: Who here owns a Lincoln Mark VIII?



Jesda
01-08-06, 10:54 AM
Guy at the Mark forum is selling his red '93 with 120k for two grand. No pics yet, but I just emailed him with questions about the suspension and AC. He's in Tulsa OK and willing to drive it here! If their air ride lasts six months, I'll be happy. I cant wait to throw Bulitt wheels on it! :bouncy:

I prefer the sumptuous grand touring goodness of the Seville and Eldo, but with grad school around the corner, I cant afford the maintenance yet. *sigh* I guess I'll put off getting the girl of my dreams and settle for a good lay. ;)

Blackout
01-08-06, 11:00 AM
I would say to stay clear of a 1993 Mark VIII. They were the most problematic. I bought my 95 Mark VIII for $4000 and it only had 87k miles on it.

Jesda
01-08-06, 11:19 AM
What were the big issues in the 93, other than the air ride, AC lines, and shift solenoids?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-08-06, 01:34 PM
I'm not gonna lie, I love Mark VIII's!

I looked at a 1993 with 120k miles on it about 6 months ago, I test drove it too, I really really liked that car. It was powerful, fast, the 4.6 DOHC makes a good sound too, it had a very nice interior, the dash was setup nicely, but I would be a little scepitcal buying a 1993 model, as it was the first year they had them. It takes them about a year or two to work out all the kinks and stuff.
Good Luck!

Blackout
01-08-06, 03:16 PM
Well on top of the stuff that you mentioned I believe there were also some electrical problems as well and I think that there was even a issue with the air suspension but I'm not 100% sure on that one

Jesda
01-08-06, 04:40 PM
It sold. *sigh* Damn me for getting excited.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-08-06, 07:01 PM
That sucks :(


Why not a newer Maxima? You seem to really like the Nissan/Infinitis

JC316
01-08-06, 08:23 PM
Don't worry about it, that car wasn't that great. The transmission was slipping and it had problems starting just before he sold it. There are no known issues with the 93 that dosen't happen with any other year. The marks are quite cheap right now, so another one will come along.

Jesda
01-09-06, 03:12 PM
Update: Its still available! The guy who said it sold was someone else, in another post.

I called and got him down to $1800, but that was until I found out:
-Headliner drooping.
-One dent from shopping cart.
-Rebuilt title. It was a minor rear-ender and needed a new hood, grille, and headlights.
-Air bags leak out a bit after a week.
-Tranny acts funny when cold. It goes back and forth between 3/OD until it gets up to speed. You can manually shift 3 to OD at speed and the symptom goes away. Could need new tranny, could just need new Mercon fluid and a filter (known issue). He has not changed it during his three years of ownership.
-JBL amp needs a few moments to warm up before it comes on.
-Minor PS leak, requiring fluid top off every few months.

On the plus side:
-He's willing to deliver half way to St Louis (400mi total to Tulsa).
-Interior and body good. Clean carpet, clean leather, no paint damage.
-AC works great. Climate control buttons are not cracked (known issue).
-New tires.
-New tstat, water pump, radiator.
-New headlights.
-All power accessories work.

I'm looking at $400-$550 for a used 98+ Mustang GT transmission -- installed, $400 for the coilover conversion kit and a few hours of my time to do that myself. I think if I can get $1200-$1400, I'll take it. I told him I'd decide in about ten days.

He's going to email me some pictures.

What do you guys think?



Additionally, I'm looking at this 4.9 Eldo as a potential fixer-upper, and I missed the $1250 Buy It Now:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1992-cadillac-eldorado-4-9-northstar-v8-car-chevy-leath_W0QQitemZ4602962615QQcategoryZ6147QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem

DBA-One
01-09-06, 03:55 PM
Before I bought my Seville I found a 94 VIII with less than 80k miles at a great price. It was an all options car. Of course when I called on it the byer had just driven away with it.

That Eldorado is funny. A 4.9 Nothrstar?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-09-06, 04:47 PM
Jesda, that sounds like an excellent deal if the Mustang tranny will work! Would you need to change the length of the driveshaft though?
The only real annoying problem (to me anyways) is the sagging headliner, and theres no real fix for that unless you get it reglued. And the salvage title is nothing to really worry about, but its just one of those things that sits in the back of your head.

Go for it! At $1500, that sounds like a good deal!
And 120k miles is pretty low for that car, my coworker has a 1993 with 175k on it and he still drives it daily, and either the air springs still work, or he got 'em converted. He offered it to me for $500, but I dont want to purchase a car that cost $35,000 new for $500. Personally, thats the kind of car I want to spend $5000-$7000 on

JC316
01-10-06, 12:56 AM
Talk to Blackice or Darrin about the 98 Mustang tranny. They can tell you what you need to do to adapt it. I don't think it needs a new tranny, it needs the neutral safty switch replaced. Search MLPS, it's a common problem. BTW I am Portofino Blue over there.

Katshot
01-10-06, 08:06 AM
That's just what those cars need, a manual trans. The only weak spot in that car as far as performance is the start. They're real weak from a dead stop. The manual trans should REALLY wake that car up. You better get the biggest tires you can on it though because they spin the stock ones pretty easily even though the bottom-end is weak. Once you give it the ability to rev on the launch, you'll be ROASTING the tires at will.

Jesda
01-10-06, 09:37 AM
Hmm, O/D switch and MLPS look like possible suspects, except for the problem being temperature-sensitive. :(

After driving a 92 Eldo yesterday, I fell in love. If only I could afford the surgery to extend my legs and reach the damn pedals. *sigh*
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62371

Blackout
01-10-06, 03:04 PM
I did the MLPS on my Mark VIII and it made a slight difference nothing major. What the issue for the 1st gen's is the trans fluid pan. It isn't deep enough and when you make a right turn all the fluid goes to the one side and it causes the tranny to hesitate. I have the updated tranny pan if your interested.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-10-06, 03:20 PM
After driving a 92 Eldo yesterday, I fell in love.

