's and 90's then you would like the 302 Fords as well because they are in the same engine family (Windsor), think of how many different displacements of the small block Chevy there were.

Blackout
05-25-09, 12:22 PM
How many Fords in the last 40 years top 303 hp N/A? I remember a batch of Cobras that were recalled because that didnt get anywhere near the published hp claims.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/ford.jpg

Remind me again as to which company between Ford and GM is filing for bankruptcy this week?:thepan:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
05-25-09, 02:10 PM
Its interesting to note that those that actually own modular fords are supporting them, even when they owned the competiton' while those that don't own one are bashing them and trying to discredit them.

Do YOU like the modular Fords more than the SBC's? How about modular Fords v. the old Ford OHV's?



Ah well, I'm posting this from the blackberry while in my Lincoln. I've been driving an hour and a half now and it feels like I just sat in the car. The 4.6 is content - getting 22mpg with cruise set at 78, climate control set to 72*, all I hear is the clear JBL system playing my dance/techno/house music from the ipod. The miles are floating by - a superb long range highway cruiser it most definitly is.

When you're driving the TC, can you put your elbows on the armrests and still be able to reach the steering wheel? That's the one thing I really miss about having a bench seat, being able to do that. With the Mercedes, the center console/armrest is too low and far back to be able to do that, and the door armrest is too far away from the wheel to be able to reach. It's like the darn thing is too wide, but maybe the Germans want it that way? Keeps you more attentive?


Chad, why exactly to you like the 460 compared to a 454 for instance?. If you like the 351 made in the 80's and 90's then you would like the 302 Fords as well because they are in the same engine family (Windsor), think of how many different displacements of the small block Chevy there were.


I don't really understand what you're saying, but I've been told by a couple of ex-Ford techs that the 460 was designed to be more of an all RPM powerhouse, atleast compared to the Cadillac big block. The Caddy big block was more of a low RPM tugboat, but the 460 seemed to pull better at high RPMs, while still having a boatload of low end torque. How it compares to the 454? I dunno, I didn't ask them. The only 460 I've ever driven was in that '77 Town Car, and I remember it being extremely torquey at most any speed between 0-55 and having unbelievable pulling power, but not being "fast". The only 454 I've really ever driven was in a '95 Sierra K2500, and I remember that having a godlike amount of power in the low end, but much like a TBI 350, the power dropped off like a cliff once above 3500 rpm.

Small block Ford v. Small block Chev? While both were extremely stout engines, I've heard that the Fords used more gas, especially the 351, but the Fords got out of the primitive TBI setup much earlier than GM did, which made the Fords more powerful than the GM's, but Ford never had as many variants to each engine as GM did. From 1992-95, they had the LT1 and TBI small blocks, then in 1996, it was LT1 and Vortec, then in 1997, it was LS1 and Vortec. They might have even used all three variants in 1996..TBI, LT1 and Vortec...I'm just trying to remember what year the full sized vans got the Vortecs...it was either 1996 or 97.

I like the 302 more than the 305...more torque when both equipped with the multi port injection, more aftermarket output, and much more common. I like the 350 more than the 351...more common, more aftermarket support, more widely used.

460 v 454? They both rock!

Night Wolf
05-25-09, 07:43 PM
Do YOU like the modular Fords more than the SBC's? How about modular Fords v. the old Ford OHV's?

Having only personally owned one of the above mentioned engines, my response won't be based off of personal experience with each.

I'll say that I am VERY impressed/content with the Modular Ford *as a whole* (there is more to stright up HP numbers on paper to an engine)

I'll also say that overall, a small-block Chevy, atleast IMO, is not necessarialy a selling point. I'm not trying to discredit it, nor an I trying to say it isn't good. I'm just saying that to me, it really dosen't do anything for me. Part of the reason is because of it's popularity. It seems like everyone and their brother has an SBC in some sort of car, truck, boat, go-kart etc... I tend to like the unpopular choice - the underdog.

Example, in the 80's, I'd take an Olds 307 over a Chevy 305. Both were equally low on power. In the 70's, again the Chevy 305/350 and even 454 really doesn't do a whole lot for me. I perfer the Cadillac engines, from the old 331-series of OHV to the big blocks to the 4.x series.

Obviously in a GM truck, you are pretty much stuck with an SBC. Which brings me to another thing though, I'm not really fond of GM trucks. When talking older trucks, I prefer Ford, the '92-'96 would be my choice. If I was going newer then '96, I would take a Dodge RAM, preferably with the Cummins.

Personally I am not really inpressed with TBI-anything. Yes, they work, but it was just a stepping stone. Like you said, GM/Chevy stuck with it longer, for that reason, a TBI GM/Chevy-anything is that much less appealing to me. Actually, as far as I know, TBI is pretty much a GM-only thing. My Isuzu was MPFI, as is the BMW. It's a much better system. Obviously in a '90-'92 FWB, my engine of chocie *would* be the 350.

The LT1 was modernized a bit, while adding a complex, and unecessary ignition system. As a whole, the LT1 dosen't appeal to me, nor is it a selling point (to me) in a vehicle. Yes, it was the most powerful engine in the RWD B/D bodies, which is one of the reasons why they are popular on this site, but other then that, when talking Corvette/F-body, the LS1 is much more desirable. People go out of their way to buy a car with the LS1, that's also why LS1 cars have a higher value then LT1 cars. Think about it, if GM made, say a '97-'99 generationf of B/D bodies with the LS1, would the '94-'96 LT1 really have the cult following it does now?

All I am saying is, to many here, the LT1 is made out to be the holy grail of engines that all else is compared to. It was GM's first major step to modernizing the SBC. When talking numbers, while it was potent for it's day, it wasn't anything overly impressive. I used to like it alot, but every time I hear how much better it is over the competition, when the stated reasons are quite debateable, it makes me like it that much less and less.

I do like the Vortech series of GM engines, I've driven a Chevy pickup with the 5.3? and liked it, I was also impressed with the 6.0 in Ian's Escalade.

Modular Ford vs. OHV Ford, again, I haven't owned an OHV Ford. I think I can simply sum it up by saying it is evolution of the Ford V8.

The experience I have had with the OHV Ford would be various cars/trucks and a boat that my father has had. The Bronco's, 80's Town Car, and the Sea Ray etc... I have heard from those against the 302 that the block will actually twist under a load, which leads to problems with the heads and headgaskets. Either way, that dosen't seem to have affected what the engine is capable of, or it's following.

From my experience OHV Ford's seem to be very reliable and great engines as well. Would I personally choose one over a Modular? I think I'd rather have the modular. That's not to say I'd pass one up. When talking pre '96 Ford trucks, my engine of choice would be the 300 I6. But the 302/351 is a good engine, the only thing I'd say about them, from driving the, is that they are gas hogs in the trucks/SUV (as was all the fullsize trucks/SUVs of the day) and atleast in the case of the 351 in the Bronco, it didn't seem to develop enough power to justify it's rather large thirst for fuel.


