Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

raced a civic in my mark

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: turborich

I saw a riced out civic driving the other night so I caught him at a red light, Lets just say that I have NEVER seen a faster street car in my life! This thing ate the mark alive. We also ran from 35 (the marks strong point) The civic pulled me so freaking hard it was unreal! It made all kinds of boost noise and was GONE, It was like I was standing still. All I could see were his taillights way ahead of me! I'm not even joking around, this must have been a 10 second car! Well I learned my lesson!!! I have respect for those 4 bangers now!

Posted by: 04SSHD

I dont have respect for them yet. A Scion TC keept trying to play with me one day. Every single light I had him by car lengths.

Posted by: Staffamerica74

well it depends on the car and whats done to it. I have friends that have 750hp civics and integras and i know people with 100hp civics and integras just depends on whats under the hood they can look very similar from the exterior.

Posted by: Scorpio1118_2000

You never know these days so choose your kills wisely

Posted by: buddylee

dont give your ups to the 4 banger yet..... try the 200 hp v6 . my dad owned one untill last week .

Posted by: vr4

you never know whats under the hood.

200hp V6 is nothing.

Posted by: turborich

This civic was a monster. a total sleeper, I had no idea what I was in for! I have never seen anything like it before.

Posted by: MarkVIII93

lol, i know what u mean, i pulled up on this lime green del sol. It was a chick too. The car was decently quick but i still whomped on it. She killed my friends 02 monte ss though.

Posted by: Frogman

Just about any hack can make a B16 fast with less than 3500 bucks.

I'll keep my 4000lb, gas guzzling, nice riding Mark VIII. It's one thing to ride 1000 miles in a Lincoln. It's another thing to suffer 1000 mile trips in a Civic.

I've heard the "well, yeah, i may not have the plush lincoln ride, but my Civic gets better fuel economy" argument before. Yeah, I'd hope it does, seeing how you only have to feed 4 cylinders that drive a light car. If you are SO worried about fuel mileage, then maybe you should drive around in a Civic. 700HP or not.

So you got smoked by a Civic. Big deal. Just know that your OEM mark will have something an OEM civic will NEVER have. TORQUE.

Posted by: Dr. Paul

Civics are still pieces of sh!t, fast or not.

They're great commuters/daily drivers, and that's all they'll ever be great at.

Posted by: Frogman

C1v1C5 r M4D tYt3, J0! D0'Nt 83 H4t1N' 0n my C1V1c 4nd mY 60hp P3R l1t3r!

I schooled a kid in an Integra in Salt Lake this weekend. State Street and 3900 block. He didn't realize the potential of a Ford Diesel on a Max Performance X-Cal 2 tune. I don't know what intimidated him most, the tires roasting from 1-2 and 2-3 shifts, or the intersection filling black smoke that came out of the exhaust once the schooling commenced. I had to back out of it in 4th, as my exhaust temps were pushing 1400 degreees. I know, 1350 is the "magic" number, but 1400 for a second or two aint gonna blow anything up.

Posted by: turborich

I agree guys, I don't like civics or any of the ricers to be honest. However it's easy to say that you could have beat it. I really doubt it very much! Beleive me this thing was ungodly fast! I know what a pumped up powerstroke can do! They are bad azz! I think that this specific civic was a little faster tho.
For now on I'm just going to kick back and cruise her around, no more trying to race anything!

Posted by: Frogman

I never said I could have beat that civic, especially if it's a 10 second car. I said I schooled a kid in an INTEGRA.

There are only a few 10 second powerstrokes running around the country, and mine sure as hell aint one of them.

It's a 9000lb truck, not a sports car. I know its' limitations. :/

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

I beat an older one with my 98F150 a few years back. It was slammed/bouncing stupid like no springs, fart can, terrible body work and paint. I pulled slowly and my side exit exhaust 12" glass pak only must have lined up real well with his window for most of the race as we got on the highway. Its rather loud when your in that spot. He had to feel stupid, well actually someone who drives something like that probably doesn't know he looks stupid.

Posted by: MediumD

Just curious, what exactly makes that an official Nascar truck?

Posted by: Staffamerica74

Thats a package from ford for the 50th ann. of nascar theres a guy down the street from me with a mint one that he just keeps in his garage.

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediumD

Just curious, what exactly makes that an official Nascar truck?

Apparently Ford signed some deal with Nascar in 98 and this truck is a limited edition that came from that. Only made for 17 weeks 3000 total and distributed in limited areas where Nascar is most popular. All pretty much equiped the same, I guess only 5 options available. There is some later years that had similar stickers, but not the real deal.