Just wait til you drive one with the N*! :D

JC316
01-10-06, 03:29 PM
What the issue for the 1st gen's is the trans fluid pan. It isn't deep enough and when you make a right turn all the fluid goes to the one side and it causes the tranny to hesitate.

This is very true, mine had that problem. Mine needed the MLPS and it had severe gear hunting once it got warmed up. When it was cold, it ran fine. I think it has something to do with the electronics in the MLPS. I know of two people that have put a 5spd manual in a Mark. They said that it is pretty damn quick off the line. The Mark's powerband is in second and third, my N*'s powerband is 1st and 2nd. Nothing I have driven quite beats the sound of the 280 horses revving up under the hood of the Mark, they are really great cars. My biggest problem with it was the lack of headroom (Mine is really bad due to a sunroof). It caused me to have to put the seat in an uncomfortable position, so my head didn't bounce off the roof over bad bumps.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-10-06, 05:04 PM
The 4.6 Intech V8 has a nice smooth burble to it, where as the Northstar has a mean sounding growl (but still nice) to it. Atleast thats how it sounded in the 1995 Eldorado I drove last week.

Katshot
01-10-06, 05:42 PM
I'd love to drive a MKVIII with a manual trans. Must go like hell!

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-10-06, 05:53 PM
Correct me if I am wrong

The Mark VIII's have a lot of their power at highway speeds in 2nd and 3rd gear, and are lacking in "off the line" power
whereas
The N* Eldorados have more power than the Mark VIII's around town, and are about the same for highway acceleration.

Katshot
01-10-06, 06:07 PM
IMO, the MKVIII has more power everywhere other than off the line and that's just due to the 4.6's powerband. With a high stall converter and taller gears, they launch great but if you REALLY want to see a DOHC 4.6 roar, give it a manual trans so it can rev off the line. The manual trans "should" cure the one obstacle the car has for great 1/4 mile times.

Blackout
01-10-06, 06:15 PM
Correct me if I am wrong

The Mark VIII's have a lot of their power at highway speeds in 2nd and 3rd gear, and are lacking in "off the line" power
whereas
The N* Eldorados have more power than the Mark VIII's around town, and are about the same for highway acceleration.The problem with the 4.6 is that all of its power is from about 3000 rpm and above and with having an auto that doesn't help it much at all. Atleast with a stick you can rev it up and get it in its powerband off the line. But the Mark VIII rules from a roll. I've beaten many a car from a roll with my Mark and surprised many a car as well. My friend has a 2002 Mustang GT Vert with a 5 speed manual, Bassani exhaust, and CAI and we raced from a roll and we were dead even until he hit 5th gear and I walked by him like he was in reverse. My buddies 2005 Dodge SRT-4 I have beaten everytime and he didn't want to race me anymore. A guy I raced that had a modded 2001 Honda S2000 could get by me either and then we got done racing and we chatted and now were good friends, but I never let him off the hook to losing to a old mans car:bouncy: My favorite thing was to get it up to 70 mph and throw the car into 2nd gear and keep the rev's up at 4000 and hit it and OHHHH WEEEE!!!!! Would she take off like a bat out of hell!! That damn speed limiter would come to damn fast!

Jesda
01-11-06, 08:30 AM
After extensively driving a friend's 93 this year, I honestly can't say that the Mark is lacking power anywhere, at all. The gearing makes for excellent fuel economy, 27mpg at 70mph.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-12-06, 12:55 AM
Hey Jesda, I know its random but heres an Idea!

Infiniti I35!

Its halfway between the maxima you have (except its newer) and the Q45 you had.

Infiniti's jazzed up Maxima

Jesda
01-14-06, 07:15 PM
I do love the body and interior and features of the I35, but that crappy wagon-like rear axle in a luxury car is a joke! I think out of the FWD entry-luxury cars from Japan, my favorite is the Mazda Millenia.

davesdeville
01-19-06, 06:42 AM
This may be a little old of a thread but I'm still sticking my $.02 in, even though it looks like Jesda has a Continental (congratulations.) The Mark's 4.6 is similar to the northstar. I've driven both cars fairly extensively, raced my ETC against my friend's Mark, and driven the Mark against my ETC even. The Mark with stock gears is fairly weak on the low end, but then again so is the northstar. The northstar revs out 500rpm over the Ford 4.6 and does have better top end. Without 3.71s it would be a real slouch from a stop.

Gears aren't an option for N* cars, but they sure are for Mark VIIIs. Higher stall convertors are available for both cars... A manual swap is possible with both cars, though it seems it would be quite a bit easier with the Mark.

Blackout
01-20-06, 07:01 AM
This may be a little old of a thread but I'm still sticking my $.02 in, even though it looks like Jesda has a Continental (congratulations.) The Mark's 4.6 is similar to the northstar. I've driven both cars fairly extensively, raced my ETC against my friend's Mark, and driven the Mark against my ETC even. The Mark with stock gears is fairly weak on the low end, but then again so is the northstar. The northstar revs out 500rpm over the Ford 4.6 and does have better top end. Without 3.71s it would be a real slouch from a stop.

Gears aren't an option for N* cars, but they sure are for Mark VIIIs. Higher stall convertors are available for both cars... A manual swap is possible with both cars, though it seems it would be quite a bit easier with the Mark.I would have to disagree with you with the N* having a better top end. Ford brought a stock Mark VIII to the salt flats and took off the speed limiter and it said a new record for its class with having a top speed of 181.717 mph in stock trim.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-22-06, 01:00 AM
I wouldnt say that the N* had a lack of low end power at all.