When you're driving the TC, can you put your elbows on the armrests and still be able to reach the steering wheel? That's the one thing I really miss about having a bench seat, being able to do that. With the Mercedes, the center console/armrest is too low and far back to be able to do that, and the door armrest is too far away from the wheel to be able to reach. It's like the darn thing is too wide, but maybe the Germans want it that way? Keeps you more attentive?

I guess I never put much thought into this...

Are you talking about the door armrest or the center seat arm rest(s)? Either way, you can rest your arms on both of them and still hold the wheel, thats normally how I drive it. The door almost has 3 arm rest positions, the top door sill (when the window is down) the actual loop door pull, and then the arm rest. Because the Signature/Cartier seats have power lumbar, they use an actual air pump to pump air into a bladder into the back of the seat. This little pump is mounted under the front seat, preventing the total down travel of the seat, which is why the Executive's I drove before I bought mine, I was able to get the seat lower (a posiiton I prefer better) Because the seat sits a bit higher then I'd normally prefer, that is why I sometimes rest my arm on the door pull handle instead of the arm rest, it feels a bit more natural.

The BMW dosen't even have a center arm rest, it has them on the doors, which are useful, but normally when I'm driving that car, my left arm is resting altop the door sill, which is a very comfortable position, and it is also comfortable to hold the wheel with my left hand. My right hand is either on the shifter, or the wheel.

The Jeep has a center consol cover, which was pretty useless as an armrest, and is now that much more useless since I installed a 1" seat riser kit, tho I can rest my elbow on the consol and keep my hand on the shifter (since top gear is 6th, it is comfortable). Normally I don't have doors on it, so my left hand is on the wheel, or holding the grab handle I put in. If the full doors are on I can rest my arm on the door sill only when the window is down. If the 2-piece soft doors are on, with the uppers removed, that also creates an arm rest.

V-Eight
05-25-09, 09:48 PM
^ Having driven both a 94 Silverado and a 94 f-150 I much prefer the Chevy. If I were buying new gas, it'd probably be a Ram, if it were a diesel it's be a Duramax hands down.

Destroyer
05-25-09, 09:57 PM
I don't really understand what you're saying, but I've been told by a couple of ex-Ford techs that the 460 was designed to be more of an all RPM powerhouse, atleast compared to the Cadillac big block. The Caddy big block was more of a low RPM tugboat, but the 460 seemed to pull better at high RPMs, while still having a boatload of low end torque. How it compares to the 454? I dunno, I didn't ask them. The only 460 I've ever driven was in that '77 Town Car, and I remember it being extremely torquey at most any speed between 0-55 and having unbelievable pulling power, but not being "fast". The only 454 I've really ever driven was in a '95 Sierra K2500, and I remember that having a godlike amount of power in the low end, but much like a TBI 350, the power dropped off like a cliff once above 3500 rpm. There never really was a hipo 460 from the factory for a factory car although they have been extremely modified through the years. The 429 Ford was a sweetheart of a motor and offered high compression in the 60's.


Small block Ford v. Small block Chev? While both were extremely stout engines, I've heard that the Fords used more gas, especially the 351, but the Fords got out of the primitive TBI setup much earlier than GM did, which made the Fords more powerful than the GM's, but Ford never had as many variants to each engine as GM did.Not exactly. Chevy had TPI 305's and 350's in their 1985 lineup (Vettes and f body's). In' '85 5.0 Mustangs still had Holley carbs.



I like the 302 more than the 305...more torque when both equipped with the multi port injection, more aftermarket output, and much more common. I like the 350 more than the 351...more common, more aftermarket support, more widely used.

You do know that Ford had 2 351 motors right?. The Windsor which is more common place and then the Cleveland which had some oiling issues and was found in several cars including Mustangs and Pantera's. The Cleveland motors when modified right were capable of running with big blocks. Probably one of the strongest motors ever. As far as aftermarket support, all these motors have been thoroughly gone through by the aftermarket and the Ford motors are right up there with the Chevy motors as far as parts availability. Still, there are many drag Mustangs out there with Chevy motors.:cool:

AMGoff
05-26-09, 03:44 AM
You can make 600+rwhp with a naturally apsirated LSx, any modular Ford making that much power is running a supercharger, turbo, or twin turbos.

Okay... Maybe others are just being nice by simply ignoring such hogwash... Or maybe they just can't believe that it's actually been said and are stunned into silence/laughter/drinking, but here we go...

(As an aside - Again with the "rwhp"... What is with your (mis)infatuation with using that term?:helpless:)


Either way... I'm not really sure where this fuss is coming from, nor why it's there to begin with. I'm not usually one to jump to Ford's defense, but there's nothing wrong with the Ford's Modular V8 whatsoever... The only thing wrong in this thread is this constant desire to compare apples to oranges.

First of all... Which naturally aspirated LS could possibly make 600+HP(just HP, no "rw" BS), period? Hmmm...? Which one? I'm certain you must not be talking about the LS9 - seeing as how it's.... a blown motor. So where would that leave us? Even with extensive and numerous other modifications outside of forced induction, the only production LS engine that would be even possibly close to accomplishing the task is the LS7 which has a peak power (ahem - flywheel) output of something like a tick over 500HP...

An LS7.... Seriously?

Let me just take a moment here to gather myself before I actually attempt to wrap my brain around this monumentally half-cocked argument that you're trying to make....

You're seriously... no seriously bragging/questioning why a 7.0L engine is capable of making more power than a 4.6L engine?

Jesus 'effing Christ on a Cracker covered with Jam.... You must be joking?

I mean... Ford must just be ashamed... No wait... Not just ashamed - they're so hopeless that they should just close up shop now because their NA 4.6L V8 can't produce the same amount of power as GM's 7-fukking-liter V8... Seriously... They should just die a slow and agonizing death for such a dearth of miraculous engineering... Right now... Just die Ford... DIE!

I'm sorry... Was that a bit of an overreaction? Truthfully... It probably was, so much as to the point of being ridiculous... Although not quite as ridiculous as comparing apples not just to oranges, but to... I don't know - Mount Kilimanjaro?

The fart remains that Ford built a very sound, very competitive engine family that is still very viable today thanks to steady, progressive engineering evolution.

Now, if we were to actually compare apples to apples, there's really zero fuss... Actually so little fuss that fuss could actually be made about having no fuss whatsoever.

Gee... What's the most GM has gotten out of its NA 4.6L 32v DOHC engine... 320HP/315lb-ft? And Ford's NA 4.6L 32v DOHC? Hmm... 320HP/317lb-ft... Shocking?

Oh... but I guess Ford fell behind in force-feeding the 4.6... GM was able to 469HP with their blown iteration and Ford was only able to get to 390HP... Unless you count Panoz who was able to get the Ford 4.6 to 420HP... Or Koenigsegg who was only able to get a measly 806HP out of a Ford (bored) Modular....

Since they built the engine family for expandability, it also allowed for the 5.4L... a bit closer to the baby LSes, albeit still smaller... Again... That's only good up to what... 422HP in NA form? Sticking with apples to apples, GM could only get 303HP from its 5.3L... And if we bump up to the larger 5.7L, the best GM could muster was 405HP/400lb-ft with the LS6.