Its nothing fancy actually, Embroidered seats and floor mats. The striping you see. The Roush tip you see but it was behind the wheel on a factory stock exhaust, moving it in front of the wheel like the original Roush proto-type is my doing. It is factory lowered, with the black wheels. 3:73 from the factory. Supposedly a special computer program, all I know is it pings without at least mid-grade. When I did the front brakes they were double piston monsters, think they ended up on the 99 lightning but not for sure. It was supposed to have a special front spoiler, but that didn't happen. Maybe a few other unique things. Its just a dressed up XL, but kinda rare. I don't think much of it, but as the years go on I think I may hold onto it.

Posted by: Frogman

I hear those NASCAR stickers are good for 100HP a side.

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman

I hear those NASCAR stickers are good for 100HP a side.

That would mean it only had 20hp to start.

Posted by: eastcoastLS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman

C1v1C5 r M4D tYt3, J0! D0'Nt 83 H4t1N' 0n my C1V1c 4nd mY 60hp P3R l1t3r!

haha i can only relate to that riding in my boys powerstroke lifted up all done up with banks system. this thing pours black smoke we've killed so many civic and rsx tuners.

Posted by: Frogman

It saddens me when people associate diesel performance with Banks... There are such better alternatives out there.

Posted by: kustomizingkid

There are those very few ricers that are actually fast, my friend found that out this summer. He bought an 84 vette which isnt really that fast but does pretty well. He pulls up next to this kid in a junky Nissan painted flat black with dark tinted windows. My friend punches it and the pulls away from the Nissan, until he punched it that is. The next thing we see is the tailights of the car way up ahead of us. We ended up following the kid to a gas station and looked his car over. The interieor was totally gutted, no radio or dash or anything. The engine was turbocharged.

Posted by: Dr. Paul

One time my friend and I were towing my Mustang on the fifth wheel trailer behind his Ford diesel. We raced a civic, and won.

I've annhilated a few turbo civics/integras in my silver car, but never in the Lincoln.

Posted by: blk96LSC

Quote:

Originally Posted by turborich

I agree guys, I don't like civics or any of the ricers to be honest. However it's easy to say that you could have beat it. I really doubt it very much! Beleive me this thing was ungodly fast! I know what a pumped up powerstroke can do! They are bad azz! I think that this specific civic was a little faster tho.
For now on I'm just going to kick back and cruise her around, no more trying to race anything!

So you lost against one, and you're quitting?

That's kind of lame.

Of course there are fast civics...there are minivans that are fast...

but why would it make you not wanna race anything?

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Quote:

Originally Posted by blk96LSC

So you lost against one, and you're quitting?

That's kind of lame.

Of course there are fast civics...there are minivans that are fast...

but why would it make you not wanna race anything?

Yeah, sometimes at the track I won't win a race all night, still fun. Some real beaters can move, but would you want to drive it.

Posted by: taylor414ce2003

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediumD

Just curious, what exactly makes that an official Nascar truck?

It can only take circular left hand turns

Posted by: Calabrio

A stock Civic Si will likely beat a Mark VIII in any race- with it's 200hp 4 cylinder-
and these new compacts are comfortable and "only" $20k

The Mazdaspeed 3 has nearly as much stock horsepower as the Mark VIII with it's 2.3 liter engine. It's trounce a Mark or LS in any race for $24k

The Mark VIII was designed almost 20 years ago. In '93 it was a beast, with a hundred more horsepower than the Mustang, and more than the 350 GMs too.

But the new Toyota Camry is faster than the Mark VIII now. (0-60 in 6 sec)

The technology curve has passed us. The past 14 years were good. Time to start considering the Mark more in terms of the style and collect ability and less in terms of racing.

Posted by: Dr. Paul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

In '93 it was a beast, with a hundred more horsepower than the Mustang, and more than the 350 GMs too.

The '93 Mustang 5.0 was rated at 215 hp. I think your figures are wrong.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Paul

The '93 Mustang 5.0 was rated at 215 hp. I think your figures are wrong.

You're right- specifically it's 65 hp difference, I was just rounding up for dramatic affect. Thinking more in terms like 200 v. 300hp

The '91 was rated at 225. I think the 1987 was rated around 175. And the 1979 was rated around 140.

Point being- time is slipping the 8 by. It's not the "sleeper" that it once may have been. More and more economy cars are slipping by it in terms of performance, not to mention build quality.

Posted by: turborich

Quote:

Originally Posted by blk96LSC

So you lost against one, and you're quitting?

That's kind of lame.

Of course there are fast civics...there are minivans that are fast...

but why would it make you not wanna race anything?

Because it's a lincoln! Time to kick back and chill!