The 95 Eldorado with the 275hp N* had about 90% of the low end torque of my 4.9. Infact a N* will almost keep up with a 4.9 off the line.

The N* seems like its lacking on the low end because it's got such a good top end.

davesdeville
01-22-06, 05:58 AM
I would have to disagree with you with the N* having a better top end. Ford brought a stock Mark VIII to the salt flats and took off the speed limiter and it said a new record for its class with having a top speed of 181.717 mph in stock trim.

That's nice. If I put a Northstar in a streamliner, it would do well over 200. Doesn't prove anything about top end power. Fact is, the northstar revs out 500rpm higher than the Ford's 4.6, and it's peak HP is several hundred RPMs higher as well.

Katshot
01-22-06, 07:06 AM
That's nice. If I put a Northstar in a streamliner, it would do well over 200. Doesn't prove anything about top end power. Fact is, the northstar revs out 500rpm higher than the Ford's 4.6, and it's peak HP is several hundred RPMs higher as well.

I'm not sure what you're talking about Dave. What do you mean it "revs out" 500rpm higher?
The specs I have don't show anything like that. If you compare the MKVIII to it's Cadillac counterpart, the ETC, the max horsepower points are only 250rpm higher for the ETC and max Torque is attained at 100rpm LOWER than the MKVIII. To be honest, I'm not sure what all this has to do with this discussion since the Lincoln has much taller gears and has less peak power than the ETC. I think there's enough variables for you to not be able to draw the conclusions you seem to have.

Blackout
01-22-06, 03:39 PM
That's nice. If I put a Northstar in a streamliner, it would do well over 200. Doesn't prove anything about top end power. Fact is, the northstar revs out 500rpm higher than the Ford's 4.6, and it's peak HP is several hundred RPMs higher as well.WTF does a N* in a streamliner have to do with anything? I'm talking stock for stock the Mark VIII has a better top end then a N* ETC, STS, etc.

Jesda
01-22-06, 08:30 PM
I generally prefer the N* for performance, but the 4.6 leaks less and has fewer issues (no issues) with head gaskets.

davesdeville
01-23-06, 03:06 AM
WTF does a N* in a streamliner have to do with anything? I'm talking stock for stock the Mark VIII has a better top end then a N* ETC, STS, etc.

Your example of the Mark going 180 doesn't have a lot to do with the top end power of the motor (which is what I was talking about in my first post.) It's simply a more aerodynamic car.

Kevin, redline is 500rpm higher (6500) on the Northstar, compared to the 6000rpm redline on the Mark. As you said the peak HP is at a higher RPM with a Northstar. And after driving both I'd say it's enough info to say that if anything the Northstar has better top end power than the "Intech" 4.6 in the Mark VIII.

If you say the Mark has a higher top speed it wouldn't surprise me too much. Are all of them limited to 140 stock or are there un-limited versions like my ETC? The "stock" Mark VIII that ran 181 can not exactly have been stock, I mean hell the older 450hp vipers couldn't manage 181 - that's more power and similar if not better aerodynamics.

Blackout
01-23-06, 05:40 AM
The Mark VIII's were limited too 126mph. All Ford did with the Mark VIII was put on dropped speed rated tires and a roll cage and let it loose on the Salt Flats. Here's the certificate:

http://www.markviii.org/LOD2/images_marks/bonneville_plaque.jpg

But after racing a DTS as well as a STS from a roll I never had an issue with beating one. But who knows. We can go back and forth saying this car has a better top end then that car all day.

Katshot
01-23-06, 07:56 AM
Your example of the Mark going 180 doesn't have a lot to do with the top end power of the motor (which is what I was talking about in my first post.) It's simply a more aerodynamic car.

Kevin, redline is 500rpm higher (6500) on the Northstar, compared to the 6000rpm redline on the Mark. As you said the peak HP is at a higher RPM with a Northstar. And after driving both I'd say it's enough info to say that if anything the Northstar has better top end power than the "Intech" 4.6 in the Mark VIII.

If you say the Mark has a higher top speed it wouldn't surprise me too much. Are all of them limited to 140 stock or are there un-limited versions like my ETC? The "stock" Mark VIII that ran 181 can not exactly have been stock, I mean hell the older 450hp vipers couldn't manage 181 - that's more power and similar if not better aerodynamics.

Dave,
I'm not sure why you think the higher redline means anything with respect to top-end power. Revving the Northstar past 6000rpm (where it's making it's max power) will only translate to a gradual LOSS of power. Personally, I've never been in an un-governed Northstar car at or near it's top speed but I'd be willing to bet that it "probably" won't make it to 6000rpm in top gear, let alone anywhere near it's 6500rpm redline. I doubt the MKVIII would either so this arguement is rather silly. Be that as it may, I HAVE driven both cars and my 2 cents is that the Northstar cars are much stronger off the line but the Lincoln feels stronger at anything above a crawl. And definately, on the highway, I think the MKVIII will pull away from a ETC or STS.

Another point that seems to have been over-looked is that of max. TORQUE. On these two cars it is at a much lower rpm than max HP and while the Caddy reaches max. HP at a higher rpm than the Lincoln, the Lincoln actually reaches it's max. TORQUE at a higher rpm than the Caddy. Again, like I said before, there's so many variables in this comparison that it's very difficult to make any "absolute" conclusions.