Gee... looks like it was GM who fell behind on that one... Maybe it's GM who should give up and die?

Oh wait... but GM had the cure - even bigger displacements.... A 6.0L could get up to 412HP/lb-ft and a further bump to 6.2L could get 426HP, but then they found that by pushing things to 7.0L, they could get to 500HP!

Oh.. but then Ford got all sneaky, dirty, and pathetic when they just decided to slap a supercharger on its second biggest engine and found that it was good for up to 540HP...

Oh.. ohhh.... ohhhh but wait, then GM thought it was okay and suddenly it wasn't sneaky, dirty, or pathetic when.... when... they decided to slap a supercharger on their second biggest engine (which is still almost a full liter bigger than Fords) and found that it was good for 638HP!!!

But, but, but.... wait.... Do you finally get the point or need I go on.....?

There's no fuss here... Nor is there any tangible, pertinent argument... Just because you can't understand why Ford chose to put a less powerful version of their 4.6 into a large, lumbering Town Car that was only ever meant to deliver people quietly, comfortably, and competently from point "A" to "B" - does not, by any stretch of the imagination make the Ford Modular family a "joke."

/END RIDICULOUS, BUT MUCH NEEDED RANT

Blackout
05-26-09, 07:41 AM
Okay... Maybe others are just being nice by simply ignoring such hogwash... Or maybe they just can't believe that it's actually been said and are stunned into silence/laughter/drinking, but here we go...

(As an aside - Again with the "rwhp"... What is with your (mis)infatuation with using that term?:helpless:)


Either way... I'm not really sure where this fuss is coming from, nor why it's there to begin with. I'm not usually one to jump to Ford's defense, but there's nothing wrong with the Ford's Modular V8 whatsoever... The only thing wrong in this thread is this constant desire to compare apples to oranges.

First of all... Which naturally aspirated LS could possibly make 600+HP(just HP, no "rw" BS), period? Hmmm...? Which one? I'm certain you must not be talking about the LS9 - seeing as how it's.... a blown motor. So where would that leave us? Even with extensive and numerous other modifications outside of forced induction, the only production LS engine that would be even possibly close to accomplishing the task is the LS7 which has a peak power (ahem - flywheel) output of something like a tick over 500HP...

An LS7.... Seriously?

Let me just take a moment here to gather myself before I actually attempt to wrap my brain around this monumentally half-cocked argument that you're trying to make....

You're seriously... no seriously bragging/questioning why a 7.0L engine is capable of making more power than a 4.6L engine?

Jesus 'effing Christ on a Cracker covered with Jam.... You must be joking?

I mean... Ford must just be ashamed... No wait... Not just ashamed - they're so hopeless that they should just close up shop now because their NA 4.6L V8 can't produce the same amount of power as GM's 7-fukking-liter V8... Seriously... They should just die a slow and agonizing death for such a dearth of miraculous engineering... Right now... Just die Ford... DIE!

I'm sorry... Was that a bit of an overreaction? Truthfully... It probably was, so much as to the point of being ridiculous... Although not quite as ridiculous as comparing apples not just to oranges, but to... I don't know - Mount Kilimanjaro?

The fart remains that Ford built a very sound, very competitive engine family that is still very viable today thanks to steady, progressive engineering evolution.

Now, if we were to actually compare apples to apples, there's really zero fuss... Actually so little fuss that fuss could actually be made about having no fuss whatsoever.

Gee... What's the most GM has gotten out of its NA 4.6L 32v DOHC engine... 320HP/315lb-ft? And Ford's NA 4.6L 32v DOHC? Hmm... 320HP/317lb-ft... Shocking?

Oh... but I guess Ford fell behind in force-feeding the 4.6... GM was able to 469HP with their blown iteration and Ford was only able to get to 390HP... Unless you count Panoz who was able to get the Ford 4.6 to 420HP... Or Koenigsegg who was only able to get a measly 806HP out of a Ford (bored) Modular....

Since they built the engine family for expandability, it also allowed for the 5.4L... a bit closer to the baby LSes, albeit still smaller... Again... That's only good up to what... 422HP in NA form? Sticking with apples to apples, GM could only get 303HP from its 5.3L... And if we bump up to the larger 5.7L, the best GM could muster was 405HP/400lb-ft with the LS6.

Gee... looks like it was GM who fell behind on that one... Maybe it's GM who should give up and die?

Oh wait... but GM had the cure - even bigger displacements.... A 6.0L could get up to 412HP/lb-ft and a further bump to 6.2L could get 426HP, but then they found that by pushing things to 7.0L, they could get to 500HP!

Oh.. but then Ford got all sneaky, dirty, and pathetic when they just decided to slap a supercharger on its second biggest engine and found that it was good for up to 540HP...

Oh.. ohhh.... ohhhh but wait, then GM thought it was okay and suddenly it wasn't sneaky, dirty, or pathetic when.... when... they decided to slap a supercharger on their second biggest engine (which is still almost a full liter bigger than Fords) and found that it was good for 638HP!!!

But, but, but.... wait.... Do you finally get the point or need I go on.....?

There's no fuss here... Nor is there any tangible, pertinent argument... Just because you can't understand why Ford chose to put a less powerful version of their 4.6 into a large, lumbering Town Car that was only ever meant to deliver people quietly, comfortably, and competently from point "A" to "B" - does not, by any stretch of the imagination make the Ford Modular family a "joke."

/END RIDICULOUS, BUT MUCH NEEDED RANT

http://www.sotsyndicate.com/images/smilies/6duwt0.gif

Destroyer
05-26-09, 08:31 AM
That's my point, you aren't really going to do anything with it unless you supercharge it, which is at least $3,000. They really don't respond well to cam swaps, headers, and other bolt ons in N/A form. So unless you got a lot of $$$ to drop on a supercharger for your Mustang GT, its going to be slow.

They don't respond well to cam swaps, headers and bollt-ons? My N/A Cobra responded very well so I don't know where you are getting your info. I didn't have cams though. Regardless, don't act like an LSx motor is so cheap to work on, it's not. A supercharger isn't THAT expensive, no more than swapping cams/heads and bolt on's for an LSx motor.

thebigjimsho
05-26-09, 04:35 PM
Remind me again as to which company between Ford and GM is filing for bankruptcy this week?:thepan:
Because Ford figured it would be wiser to not do much R&D and cheapen their current hunk of junks. Make no mistake, Ford isn't selling any better than GM. They just decided not to spend the money to improve their product. Either way, America loses...

thebigjimsho
05-26-09, 04:38 PM
Having only personally owned one of the above mentioned engines, my response won't be based off of personal experience with each.

I'll say that I am VERY impressed/content with the Modular Ford *as a whole* (there is more to stright up HP numbers on paper to an engine)

I'll also say that overall, a small-block Chevy, atleast IMO, is not necessarialy a selling point. I'm not trying to discredit it, nor an I trying to say it isn't good. I'm just saying that to me, it really dosen't do anything for me. Part of the reason is because of it's popularity. It seems like everyone and their brother has an SBC in some sort of car, truck, boat, go-kart etc... I tend to like the unpopular choice - the underdog.