Posted by: chickenviii

Quote:

Originally Posted by 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Some real beaters can move, but would you want to drive it.

here ya go http://www.turbovan.net/van.html
but it could be kinda fun to beat the hell outa some people, but when the day is done its stull a f*in DODGE

Posted by: MediumD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

A stock Civic Si will likely beat a Mark VIII in any race- with it's 200hp 4 cylinder-
and these new compacts are comfortable and "only" $20k

The Mazdaspeed 3 has nearly as much stock horsepower as the Mark VIII with it's 2.3 liter engine. It's trounce a Mark or LS in any race for $24k

The Mark VIII was designed almost 20 years ago. In '93 it was a beast, with a hundred more horsepower than the Mustang, and more than the 350 GMs too.

But the new Toyota Camry is faster than the Mark VIII now. (0-60 in 6 sec)

The technology curve has passed us. The past 14 years were good. Time to start considering the Mark more in terms of the style and collect ability and less in terms of racing.

Civic SI - no, they're slower trust me.

Mazda also has a TURBO on that 2.3 engine..

Quicker to 60 does not a quicker car make.

They might be pretty close stock, but take a look at what it takes to make any of the above cars 12 second cars for example... we really just need a bit of spray, gears, stall, maybe drag radials, I guarantee it'll take twice the money to get the other cars in that range.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediumD

Civic SI - no, they're slower trust me.

Quote:

Mazda also has a TURBO on that 2.3 engine..

Would it matter if it had a proppellor and a wound up rubber band?
The point is it does 0-60 in 5.9 second, the 1/4 mile in 14.3 at 99.4 mph, and 45-65mph in 2.8 seconds.

Now let's compare those numbers against the Mark VIII.
0-60 in 6.9 seconds, the 1/4 mile in 15.2 at 95.5 mph, and the 45-65 in 3.7 seconds.

Quote:

Quicker to 60 does not a quicker car make.

Actually, 0-60 does make a car quicker, especially when the quarter mile and the passing speed are faster as well.

Quote:

They might be pretty close stock, but take a look at what it takes to make any of the above cars 12 second cars for example... we really just need a bit of spray, gears, stall, maybe drag radials, I guarantee it'll take twice the money to get the other cars in that range.

I don't know anyone who wants to do a daily 60-120 mile commute in a 12 second car, so I really don't care or see how it's relevant.

If you want a 12 second car, and the ease of doing so is what is considered important, we'd all have Fox body Mustangs with roll cages. Point is, in 2007, these economical cars are just as fast if not a little faster as the Mark VIII. And cars that are in the same "class" as the Mark VIII was in 1993 are now doing 0-60 in the 5 second range.

Progress has moved by. The Mark's performance is still very respectable. But it is no longer the sleeping giant it once was. Not when a new Toyota Camry with a six cylinder will smoke it.

Posted by: MediumD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Trust you, but not the entire auto press?

So according to the journalists:
The Civic Si it does 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and the quarter mile in 14.9 and 45-65 in 3.4 seconds.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...s_pricing.html

Would it matter if it had a proppellor and a wound up rubber band?
The point is it does 0-60 in 5.9 second, the 1/4 mile in 14.3 at 99.4 mph, and 45-65mph in 2.8 seconds.

Now let's compare those numbers against the Mark VIII.
0-60 in 6.9 seconds, the 1/4 mile in 15.2 at 95.5 mph, and the 45-65 in 3.7 seconds.

Actually, 0-60 does make a car quicker, especially when the quarter mile and the passing speed are faster as well.

First off I love bench racing or mag racing in this case... Even so you mean to tell me Mark VIIIs aren't capable of high 14s stock? I beg to differ. The Mazda having a turbo isn't important until you try to make it look like such a kick ass motor at 264(or so) hp out of 2.3L, that would be awesome out of a N/A but it's not a particularly big feat out of a 2.3 turbo.

Regarding the Camry, 0-60 in and of itself doesn't mean much, if the 1/4 mile ET and trap are higher then it's quicker sure. If you want to mag race here's what MSN says:
Toyota Camry XLE - V6 3.5L (268 hp) 6A + ABS (0-60) 6.70 (ET) 15.05 98.80(mph)
I wouldn't imagine the 5MT being more than a tenth or two quicker, and once again high 14s aren't a problem for Mark VIIIs.

Quote:

First you want to talk about performance, now you don't care about having a quick car?? Regardless a long commute in a spray/gear/stall Mark wouldn't be a problem, leave out the gears and you wouldn't even know the difference between a high 12s car and a stock one. BTW you don't need a roll cage running 12s.

Anyway I get your point the Mark VIII isn't king of the road but don't make it sound like every

box they make is gonna walk it.