Haleykeek
01-23-06, 07:01 PM
WTF does a N* in a streamliner have to do with anything? I'm talking stock for stock the Mark VIII has a better top end then a N* ETC, STS, etc. i'm no expert in this matter,but i can tell you this,i've never had to follow a Lincoln in my 94 STS,and yes some are fairly quick.from what i read on the Lincoln,they peaked out to 290bhp in the Mark VIII(still not quite 300bhp like the Cadillacs).and no the Lincoln engine is'nt exactly similiar to the Cobra engine,so don't even go there.at least Cadillac did in fact build a legitimate "stock out of the box" 300bhp motor.Lincoln could'nt match the Eldo's,and STS's power.it was only when a grease-monkey took his/her wrench to those cars,and tried to make them run "half way decent".i would'nt be caught riding in a Mark VIII.all the one's i see,usually be dragging the bottom end.i guess it's because that useless goofy looking airbag system finally collapsed.what a joke!!!!!! Lincoln was embarassed as usual with that ugly car.i guess that's why they're dead,and rusting away.

Blackout
01-23-06, 09:21 PM
i'm no expert in this matter,but i can tell you this,i've never had to follow a Lincoln in my 94 STS,and yes some are fairly quick.from what i read on the Lincoln,they peaked out to 290bhp in the Mark VIII(still not quite 300bhp like the Cadillacs).and no the Lincoln engine is'nt exactly similiar to the Cobra engine,so don't even go there.at least Cadillac did in fact build a legitimate "stock out of the box" 300bhp motor.Lincoln could'nt match the Eldo's,and STS's power.it was only when a grease-monkey took his/her wrench to those cars,and tried to make them run "half way decent".i would'nt be caught riding in a Mark VIII.all the one's i see,usually be dragging the bottom end.i guess it's because that useless goofy looking airbag system finally collapsed.what a joke!!!!!! Lincoln was embarassed as usual with that ugly car.i guess that's why they're dead,and rusting away.So lets see......your no expert in the manner but yet you claim you know all this stuff and are quick to call a car a joke and the company being embarrassed about it. Your knowledge on either one of these cars or engine's is probably so minute that you had to go online and look up the power out put of each. And what do you mean the Lincoln's engine isn't exectly similar to a Cobra engine? The only difference's are the bottom end and the heads. They are identical down to the bore and stroke, compression ratio, etc. The only thing that killed the Mark VIII from a performance stand point was it had a automatic. In my stock 1995 Mark VIII with a slipping transmission and a bad MLPS sensor and really crappy tires I ran a 14.921. Guys in stock LSC's have run as fast as 14.2 in stock trim. But at the end of the day I'll take a RWD, less hp engine that runs faster then a more powerful FWD car anyday of the week.

Blackout
01-23-06, 09:28 PM
In 1993, Ford released the all-aluminum DOHC 4.6 in the Lincoln Mark VIII, which became the predecessor to the Cobra V-8. Taken straight from Mucle Mustangs and Fast Fords website.
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/tech/0302MMFF_MixMatch/
do your homework before you run off with the mouth

http://www.answers.com/topic/ford-modular-engine

Here's another good link so you can brush up on the 4.6

I~LUV~Caddys8792
01-23-06, 09:41 PM
Yeah the Mark VIII's are pretty great cars, His review was extremely biased and opinionated..

FYI, the VIII died because of a diminishing market segment, same with the Eldorado and Riviera.

Blackout
01-23-06, 09:56 PM
Yeah the Mark VIII's are pretty great cars, His review was extremely biased and opinionated..
FYI, the VIII died because of a diminishing market segment, same with the Eldorado and Riviera.Exactly. Nobody really wanted 2 door cars anymore. At the time that was when the SUV's were starting to get big and everybody wanted 4 door cars.

davesdeville
01-24-06, 04:26 AM
Dave,
I'm not sure why you think the higher redline means anything with respect to top-end power. Revving the Northstar past 6000rpm (where it's making it's max power) will only translate to a gradual LOSS of power. Personally, I've never been in an un-governed Northstar car at or near it's top speed but I'd be willing to bet that it "probably" won't make it to 6000rpm in top gear, let alone anywhere near it's 6500rpm redline. I doubt the MKVIII would either so this arguement is rather silly.

Yes revving it out past 6000 means a loss of power... hence the peak power being listed as 300 at 6000rpm. Less of a loss of power than shifting though. My particular ETC likes to shift at about 6100 in D and 6500 in 1 or 2... holding it to 6500 is worth 2 tenths. The extra 500rpm do make a good difference.


Be that as it may, I HAVE driven both cars and my 2 cents is that the Northstar cars are much stronger off the line but the Lincoln feels stronger at anything above a crawl. And definately, on the highway, I think the MKVIII will pull away from a ETC or STS.

Like I've said I've driven both as well. Funny I've experianced the opposite being true, the Mark gets a lil jump off the line (even with RT being similar) and I reel it in and pass around the 660' mark.

I guess there's only one way to really determine it. Sometime in late Feb I'm expecting my friend with the Mark VIII to return from Phoenix for a few days. I *might* go visit him out there. Either way, next time we'll do a few races from a dig, couple from a 25 roll, couple from a 60 roll, maybe even a 100 roll and get it on video. We're both stock, with the exception of my Magnaflows (on stock pipes) and his lack of mufflers. (The car is surprisingly rather quiet inside and out for having no mufflers.) He's got a video camera, I've got RCA inputs on my video card.


Another point that seems to have been over-looked is that of max. TORQUE. On these two cars it is at a much lower rpm than max HP and while the Caddy reaches max. HP at a higher rpm than the Lincoln, the Lincoln actually reaches it's max. TORQUE at a higher rpm than the Caddy. Again, like I said before, there's so many variables in this comparison that it's very difficult to make any "absolute" conclusions.

Max torque at a higher RPM isn't necissarily a good thing though...


Blackout, sorry, that is far from a stock Mark VIII. If you truly believe it's stock I think that's a bit foolish. I sniffed around markviii.org and even many of them don't think it's stock... heard plenty of things people there were "remembering" IE narrower tires, lowered 4," straight pipes, etc. Who knows what the real deal is with that run, but as far as I'm concerned it can not be a stock 280hp car with that much frontal surface area (it's no small car) pulling 181mph... even with a coefficent of drag as low as the Mark must be.