Example, in the 80's, I'd take an Olds 307 over a Chevy 305. Both were equally low on power. In the 70's, again the Chevy 305/350 and even 454 really doesn't do a whole lot for me. I perfer the Cadillac engines, from the old 331-series of OHV to the big blocks to the 4.x series.

Obviously in a GM truck, you are pretty much stuck with an SBC. Which brings me to another thing though, I'm not really fond of GM trucks. When talking older trucks, I prefer Ford, the '92-'96 would be my choice. If I was going newer then '96, I would take a Dodge RAM, preferably with the Cummins.

Personally I am not really inpressed with TBI-anything. Yes, they work, but it was just a stepping stone. Like you said, GM/Chevy stuck with it longer, for that reason, a TBI GM/Chevy-anything is that much less appealing to me. Actually, as far as I know, TBI is pretty much a GM-only thing. My Isuzu was MPFI, as is the BMW. It's a much better system. Obviously in a '90-'92 FWB, my engine of chocie *would* be the 350.

The LT1 was modernized a bit, while adding a complex, and unecessary ignition system. As a whole, the LT1 dosen't appeal to me, nor is it a selling point (to me) in a vehicle. Yes, it was the most powerful engine in the RWD B/D bodies, which is one of the reasons why they are popular on this site, but other then that, when talking Corvette/F-body, the LS1 is much more desirable. People go out of their way to buy a car with the LS1, that's also why LS1 cars have a higher value then LT1 cars. Think about it, if GM made, say a '97-'99 generationf of B/D bodies with the LS1, would the '94-'96 LT1 really have the cult following it does now?

All I am saying is, to many here, the LT1 is made out to be the holy grail of engines that all else is compared to. It was GM's first major step to modernizing the SBC. When talking numbers, while it was potent for it's day, it wasn't anything overly impressive. I used to like it alot, but every time I hear how much better it is over the competition, when the stated reasons are quite debateable, it makes me like it that much less and less.

I do like the Vortech series of GM engines, I've driven a Chevy pickup with the 5.3? and liked it, I was also impressed with the 6.0 in Ian's Escalade.

Modular Ford vs. OHV Ford, again, I haven't owned an OHV Ford. I think I can simply sum it up by saying it is evolution of the Ford V8.

The experience I have had with the OHV Ford would be various cars/trucks and a boat that my father has had. The Bronco's, 80's Town Car, and the Sea Ray etc... I have heard from those against the 302 that the block will actually twist under a load, which leads to problems with the heads and headgaskets. Either way, that dosen't seem to have affected what the engine is capable of, or it's following.

From my experience OHV Ford's seem to be very reliable and great engines as well. Would I personally choose one over a Modular? I think I'd rather have the modular. That's not to say I'd pass one up. When talking pre '96 Ford trucks, my engine of choice would be the 300 I6. But the 302/351 is a good engine, the only thing I'd say about them, from driving the, is that they are gas hogs in the trucks/SUV (as was all the fullsize trucks/SUVs of the day) and atleast in the case of the 351 in the Bronco, it didn't seem to develop enough power to justify it's rather large thirst for fuel.



I guess I never put much thought into this...

Are you talking about the door armrest or the center seat arm rest(s)? Either way, you can rest your arms on both of them and still hold the wheel, thats normally how I drive it. The door almost has 3 arm rest positions, the top door sill (when the window is down) the actual loop door pull, and then the arm rest. Because the Signature/Cartier seats have power lumbar, they use an actual air pump to pump air into a bladder into the back of the seat. This little pump is mounted under the front seat, preventing the total down travel of the seat, which is why the Executive's I drove before I bought mine, I was able to get the seat lower (a posiiton I prefer better) Because the seat sits a bit higher then I'd normally prefer, that is why I sometimes rest my arm on the door pull handle instead of the arm rest, it feels a bit more natural.

The BMW dosen't even have a center arm rest, it has them on the doors, which are useful, but normally when I'm driving that car, my left arm is resting altop the door sill, which is a very comfortable position, and it is also comfortable to hold the wheel with my left hand. My right hand is either on the shifter, or the wheel.

The Jeep has a center consol cover, which was pretty useless as an armrest, and is now that much more useless since I installed a 1" seat riser kit, tho I can rest my elbow on the consol and keep my hand on the shifter (since top gear is 6th, it is comfortable). Normally I don't have doors on it, so my left hand is on the wheel, or holding the grab handle I put in. If the full doors are on I can rest my arm on the door sill only when the window is down. If the 2-piece soft doors are on, with the uppers removed, that also creates an arm rest.
No offense, Rick, but I can't afford to spend 5 minutes of my time to read every one of your posts. You need to condense some once in a while...

Night Wolf
05-26-09, 06:11 PM
No offense, Rick, but I can't afford to spend 5 minutes of my time to read every one of your posts. You need to condense some once in a while...

No problem - It's an internet forum, we all can choose what to read or not to read :) Your reply to my post would probably not be benefical to this thread anyway.

V-Eight
05-26-09, 06:17 PM
I'm not gonna get into this, but 385 out of the 350 actually

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/EngineShowcase/index.jsp?engId=FastBurn385&engine=Fast%20Burn%20385&sku=12499710&engCat=sb

AMGoff
05-26-09, 08:10 PM
I'm not gonna get into this, but 385 out of the 350 actually

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/EngineShowcase/index.jsp?engId=FastBurn385&engine=Fast%20Burn%20385&sku=12499710&engCat=sb

Well... I'm not sure whose expense that random little factoid was for, but...

Either way... 350ci/5.7L is simply the displacement of an engine - you do know there have been ump-teen different "350" motors, right?

The engine you referenced is merely the highest output version of the "small-block" 350 crate engine... The fact remains that the most power GM has been able to muster from 5.7 liters of displacement is 405HP and 400lb-ft of torque in the form of the LS6 engine - which was used in the Z06 beginning in 2002 IIRC... as well as the original CTS-V.

Just in case you were interested... the LS6 is also available as a crate engine from GMPP as well:

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/EngineShowcase/index.jsp?engId=LS6&engine=LS6&sku=17801268&engCat=ls

Night Wolf
05-26-09, 08:16 PM
I'm not gonna get into this, but 385 out of the 350 actually

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/EngineShowcase/index.jsp?engId=FastBurn385&engine=Fast%20Burn%20385&sku=12499710&engCat=sb

HUH!?

So now we are comparing STOCK FACTORY engines to modified GMPP crate engines?

I mean really.... and to think it was bad enough to first debate 4.6 vs 5.7.

Heck, I'll just run with it..... so GM can get 385HP from 5.7L....

Ford can do 350hp from 4.6L:

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=10584

:alchi: :alchi: :alchi:

V-Eight
05-26-09, 08:22 PM
I didn't know GM even used the 350 anymore? What type of Cam config does the Ford have?

Night Wolf
05-26-09, 09:21 PM
I didn't know GM even used the 350 anymore? What type of Cam config does the Ford have?

