Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 116 Posts

·
Registered
Tis Gone :(
Joined
·
3,414 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
1992 Town Car Cartier & 2014 Accord LX MTX
Joined
·
34,087 Posts
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.
 

·
Auto Enthusiast
1992 Eldorado Touring
Joined
·
3,688 Posts
Nice! I do like the commercials, they make it look bigger than in real life... bastards.
 

·
Registered
1995 FTS
Joined
·
4,577 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
1992 Town Car Cartier & 2014 Accord LX MTX
Joined
·
34,087 Posts
I rather like the idea of calling it the Twinforce V6....



Yeah, that's much better....
 

·
Registered
1992 STS / 2005 MB G500 / 2003 STS / 2006 XLR-V
Joined
·
11,694 Posts
Too bad it does nothing for the hideous rump.

The SHO looks much better.
 

·
Registered
1998 Seville STS / 2013 Chevrolet Impala
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
^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:
 

·
Registered
1991 Sedan Deville
Joined
·
2,932 Posts
^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
 

·
Registered
1998 Seville STS / 2013 Chevrolet Impala
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
The S8 breaks into the high 12's with a good driver. Most magazines tested it around 13 flat.
 

·
Registered
Past: 95 Fleetwood, 91 Brougham. Now: 92 Lexus SC300
Joined
·
5,418 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Unicycle
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Past: 95 Fleetwood, 91 Brougham. Now: 92 Lexus SC300
Joined
·
5,418 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Unicycle
Joined
·
11,009 Posts
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.


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:



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.
 
1 - 20 of 116 Posts
Top