Blackout
01-24-06, 05:43 AM
Like I've said I've driven both as well. Funny I've experianced the opposite being true, the Mark gets a lil jump off the line (even with RT being similar) and I reel it in and pass around the 660' mark.
I guess there's only one way to really determine it. Sometime in late Feb I'm expecting my friend with the Mark VIII to return from Phoenix for a few days. I *might* go visit him out there. Either way, next time we'll do a few races from a dig, couple from a 25 roll, couple from a 60 roll, maybe even a 100 roll and get it on video. We're both stock, with the exception of my Magnaflows (on stock pipes) and his lack of mufflers. (The car is surprisingly rather quiet inside and out for having no mufflers.) He's got a video camera, I've got RCA inputs on my video card.If a Mark VIII is able to get the jump on you from the line then thats sad because the Mark VIII has very little power down low and gets off the line like a slug.


Max torque at a higher RPM isn't necissarily a good thing though...True but when racing from a roll having the max tq up high is better then having it down low which would give the Mark a better advantage.


Blackout, sorry, that is far from a stock Mark VIII. If you truly believe it's stock I think that's a bit foolish. I sniffed around markviii.org and even many of them don't think it's stock... heard plenty of things people there were "remembering" IE narrower tires, lowered 4," straight pipes, etc. Who knows what the real deal is with that run, but as far as I'm concerned it can not be a stock 280hp car with that much frontal surface area (it's no small car) pulling 181mph... even with a coefficent of drag as low as the Mark must be.After digging into it more this is what I found:
The engine was bone stock. All that was done to it was it being blue printed.
It had no cat's and a dual exhaust.
The engine made 290-295 hp on the dyno
The transmission was stock but they did search for rotating parts that had no imbalance and no runout on the shafts. Then we built the transmission with high clearance on the clutches and bands that would not be applied during the 3rd gear runs.
The air suspension, which normally lowers the car about 20 mm when you get above a speed, was set to lower the car another 25 mm so the car would drop almost 2” from it’s static ride height.
Aside from this, the only other changes to the car itself were removed rear brakes (for less drag), removed side view mirrors, some fabricated “belly pans” for under the car and some kind of air deflector behind the grill, and the skinny Bonneville tires. (Of course the car had a roll cage and a two-piece driveshaft).

So in actuality there wasn't anything huge done to the car. Stock motor with no performance parts, a redone tranny, and they had the drop an extra 25mm. So basically 90% of the guys over at LVC have these similar mods done and some have more done to their cars. But either way, Ford took home the plaque and a new record for their class. Does GM or Cadillac have that with a N* powered vehicle? Oh and with Bonneville having 4300 ft above sea level that 290 hp that Mark was putting out when they dynoed it was now 255-260 hp.

EDIT: After reading more the car did run in the high 160 mph range with regular street legal Goodyear GSC's from the Corvette since that was the only tire approved for these speeds on the Mark and the side mirrors on. They then took the mirrors off and put on the skinny Bonneville tires and it ran 178 mph but they couldn't back up the run do to an issue at the track. So they then took off the rear brakes and its first run recorded a 180.794 and then backed up the time with a run of 182.694 for an average speed of 181.717 mph.

Katshot
01-24-06, 06:07 AM
Yes revving it out past 6000 means a loss of power... hence the peak power being listed as 300 at 6000rpm. Less of a loss of power than shifting though. My particular ETC likes to shift at about 6100 in D and 6500 in 1 or 2... holding it to 6500 is worth 2 tenths. The extra 500rpm do make a good difference.
Like I've said I've driven both as well. Funny I've experianced the opposite being true, the Mark gets a lil jump off the line (even with RT being similar) and I reel it in and pass around the 660' mark.
I guess there's only one way to really determine it. Sometime in late Feb I'm expecting my friend with the Mark VIII to return from Phoenix for a few days. I *might* go visit him out there. Either way, next time we'll do a few races from a dig, couple from a 25 roll, couple from a 60 roll, maybe even a 100 roll and get it on video. We're both stock, with the exception of my Magnaflows (on stock pipes) and his lack of mufflers. (The car is surprisingly rather quiet inside and out for having no mufflers.) He's got a video camera, I've got RCA inputs on my video card.
Max torque at a higher RPM isn't necissarily a good thing though...
Blackout, sorry, that is far from a stock Mark VIII. If you truly believe it's stock I think that's a bit foolish. I sniffed around markviii.org and even many of them don't think it's stock... heard plenty of things people there were "remembering" IE narrower tires, lowered 4," straight pipes, etc. Who knows what the real deal is with that run, but as far as I'm concerned it can not be a stock 280hp car with that much frontal surface area (it's no small car) pulling 181mph... even with a coefficent of drag as low as the Mark must be.

Dave,
Your post is confusing. You original issue was top-end power, no 1/4 mile runs. I admit that in stock form the Caddy will pull the MKVIII in the 1/4 due to it's lack of off the line power. In your statement about your car shifting a few hundred rpm past peak power, and how it nets you a better 1/4 mile run is misleading. I hope you realize that by hanging the shift slightly beyond peak power, the loss of power is more than offset by getting further into the meat of the following gears's powerband. Obviously, that has nothing to do with our original issue since the car will already be in it's top gear. What's at issue here is what each car will do in it's top gear at well past the 100mph mark. At the very least, I'd maybe give you that we might be talking having to go through the last shift. You also seem to be forgetting that the MKVIII driver can do exactly what you do and hold his shift manually too in which case your "revving past peak power" theory will work equally well for either car.
To be honest, I think it's quite obvious that you're going to keep twisting the scenario around in an effort to imply an advantage for your Caddy so I think it's time to just let this one go. Have fun racing your freind. Do yourself a favor though, race him from a dead stop if you want to retain your ego.