:shhh: "350" can also substitute any current GM 5.7L..... atleast to the general public... :cookoo:

Either way, it was an absurd comparison to bring up performance crate engines when we were talking about factory installed engines in production vehicles.

Cam config on the modular Ford? 2v, 3v or 4v they are all OHC. Actually other then an old school pushrod engine looking "cooler" when all chromed out in a muscle car, OHC really is the better way to go... much simpler. My Town Car is SOHC, as is the Mustang GT. MarkVIII/Cobra are DOHC. IIRC the new 3v modulars are still SOHC? not sure tho.

96Fleetwood
05-26-09, 09:50 PM
MarkVIII/Cobra are DOHC.

.. and the Marauder too! I wouldn't have bought it if it had the SOHC.. or if it wasn't a limited production vehicle. At least I can sell it and make $$ at this point; the Marauders are fetching quite a premium lately. Nice examples go for $11-18K.

Blackout
05-26-09, 09:59 PM
.. and the Marauder too! I wouldn't have bought it if it had the SOHC.. or if it wasn't a limited production vehicle. At least I can sell it and make $$ at this point; the Marauders are fetching quite a premium lately. Nice examples go for $11-18K.

Honestly I would have bought a SOHC Marauder over a DOHC one just from the simple fact of getting out of the hole is easier with the SOHC. If they offered the Marauder with a stick shift option then DOHC all the way baby! That was my main gripe with my Mark VIII and all the Marauder is is an updated Mark VIII damn near. DOHC mated to an auto = poop off the line. But once at speed they're pretty damn quick!

Blackout
05-26-09, 10:05 PM
Because Ford figured it would be wiser to not do much R&D and cheapen their current hunk of junks. Make no mistake, Ford isn't selling any better than GM. They just decided not to spend the money to improve their product. Either way, America loses...

What in the hell are you talking about? Mustangs totally new platform, Mustang's totally new 5.0 V8, Ecoboost engine series, new Fiesta, most fuel efficient hybrid sedan in the Fusion Hybrid, etc. Ford is selling the best of the automakers so far and they're predicting Ford to sell the most units out of all of the automakers this year as well as putting more product out then anybody else as well. The new 'Stang has received a five-star rating for front and side collisions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, as well as five-stars for roll-over performance. These top scores add to the company's industry leading amount of five-star rated vehicles. So yeah Ford is doing so horrible. America is really losing.................a shit ton of money on keeping GM and Chrysler afloat. But keep on kidding yourself into thinking that Ford is the bad ones off:cookoo:

96Fleetwood
05-26-09, 10:06 PM
Honestly I would have bought a SOHC Marauder over a DOHC one just from the simple fact of getting out of the hole is easier with the SOHC. If they offered the Marauder with a stick shift option then DOHC all the way baby! That was my main gripe with my Mark VIII and all the Marauder is is an updated Mark VIII damn near. DOHC mated to an auto = poop off the line. But once at speed they're pretty damn quick!

$680 dollars will get it off the line quick (4.11 gears). I would have bought it if it had the 5.4 triton SOHC.. but wouldn't bother if it shared the same motor as the other Panthers. It had to be different to sell.. especially at $34K new.

Night Wolf
05-26-09, 10:25 PM
The DOHC does well in the MarkVIII/Marauder, tho I have heard the auto really bogs it down. In a performance car it is good.

Honestly the SOHC is the better choice in the Town Car, it has more low end torque, as well as a power curve that, overall really matches the car nicely. Lay into it from a stop and you get some wheel spin, but not enough that it'll just sit there and roast the tires, and there is adundent passing power for any speed the car is able to go. Seeing as how the targeted buyers of the thing were old people, fleet vehicles or limos (stretched and non) it is a perfect match to the car.

If the MarkVIII or Marauder was avalible with a manual trans, it would have been top choice on my list a long time ago.

Still though, there is some love for the SOHC 4.6. If I end up keeping my Town Car, a pair of used PI heads and intake will bring power up to 250-260hp or so (npi 4.6 runs higher compression then pi) Was thinking about maybe some mild cams, an intake, quiet, but free flowing mufflers and possibly a tune. About $1k in parts and that would bring out a whole new side to the Lincoln.

Though it still wouldn't be like this:

Mv9BSc7dEpc

Night Wolf
05-26-09, 10:27 PM
$680 dollars will get it off the line quick (4.11 gears). I would have bought it if it had the 5.4 triton SOHC.. but wouldn't bother if it shared the same motor as the other Panthers. It had to be different to sell.. especially at $34K new.

What came in it stock? 3.73? What kind of RPM are you turning over on the highway - 70, 75 and 80mph? What has it done for fuel mileage both in town and on the highway?

It sounds to me that you are liking the Marauder/Ford more then you first did. Thanks good :)

Ford's are odd like that.... it's sort of a feeling that dosen't initially grab you, but the more you drive it, the more you like it.

When talking modulars, the fact that the thing can be used in luxury cars, performance luxury cars, performance/muscle cars, light duty trucks and heavy duty trucks.... and be just as durable and reliable, as well as remain competative.... should say something about it. I'm proud to be the owner of one.

Blackout
05-26-09, 10:29 PM
$680 dollars will get it off the line quick (4.11 gears). I would have bought it if it had the 5.4 triton SOHC.. but wouldn't bother if it shared the same motor as the other Panthers. It had to be different to sell.. especially at $34K new.

4.11 and highway driving = ftl. They do wake them up nicely but the fuel mileage and the screaming of the engine while at highway speeds just wasn't for me.

Blackout
05-26-09, 10:32 PM
What came in it stock? 3.73? What kind of RPM are you turning over on the highway - 70, 75 and 80mph? What has it done for fuel mileage both in town and on the highway?

3.27 for the LSC's
3.07 for the non LSC's

Night Wolf
05-26-09, 10:52 PM
3.27 for the LSC's
3.07 for the non LSC's

Mark VIII?

I was talking about his Marauder....

96Fleetwood
05-26-09, 11:05 PM
4.11 and highway driving = ftl. They do wake them up nicely but the fuel mileage and the screaming of the engine while at highway speeds just wasn't for me.

Bah! Fuel mileage? This isn't a prius forum. No screaming engine at 90 mph in the Fleetwood or Marauder with gears, is there a need to go faster than that on US roads?

Don't get me wrong, I like the Marauder... but it is merely a stepping stone up the ladder to exotics.

V-Eight
05-27-09, 12:50 AM
:shhh: "350" can also substitute any current GM 5.7L..... atleast to the general public... :cookoo:

Either way, it was an absurd comparison to bring up performance crate engines when we were talking about factory installed engines in production vehicles.

Cam config on the modular Ford? 2v, 3v or 4v they are all OHC. Actually other then an old school pushrod engine looking "cooler" when all chromed out in a muscle car, OHC really is the better way to go... much simpler. My Town Car is SOHC, as is the Mustang GT. MarkVIII/Cobra are DOHC. IIRC the new 3v modulars are still SOHC? not sure tho.