Blackout
01-24-06, 06:53 AM
Hell the day me and Katshot went to go pick up my Mark VIII on the way home we played around from a roll and we hit it and I was inching away from him in stock trim. We then raced from a dead stop another time and that out come was ummm......different to say the least

Katshot
01-24-06, 07:25 AM
Yeah it was! I left that Lincoln for DEAD!!! :histeric:

Randy_W
01-24-06, 11:04 AM
Just for the sake of argument, several times it has been said the Ford would benefit from a manual transmission. Guess what people, so would the Northstar!:stirpot:

Katshot
01-24-06, 01:12 PM
Just for the sake of argument, several times it has been said the Ford would benefit from a manual transmission. Guess what people, so would the Northstar!:stirpot:

Ya know, I wouldn't bet that it would benefit much if any at all Randy. The engine's calibrated flowrate is set to work quite well with an automatic. I really don't think the road to performance increases in the Northstar cars lyes in the transmission choice.
On the other hand, the Ford is definately hampered by the automatic (and the tall gears). A high-stall converter makes a huge difference in those cars, as does some shorter gears. But with a nice 6-speed manual, the flowrate of the engine AND the tall gears are actually pretty good.

davesdeville
01-24-06, 09:18 PM
Dave,
Your post is confusing. You original issue was top-end power, no 1/4 mile runs. I admit that in stock form the Caddy will pull the MKVIII in the 1/4 due to it's lack of off the line power. In your statement about your car shifting a few hundred rpm past peak power, and how it nets you a better 1/4 mile run is misleading. I hope you realize that by hanging the shift slightly beyond peak power, the loss of power is more than offset by getting further into the meat of the following gears's powerband. Obviously, that has nothing to do with our original issue since the car will already be in it's top gear. What's at issue here is what each car will do in it's top gear at well past the 100mph mark. At the very least, I'd maybe give you that we might be talking having to go through the last shift. You also seem to be forgetting that the MKVIII driver can do exactly what you do and hold his shift manually too in which case your "revving past peak power" theory will work equally well for either car.
To be honest, I think it's quite obvious that you're going to keep twisting the scenario around in an effort to imply an advantage for your Caddy so I think it's time to just let this one go. Have fun racing your freind. Do yourself a favor though, race him from a dead stop if you want to retain your ego.

Yes I admit my post is kinda confusing. I've just gotten the feeling driving these cars that a northstar pulls harder at the top end, trying to explain reasons why it might be that way...

Sure the driver in the Mark can shift higher than peak. It'll go to 6k and shift itself.

I've already beaten the Mark every time we've raced except once, so my ego can take it if I lose from a roll. I'll be doing it to see what happens, not nessicarily to get a win.


If a Mark VIII is able to get the jump on you from the line then thats sad because the Mark VIII has very little power down low and gets off the line like a slug.

BOTH of them suck off the line, neither of them have great power down low, both get off the line like a slug. The Northstar is no better than the Mark down low, the 3.71s help the Northstar, RWD helps the Mark. If the Mark's 4.6 is such a top end beast as you're saying, isn't it sad that I catch and pass him later on?


A high-stall converter makes a huge difference in those cars, as does some shorter gears.

As they would in any automatic...

Blackout
01-24-06, 10:36 PM
Yes I admit my post is kinda confusing. I've just gotten the feeling driving these cars that a northstar pulls harder at the top end, trying to explain reasons why it might be that way...
Sure the driver in the Mark can shift higher than peak. It'll go to 6k and shift itself.Why would the car shift itself once it hits 6k? If your manually rowing the gears on the Northstar I guess that means that that can only happen on a N* equipped car? I've revved my Mark past redline a few times at the dragstrip. The only reason why your getting better ET's out of it is because if you left it in Drive and once you hit redline it shifts gears. Well its not instant that the car goes from one gear to another there is a slight delay. Back when I had my Spec V I would be so close to the end of the 1/4 but I would have to throw it in 4th because if not I would have bounced off the rev limiter and that takes the car out of its power band and slows it down and it killed my ET's. If it wasn't for the rev limiter I could have hit 14.9 or 15.0 in stock trim. Your not grasping the point. Just because you can rev it that extra 500 rpm doesn't mean your going faster.


I've already beaten the Mark every time we've raced except once, so my ego can take it if I lose from a roll. I'll be doing it to see what happens, not nessicarily to get a win.When you raced your buddies Mark did you tell him to turn off the O/D, turn off the traction control, and to manually row the gears? I remember you saying something like you didn't want to tell him that or something along those lines. Because if your friend is just putting it in drive then he's going to run slower times. The reason why you are beating the Mark's in the top end is because they're probably ahead of you and they hit the rev limiter and you go on by and you think your car has the better top end. If the Mark was speed limited all you would see is tail lights the whole time


If the Mark's 4.6 is such a top end beast as you're saying, isn't it sad that I catch and pass him later on?There are so many equations that could play into that. I've raced a handful of Northstar's and I've beaten them all. The closest one was a ETC but by the time my speed limiter kicked in I had about a car length on him. But 2 STS's, 1 DTS's, 1 SLS's, and 1 plain Eldorado later I have yet to lose to one.

As they would in any automatic...Not in the case of the Mark.

davesdeville
01-25-06, 03:15 AM
Why would the car shift itself once it hits 6k? If your manually rowing the gears on the Northstar I guess that means that that can only happen on a N* equipped car? I've revved my Mark past redline a few times at the dragstrip. The only reason why your getting better ET's out of it is because if you left it in Drive and once you hit redline it shifts gears. Well its not instant that the car goes from one gear to another there is a slight delay. Back when I had my Spec V I would be so close to the end of the 1/4 but I would have to throw it in 4th because if not I would have bounced off the rev limiter and that takes the car out of its power band and slows it down and it killed my ET's. If it wasn't for the rev limiter I could have hit 14.9 or 15.0 in stock trim. Your not grasping the point. Just because you can rev it that extra 500 rpm doesn't mean your going faster.

What year Mark VIII did you have again? As far as I remember my friend's 96 will shift itself at 6k, although I don't remember if it will do this on the 2-3 shift. BTW I'm not actually manually shifting the gears... just holding it in 1 and letting the computer shift it at 6500 (which is redline.) When it's in drive, it shifts at 6100 or so - 400 below redline.

Your dad might be right however, that I don't go faster because of the extra 500rpm, instead that I go faster because after the shift I'm 500rpm higher into the powerband...



When you raced your buddies Mark did you tell him to turn off the O/D, turn off the traction control, and to manually row the gears? I remember you saying something like you didn't want to tell him that or something along those lines. Because if your friend is just putting it in drive then he's going to run slower times.

The two times I was at the dragstrip at the same time he was with his car, he and I tested out the idea and going through the gears manually (he always has traction assist off, always races with OD off.. In his Mark, there is no "1" position on the shifter; manually controlling the 1-2 shift isn't really possible, regardless of where the shifter is it shifts at 6k (its redline) every time.


The reason why you are beating the Mark's in the top end is because they're probably ahead of you and they hit the rev limiter and you go on by and you think your car has the better top end.

Exactly how is the Mark hitting the rev limiter at 6k where it shifts?


If the Mark was speed limited all you would see is tail lights the whole time

What in the blue hell does a speed limiter have to do with me racing a Mark at speeds under the limiter? Like I said I reel the Mark in by the 660' mark (never get far enough behind to actually see taillights unless my RT is horrible,) and we all know these cars aren't anywhere near a speed limiter at that point.


There are so many equations that could play into that. I've raced a handful of Northstar's and I've beaten them all. The closest one was a ETC but by the time my speed limiter kicked in I had about a car length on him. But 2 STS's, 1 DTS's, 1 SLS's, and 1 plain Eldorado later I have yet to lose to one.

Ok, that's good. So when you raced these northstar cars, who won off the line? Who pulled on whom at higher speeds?


Not in the case of the Mark.
What do you mean not in the case of the Mark? You're saying a stall and gears WON'T help a Mark? I'm saying they'll help any automatic if that was unclear.

Blackout
01-25-06, 05:45 AM
What year Mark VIII did you have again?I had a 1995 base model.


As far as I remember my friend's 96 will shift itself at 6k, although I don't remember if it will do this on the 2-3 shift. BTW I'm not actually manually shifting the gears... just holding it in 1 and letting the computer shift it at 6500 (which is redline.) When it's in drive, it shifts at 6100 or so - 400 below redline.I've only brought the car past redline a handful of times. All it does is hit the rev limiter and stop.


Your dad might be right however, that I don't go faster because of the extra 500rpm, instead that I go faster because after the shift I'm 500rpm higher into the powerband...Its not that it might be the case. It is the case.


The two times I was at the dragstrip at the same time he was with his car, he and I tested out the idea and going through the gears manually (he always has traction assist off, always races with OD off.. In his Mark, there is no "1" position on the shifter; manually controlling the 1-2 shift isn't really possible, regardless of where the shifter is it shifts at 6k (its redline) every time.Ummm.....if he doesn't have a 1 position then something is up with the car. The Mark's have a 1, 2 gear option and then for third you just throw it in drive. In the Mark's case manually rowing the gears nets you much better times. My best time in drive was a 15.1. While rowing the gears I was breathing on a 14.8.


Exactly how is the Mark hitting the rev limiter at 6k where it shifts?My bad I meant to say the speed limiter not the rev limiter.


What in the blue hell does a speed limiter have to do with me racing a Mark at speeds under the limiter? Like I said I reel the Mark in by the 660' mark (never get far enough behind to actually see taillights unless my RT is horrible,) and we all know these cars aren't anywhere near a speed limiter at that point.Once again you keep going back to the 1/4 races. Were talking about racing from a roll and who has the better power at top end. Not the top end of the 1/4. When I ran my 14.921 my trap speed was 96.75 mph. Now if you know how to propperly read a 1/4 slip with a ET of that but with a trap speed that high it shows you that the car is a dog off the line but is pulling hard once it gets up and going. When Katshot ran his 14.5 I believe his trap speed was only like 97-98 mph.



Ok, that's good. So when you raced these northstar cars, who won off the line? Who pulled on whom at higher speeds?I only raced one N* car froma dead stop and that was a DTS and I beat him pretty good. The other's I raced from a roll and all they saw was tailights until my speed limiter kicked in



What do you mean not in the case of the Mark? You're saying a stall and gears WON'T help a Mark? I'm saying they'll help any automatic if that was unclear.I miss read what you meant. For some reason I thought you meant that having an automatic on the Mark would mean that it was setup for an automatic and a stick wouldn't net you much of a difference. Sorry for the confusion.

davesdeville
01-26-06, 02:10 AM
Ummm.....if he doesn't have a 1 position then something is up with the car. The Mark's have a 1, 2 gear option and then for third you just throw it in drive. In the Mark's case manually rowing the gears nets you much better times. My best time in drive was a 15.1. While rowing the gears I was breathing on a 14.8.

I was wrong it does have a 1 and a 2, I knew it had 3 positions but the light's burned out and I've never noticed it in the day. My mistake. From what I remember it still shifts at 6k regardless of what you do with the shifter. (Just about every electronically controlled automatic I've driven shifts itself before the rev limiter.) His is a 96 btw.