Yeah, I KNOW that a 350=5.7, but I haven't seen this on any recent cars. I heard OHV was the simplest, but maybe that was when compared to DOHC. Granted, a pushrod will usually have higher torque values than DOHC, but not too sure how it compares to OHC.

MauiV
05-27-09, 02:13 AM
Remind me again as to which company between Ford and GM is filing for bankruptcy this week?:thepan:



Having owned a F150 Supercrew Lariet 4X4 and a Lincoln LS I can say that unless I have a need for a 1 ton I have owned my last Ford product and I get Fords at A plan pricing. Uninspired vehicles in ugly wrapping.

Back on topic, how many Ford motors top 303 NA?????????????????????????????

thebigjimsho
05-27-09, 02:19 AM
What in the hell are you talking about? Mustangs totally new platform, Mustang's totally new 5.0 V8, Ecoboost engine series, new Fiesta, most fuel efficient hybrid sedan in the Fusion Hybrid, etc. Ford is selling the best of the automakers so far and they're predicting Ford to sell the most units out of all of the automakers this year as well as putting more product out then anybody else as well. The new 'Stang has received a five-star rating for front and side collisions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Association, as well as five-stars for roll-over performance. These top scores add to the company's industry leading amount of five-star rated vehicles. So yeah Ford is doing so horrible. America is really losing.................a shit ton of money on keeping GM and Chrysler afloat. But keep on kidding yourself into thinking that Ford is the bad ones off:cookoo:
Yeah, that totally new platform ain't so totally new. As for everything else you've mentioned, only the Ecoboot engine and the Fusion hybrid are actually out. And it took awhile to get those out. For 5 years, Ford's new vehicles have been putrid as a whole.

Bottom line is my '07 TC is a joke on wheels and Ford should be ashamed for ever letting something that poor roll off the assembly line.

Blackout
05-27-09, 07:27 AM
Yeah, that totally new platform ain't so totally new. As for everything else you've mentioned, only the Ecoboot engine and the Fusion hybrid are actually out. And it took awhile to get those out. For 5 years, Ford's new vehicles have been putrid as a whole.So in 5 years Ford came out with the ecoboost engine and the countries best hybrid sedan and in the same amount of time GM managed to make the Camaro and it's still filled with issues. What do they say about people who live in glass houses?

Aron9000
05-27-09, 07:48 AM
So in 5 years Ford came out with the ecoboost engine and the countries best hybrid sedan and in the same amount of time GM managed to make the Camaro and it's still filled with issues. What do they say about people who live in glass houses?

Ford's "new" Mustang, F150, Expidition, Navigator, Taurus, Sable, Fusion, Milan, MKS, MKZ, and Focus are pretty much the same car under the skin as their previous generation. Ford has made continual refinements to their lineup, but under the skin they're pretty much the same thing they've been selling for the past 4-9 years. Ford hasn't done a major redsign of the RWD Panther cars since 1998 either.

Even if GM is in the shitter, at least they are trying with newer, better full size trucks and SUV's, new Malibus, Camaros, Cadillac CTS, SRX, Pontiac G8, Buick LaCrosse, ZR1&Z06 Corvettes.

Blackout
05-27-09, 08:03 AM
Ford's "new" Mustang, F150, Expidition, Navigator, Taurus, Sable, Fusion, Milan, MKS, MKZ, and Focus are pretty much the same car under the skin as their previous generation. Ford has made continual refinements to their lineup, but under the skin they're pretty much the same thing they've been selling for the past 4-9 years. Ford hasn't done a major redsign of the RWD Panther cars since 1998 either.Who cares? If it's not broke why fix it? If you can still sell as many units as your competitor without having to much much other then changing the body here and there then why wouldn't you do that? Do you really think that people aren't going to buy a car because it's platform is shared with something else or that a platform hasn't received a major redesign in the past few years? There's not reason for them to do anything with the Panther chassis since the TC is done and that leaves the Grand Marquis and the Crown Vic and those are geared towards the old folks so they want the way those cars drive hence why they buy those cars in droves.


Even if GM is in the shitter, at least they are trying with newer, better full size trucks and SUV's, new Malibus, Camaros, Cadillac CTS, SRX, Pontiac G8, Buick LaCrosse, ZR1&Z06 Corvettes.And the same could be said for Ford with the new Fusion, Fiesta, Mustang, MKS, the upcoming Focus, Taurus (SHO), etc.

thebigjimsho
05-28-09, 02:38 AM
So in 5 years Ford came out with the ecoboost engine and the countries best hybrid sedan and in the same amount of time GM managed to make the Camaro and it's still filled with issues. What do they say about people who live in glass houses?
They have shitty Lincolns?

thebigjimsho
05-28-09, 02:42 AM
And the same could be said for Ford with the new Fusion, Fiesta, Mustang, MKS, the upcoming Focus, Taurus (SHO), etc.
The MKS and Taurus along with the SHO are revamped 500s. And again, the Mustang wasn't an all new platform. Now, I like the Stang and I may like the SHO and you don't necessarily need to have everything brand new. But Ford has sat on its ass for quite a few of their products...

96Fleetwood
05-28-09, 09:25 AM
Ford hasn't done a major redsign of the RWD Panther cars since 1998 either.

At least they kept them! Look what GM did... killed the large RWD sedans in 1996 and then tried to wow us with the RWD STS... :bigroll:

Blackout
05-28-09, 10:33 AM
The MKS and Taurus along with the SHO are revamped 500s. And again, the Mustang wasn't an all new platform. Now, I like the Stang and I may like the SHO and you don't necessarily need to have everything brand new. But Ford has sat on its ass for quite a few of their products...

Once again who cares? The cars are great cars so I could careless if the chassis is from a Ford Pinto. If the car looks great, runs great, performs great, then your really looking for anything and everything to nit pick about the car. I'm sure you thought the GTO was a nice car but that's nothing more then a revamped Catera seeing that they share the same chassis. And again you are wrong about the Mustang's platform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D2C_platform

thebigjimsho
05-28-09, 01:50 PM
Mustangs totally new platform...


Once again who cares? The cars are great cars so I could careless if the chassis is from a Ford Pinto. If the car looks great, runs great, performs great, then your really looking for anything and everything to nit pick about the car. I'm sure you thought the GTO was a nice car but that's nothing more then a revamped Catera seeing that they share the same chassis. And again you are wrong about the Mustang's platform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_D2C_platform
Totally, to me anyway, means 100%. There's a cereal named after the word "totally". I didn't need that link as I referenced it the other night after having listened to your drivel. And according to "your" link...

"D2C is loosely based on the Ford DEW platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_DEW_platform) which served as the basis for the Lincoln LS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_LS), Ford Thunderbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Thunderbird), and Jaguar S-Type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_S-Type)"

Blackout
05-28-09, 04:11 PM
Totally, to me anyway, means 100%. There's a cereal named after the word "totally". I didn't need that link as I referenced it the other night after having listened to your drivel. And according to "your" link...