Once again you keep going back to the 1/4 races. Were talking about racing from a roll and who has the better power at top end. Not the top end of the 1/4. When I ran my 14.921 my trap speed was 96.75 mph. Now if you know how to propperly read a 1/4 slip with a ET of that but with a trap speed that high it shows you that the car is a dog off the line but is pulling hard once it gets up and going. When Katshot ran his 14.5 I believe his trap speed was only like 97-98 mph.

Well I'm going back to 1/4 mile racing because you get hard data from a 1/4 mile run. I honestly don't remember what he was trapping, I don't think it was higher than mine. I'll have to remember to ask next time I talk to him, alont with 60' times. My 60's were within .5 of 2.4, now that's a dog off the line, I was trapping at 90. (Keep in mind I'm at altitude.)



I miss read what you meant. For some reason I thought you meant that having an automatic on the Mark would mean that it was setup for an automatic and a stick wouldn't net you much of a difference. Sorry for the confusion.

Sorry if I worded it wrong but at least we agree there. :)

Randy_W
01-26-06, 07:40 AM
Ya know, I wouldn't bet that it would benefit much if any at all Randy. The engine's calibrated flowrate is set to work quite well with an automatic. I really don't think the road to performance increases in the Northstar cars lyes in the transmission choice.


Well one 'assume' that the pcm would be calibrated to take advantage of the manual if that were the transmission used. I have yet to meet a small high revving engine that would not benefit from a manual transmission, if properly driven.

Jesda
01-29-06, 07:04 AM
Lets toss in a BMW 540i, first-generation Infiniti Q45, and Audi A8 4.2 into the discussion just for fun.

Katshot
01-29-06, 07:22 AM
Well one 'assume' that the pcm would be calibrated to take advantage of the manual if that were the transmission used. I have yet to meet a small high revving engine that would not benefit from a manual transmission, if properly driven.

It's not actually the PCM that's the issue here. Engines with low, flat powerbands do better with automatics, and engines with narrow, peaky powerbands do better with manuals. Two cars that come to mind that illustrate this point quite well are the LT1-powered Fleetwood and the Mercury Marauder. IMO, the Fleetwood would not benefit much (if at all) from a manual because the powerband is low and flat. On the other hand, the Marauder would be helped out greatly because it's engine has a rather weak low rpm range. I think this theory also proven by the '05 GTO where the low, flat powerband of the LS2 engine allows the car to take full advantage of an automatic, and in that application, the automatic car is quicker than the manual version in both 0-60 and 1/4 mile.

Randy_W
01-29-06, 11:22 AM
It's not actually the PCM that's the issue here. Engines with low, flat powerbands do better with automatics, and engines with narrow, peaky powerbands do better with manuals. Two cars that come to mind that illustrate this point quite well are the LT1-powered Fleetwood and the Mercury Marauder. IMO, the Fleetwood would not benefit much (if at all) from a manual because the powerband is low and flat. On the other hand, the Marauder would be helped out greatly because it's engine has a rather weak low rpm range. I think this theory also proven by the '05 GTO where the low, flat powerband of the LS2 engine allows the car to take full advantage of an automatic, and in that application, the automatic car is quicker than the manual version in both 0-60 and 1/4 mile.

It's true that the GTO is quicker with the auto, but the LS2 is anything but a small high revving engine. It revs alright, but it's not small. Even in the case of the GTO the manual puts more horsepower to the rear wheels but the traction control program in the pcm makes the automatic car a point and shoot affair when it comes to laucnhing it, the manual still requires driver input to properly launch. If you check the trap speed, the manual is faster indicating higher horsepower output to the wheels. As a rule, the smaller the displacement the more it will benefit from a manual tranny. That's not my opinion, that's fact. I owned an LT1/4L60E equipped '67 Impala SS for over 5 years, my son had '96 LT1 Formula Ram Air with M6. I can tell you that his car was quicker than the same car with an automatic.

The pcm is an issue as well, fuel and timing curves are quite different from manual to automatic. Having done several late model efi engine conversions into other vehicles requiring custom tuning, I can tell you the pcm matters.

Katshot
01-29-06, 02:21 PM
It's true that the GTO is quicker with the auto, but the LS2 is anything but a small high revving engine. It revs alright, but it's not small. Even in the case of the GTO the manual puts more horsepower to the rear wheels but the traction control program in the pcm makes the automatic car a point and shoot affair when it comes to laucnhing it, the manual still requires driver input to properly launch. If you check the trap speed, the manual is faster indicating higher horsepower output to the wheels. As a rule, the smaller the displacement the more it will benefit from a manual tranny. That's not my opinion, that's fact. I owned an LT1/4L60E equipped '67 Impala SS for over 5 years, my son had '96 LT1 Formula Ram Air with M6. I can tell you that his car was quicker than the same car with an automatic.
The pcm is an issue as well, fuel and timing curves are quite different from manual to automatic. Having done several late model efi engine conversions into other vehicles requiring custom tuning, I can tell you the pcm matters.

Randy,
I never said the PCM doesn't matter, I said that in THIS instance the engine design (particularly the heads and cam) is more of an issue than the PCM tuning. And if I'm reading your first sentence right, you misunderstood my post. I said that big engines with low, broad powerbands do better with automatics, and that's what the GTO has, and why it does better with an automatic IMO. Having more gears helps to a point and that's always been another advantage of the manual but nowadays, automatics have as many gears as the manuals.

davesdeville
01-30-06, 04:13 AM
Automatics have really only become quicker than manuals thanks to computerized traction control systems that are designed to launch the car with as little wheelspin as possible, IE GTO.

Anyway, the Northstar's powerband isn't as 'peaky' as the Ford 4.6 but it's still no 500 - a manual would definately benefit it.