"D2C is loosely based on the Ford DEW platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_DEW_platform) which served as the basis for the Lincoln LS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_LS), Ford Thunderbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Thunderbird), and Jaguar S-Type (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_S-Type)"

Yeah loosely based aka a part here or there if any at all, compared to the Fox platform that was used for how many years? Unfortunately you just want to hate this car and will grab at literally anything to make your argument sound justified.

thebigjimsho
05-28-09, 04:26 PM
Yeah loosely based aka a part here or there if any at all, compared to the Fox platform that was used for how many years? Unfortunately you just want to hate this car and will grab at literally anything to make your argument sound justified.
Uh, I don't hate the car. I like the car. A lot. I'm just saying it's not an all-new platform...

Mark0101
05-28-09, 05:37 PM
IMO this car is WAY better then whatever cadillac has to offer. (STS)

V-Eight
05-28-09, 08:54 PM
^ lol

Mark0101
05-28-09, 09:50 PM
I meant If you compare the Lincoln MKS vs Cadillac STS which is its competitor, the MKS is a lot better then the STS. MKS offers more highend features and the interior looks a lot better then the STS. No way I would buy a FWD MKS but if its the AWD, I would take the MKS over the STS.

V-Eight
05-29-09, 12:22 AM
I don't think it looks nicer, and would much prefer RWD to FWD or AWD. As for features, I have no idea. Does the STS have an option of HUD?

thebigjimsho
05-29-09, 01:19 AM
I meant If you compare the Lincoln MKS vs Cadillac STS which is its competitor, the MKS is a lot better then the STS. MKS offers more highend features and the interior looks a lot better then the STS. No way I would buy a FWD MKS but if its the AWD, I would take the MKS over the STS.
Hey, that's great. Nice that it finally came out 5 years after the RWD STS did...give me a CTS over an MKS, ANY DAY.

Also, compare the larger MKS rear seat to the CTS. It's not that much roomier...

LS1Mike
05-29-09, 02:52 AM
600 hp NA from a few LSx motors

http://www.racewayengines.com/ls3_427_ss_610_hp.htm

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/tech/0707gm_blue_collar_workhorse/photo_44.html

http://www.xhpsolutions.com/product.php?productid=328&cat=38&page=1

Really isn't a stretch for a larger displacement LSX. Remeber, I make about 400 (450 ish at the crank) at the wheels in my 346 and haven't touched the heads.
Heads, larger Cam and better headers would put right around 510 at the crank and I haven't even changed displacement yet.
Imagine a N/A 427 done right.
You folks can go on fitting now.

MauiV
05-29-09, 11:53 AM
Theres no replacement for displacement.

Blackout
05-29-09, 01:03 PM
Theres no replacement for displacement.

Ariel Atom /thread
http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2007/10/ariel_atom_3.jpg

Rodya234
05-29-09, 01:06 PM
^There is also no replacement for a roof.

Blackout
05-29-09, 01:14 PM
^There is also no replacement for a roof.

http://men.style.com/images/upgrader/gear/products/sport-coupes/lotus-exige-s_h.jpgNext?

MauiV
05-29-09, 02:15 PM
So you want curvy roads?

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/ZR7.jpg

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/ACR.jpg

How about a straight line?

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/TA2.jpg

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/fuzzy.jpg

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w52/jdinmaui/feb008.jpg

I have seen PLENTY of 240, Miata and RX builds with LSx engines but have never seen anyone swap one of those gerbil drives into a Z06.

The Tony Show
05-29-09, 02:54 PM
The Ariel Atom has a small amount of wheel weights, therefore must be a good car.

http://www.motorbeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ariel_atom_wheels.jpg

Blackout
05-29-09, 03:12 PM
I have seen PLENTY of 240, Miata and RX builds with LSx engines but have never seen anyone swap one of those gerbil drives into a Z06.You gotta be kidding me. Why don't they put the LS7 into a air craft carrier and get rid of those nuclear reactors. The replacement for displacement is technology and power to weight ratio. Hell you don't need anymore proof then looking at John Shepherd's DSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTJj-YaMdsk 7.70 @ 191 mph with no nitrous out of a little 2.0 4 banger. You can argue the fact that there is no replacement for displacement but you are just flat out wrong.

Blackout
05-29-09, 03:13 PM
The Ariel Atom has a small amount of wheel weights, therefore must be a good car.

http://www.motorbeam.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ariel_atom_wheels.jpg

You would be correct

Blackout
05-29-09, 03:17 PM
Hell the car that this thread is originally about ran a 13.9 out of a 3.5 V6 that has twin turbos. You honestly think that with a tune and some parts here and there that it won't be just as fast as a Z06 or ZR-1 in the 1/4? The problem with your big displacement engines is that they are usually hooked up to the rear wheels but as you can plainly see with 0-60 and 1/4 times between the Z06 and ZR1 it's all for nothing because they run identical times. You can have all the power in the world but if you can't effectively put it down on the ground then it's a waste

AMGoff
05-29-09, 05:21 PM
To say that the current Mustang rides on a "totally" new platform is either an exercise of semantics... or a case of wishful thinking. If one wanted to say that the DC2 platform was new to the Mustang and is currently somewhat unique to the model - then that would be far more appropriate. Sure, it may have been the first time Ford bolted together corporate bits and pieces in a particular way, but I'd have to agree with bigjim - "totally new" means 100%. However, there's nothing completely new about the technology, the components used, nor the way many of the components are bolted together. Yes, the DC2 isn't a direct carryover from the DEW98 since the DEW was never designed to be the basis of a cheap, mass-market car... but they still took a fair amount from the DEW and instead developing anything "new" for it, they simply bolted it together with other preexisting platforms. A more appropriate picture of the DC2 would be more like this... Basic chassis of the DEW98 + basic suspension of the C1 + cheap live rear axle = "all new" DC2.

Unique? Kinda... Novel? Hardly...


Anyway... As far as all this other nonsense goes...

What does it all really matter? In 10-20 years, all this talk about displacement big or small - related power/weight, HP per liter, naturally-aspirated, turbos, twin-turbos, superchargers, etc. will all be moot. While they will always be around as collectors items and will probably remain available on the market in some capacity as a niche product... The fact is that the internal combustion engine as the primary means of automotive propulsion will be going the way of the dodo.

Soon, the only thing we'll all have to puff our chests out will be with regard to how many volts our electric motors draw and whether we get our juice from battery packs or make our own with our onboard power-generating fuel cells... Other than that, we won't have much else to compare since we'll all have the benefit of instant power delivery and dead-flat torque-curves.

MauiV
05-29-09, 05:37 PM
You can argue the fact that there is no replacement for displacement but you are just flat out wrong.


Anything that can be done to a small engine can be done to a big engine. It can be blown, turboed etc etc etc.

What kind of motors do you think NHRA teams use? Their livelihoods are based on WINNING and they go big or go home.

V-Eight
05-29-09, 08:29 PM
Anything that can be done to a small engine can be done to a big engine. It can be blown, turboed etc etc etc.



^That

Blackout
05-29-09, 11:09 PM
Anything that can be done to a small engine can be done to a big engine. It can be blown, turboed etc etc etc.

What kind of motors do you think NHRA teams use? Their livelihoods are based on WINNING and they go big or go home.


^That

OMG guys. Thank you sooooooo much for teaching me that you can also modify a big engine just as much as a little engine. Without your combined genius I don't think I could have ever figured that out in a million years. FYI NHRA engines are like million dollars plus each so it's a moot point.

LS1Mike
05-30-09, 12:09 AM
OMG guys. Thank you sooooooo much for teaching me that you can also modify a big engine just as much as a little engine. Without your combined genius I don't think I could have ever figured that out in a million years. FYI NHRA engines are like million dollars plus each so it's a moot point.

How much do you think it cost a 2.0 DSM to run 7.70? How many passes and launches is it good for? 7.70 impressive yes, but I know 4 Cyl Turbos. He is not making many passes before ripping it down and starting over.
Sure it isn't a million dollars, but it might as well be to your AVERAGE joe who is out there on the weekend bracket racing.
For every 7 second DSM I can most likely show you 5 7 second LSX cars.
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/eventcoverage/0906chp_2nd_annual_gm_performance_parts_lsx_shooto ut/index.html
http://www.planetlsx.com/blog/10_Quickest_LSX-Powered_Cars_of_2008/29
http://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-racing-tech/774191-25-5-7-49-second-mustang-lsx-build.html
It is all how you want to spend your money.

thebigjimsho
05-30-09, 12:58 AM
Did someone say the ZR1 is no faster than a Z06? :banghead:

V-Eight
05-30-09, 01:01 AM
Its only .1 second faster on the 0-60

MauiV
05-30-09, 02:01 AM
Most racing organizations LIMIT the size of the engines because they know it would get utterly ridiculous and dangerous. If Formula 1 for example was running 7 liters I cant imagine what those cars would do.

Fnny how the point becomes moot when you lose.

Blackout
05-30-09, 11:37 AM
Most racing organizations LIMIT the size of the engines because they know it would get utterly ridiculous and dangerous. If Formula 1 for example was running 7 liters I cant imagine what those cars would do.

Fnny how the point becomes moot when you lose.

The point becomes moot when you start bringing up million dollar plus engines. Those things are good for a couple of passes and then the whole thing needs to be tore down. John Shepherd's 7 second DSM he actually uses on the road because it's still street legal. I personally have seen him drive it to atco and then race it. Never seen John Force drive his funny car to the track.

Blackout
05-30-09, 11:44 AM
Did someone say the ZR1 is no faster than a Z06? :banghead:

ZR1
0-60 mph in 3.4 seconds
Quarter-mile elapsed time of 11.3 seconds at 131 mph

Z06
0-60 mph time of 3.6 seconds
11.3 seconds 1/4 mile

And GM came out and said that the Z06 was the better track car between the two which makes you wonder wtf the ZR1's purpose is

thebigjimsho
05-30-09, 12:25 PM
ZR1
0-60 mph in 3.4 seconds
Quarter-mile elapsed time of 11.3 seconds at 131 mph

Z06
0-60 mph time of 3.6 seconds
11.3 seconds 1/4 mile

And GM came out and said that the Z06 was the better track car between the two which makes you wonder wtf the ZR1's purpose is
GM said that, huh? I don't know why they would concede that when C&D's number far from corroborate with that statement.

The ZR1 chops .2 seconds to 60. Going from 3.6 to 3.4 is no easy task. It was .7 seconds quicker to 100, 8.3 to 7.6.

Then there is Grattan lap times. A 2.1 second difference! That's huge. There is as much of an improvement from the Z06 to ZR1 as there was from a base Vette to the Z06. Even a modded Katech Z06 couldn't match track times. The g readings and speed were greatest for the ZR1 over all others(including the Katech) at almost every corner of Grattan. And Grattan is track that features numerous off-camber turns where weight is the enemy. Yet, the ZR1 didn't beat, it trounced, the Z06.

gary88
05-30-09, 12:32 PM
I know you shouldn't put much stock in these but...

ZR1 - 7:26.4
Z06 - 7:42.99

Blackout
05-30-09, 12:50 PM
GM said that, huh? I don't know why they would concede that when C&D's number far from corroborate with that statement.

The ZR1 chops .2 seconds to 60. Going from 3.6 to 3.4 is no easy task. It was .7 seconds quicker to 100, 8.3 to 7.6.

Then there is Grattan lap times. A 2.1 second difference! That's huge. There is as much of an improvement from the Z06 to ZR1 as there was from a base Vette to the Z06. Even a modded Katech Z06 couldn't match track times. The g readings and speed were greatest for the ZR1 over all others(including the Katech) at almost every corner of Grattan. And Grattan is track that features numerous off-camber turns where weight is the enemy. Yet, the ZR1 didn't beat, it trounced, the Z06.
Jesus christ. This is my last post in this thread because it's so far beyond what the thread is actually about it's ridiculous. But GM has said multiple times that the Z06 is the more track oriented car and that the ZR1 is more of a GT car. The ZR1 is a faster car once it actually has traction but it wouldn't make for a good track car due to the blower and the heat soak that would eventually catch up with the car while the Z06's N/A and wouldn't have these issues.

V-Eight
05-30-09, 12:56 PM
I thought the ZR1 had better suspension and brakes as well?

thebigjimsho
06-02-09, 02:46 AM
I thought the ZR1 had better suspension and brakes as well?
Doesn't matter. No more turds poasting in this thread so don't worry...

gothicaleigh
06-03-09, 10:15 AM
Go to any automotive forum and do a search for engine swaps. It doesn't matter which brand, tell me what the number one mentioned/suggested engine is.
It sure isn't built by Ford.

When people who know cars have the option of having any powerplant they want in their car, they choose an LS. It is smaller, lighter, has a lower center of gravity, and produces better power for the money than pretty much any other comparable engine out there. It's not just the displacement, it's the whole package that draws people to the LS.


Jesus christ. This is my last post in this thread because it's so far beyond what the thread is actually about it's ridiculous. But GM has said multiple times that the Z06 is the more track oriented car and that the ZR1 is more of a GT car. The ZR1 is a faster car once it actually has traction but it wouldn't make for a good track car due to the blower and the heat soak that would eventually catch up with the car while the Z06's N/A and wouldn't have these issues.

Hard to explain it's exceptional track numbers then, eh?

"The ZR1 will beat the track record for production cars at any road course in the world." ~Tadge Juechter (Corvette Chief Engineer)

So far he has not been proven wrong.

Corvette ZR1 - 7:22.4 (showroom stock setup w/Corvette Racing driver Jan Magnussen)
Corvette ZR1 - 7:26.4 (showroom stock setup w/GM devellopment driver Jim Mero)
Nissan GT-R - 7:27.5 (revised version, new tires, transmission, and suspension) <---keep trying boys, maybe you'll get there before Corvette retunes it's ZR1 :gothiwink:
Nissan GT-R - 7:29 (with scrubbed racing tires)
Nissan GT-R - 7:38 (original version)
Corvette Z06 - 7:42.9 (stock)

MauiV
06-03-09, 12:55 PM
I would like to see the ZR1 on R compounds with full race suspension like the "production" ACR ran at the Ring