Posted by: J3FF

Quote:

Originally Posted by turborich

I saw a riced out civic driving the other night so I caught him at a red light, Lets just say that I have NEVER seen a faster street car in my life! This thing ate the mark alive. We also ran from 35 (the marks strong point) The civic pulled me so freaking hard it was unreal! It made all kinds of boost noise and was GONE, It was like I was standing still. All I could see were his taillights way ahead of me! I'm not even joking around, this must have been a 10 second car! Well I learned my lesson!!! I have respect for those 4 bangers now!

Yea, and it took him 4 grand to make it that way!! Stupid little

s think they've got something cool - our V8's sound better

Posted by: turborich

Quote:

Originally Posted by J3FF

Yea, and it took him 4 grand to make it that way!! Stupid little

s think they've got something cool - our V8's sound better

I agree with that!

Posted by: kustomizingkid

One big point sticks out in my mind. Rear wheel drive vs front wheel drive. What fun is driving a front wheel drive car?

Posted by: blk96LSC

as far as the stock SI Vs. MarkVIII thing goes...

I proved that one wrong tonight.

I ran a civic si (2000+ year. Not sure. Late model, though. Hatchback.) from a 60 punch, 75punch, and from a dig..

And all he could do was look at my taillights.

It was lame.

Anyone can quote a magazine, but get out and see for yourselves. Our cars aren't outdated just yet.

[and i'm totally stock, btw.]

I'll give you guys the results of my run against an 87 vette taking place next week, too. That run should be interesting.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediumD

Even so you mean to tell me Mark VIIIs aren't capable of high 14s stock?

Maybe a few could in 1994. Now, not so likely.

Quote:

The Mazda having a turbo isn't important until you try to make it look like such a kick ass motor at 264(or so) hp out of 2.3L, that would be awesome out of a N/A but it's not a particularly big feat out of a 2.3 turbo.

Frankly, I think a dependable and efficient 2.3 liter engine making 264 is pretty kick ass. And to add any more horsepower to the car would be useless because of the torque steer. Regardless, it seems pretty fast to me, both when I read the numbers or when I have driven it.

And, for the sake of this thread, we're comparing it to a 4.6 liter, 32 valve, V8 that is only producing 280 (or so) hp.

Regardless how it makes it's power, it's still considerably faster than the Mark VIII. In a straight line or in the twisties. And, sadly, all these cars will out handle the Mark, and have much a stiffer chassis.

Quote:

Regarding the Camry, 0-60 in and of itself doesn't mean much, if the 1/4 mile ET and trap are higher then it's quicker sure. If you want to mag race here's what MSN says:
Toyota Camry XLE - V6 3.5L (268 hp) 6A + ABS (0-60) 6.70 (ET) 15.05 98.80(mph)
I wouldn't imagine the 5MT being more than a tenth or two quicker, and once again high 14s aren't a problem for Mark VIIIs.

Is MSN a "mag."

But still, let's then quickly establish, even those numbers report the Camry faster than the '93 Mark. YOU can't imagine the Camry being much faster... but you do acknowledge that a friggin' Camry is now faster than the Mark VIII.

The Mazdaspeed3 is considerably faster than the Mark VIII, but you don't think that matters because it has a turbo charged 4, and not a 4 cam v8.

And the Civic Si is just as fast as the Mark VIII, gets better gas mileage, better build quality, and better handling, but that doesn't matter to you.

Quote:

First you want to talk about performance, now you don't care about having a quick car??

A 12 second car is not usually a "quick" car, that's a car that's been designed to drag race. As a driving enthusiast, I'd rather have a car that moved forward fast, but also had the ability to turn and stop.

When we're talking about performance cars, we're not talking about which one can be customized easiest to give fast drag time. Typically when a discussion devolves into that, it means one side is trying to create an artificial scenario that they think they are advantageous.

"Well, this car might not be as good, but I can make it better for less money."

Quote:

Regardless a long commute in a spray/gear/stall Mark wouldn't be a problem, leave out the gears and you wouldn't even know the difference between a high 12s car and a stock one.

Are you high? How many 12 second Mark VIIIs do you know of? And do you have any idea of the investment and labor involved in doing something like that. Look at Driller's car. He's no where near the 12 second mark and he's invested considerably time and energy into his car.

And I don't know how many 150 shots a 145,000 mile mark VIII would withstand without substantial rebuilding throughout the drivetrain.

And you're not going to get a Mark into the 12s without changing the gears. Seeing as how we're dealing with 14 year old cars with 150k plus miles on them, do you really want to run nitrous, even occasionally, on your daily driver- the one you depend on to get to work?

Quote:

BTW you don't need a roll cage running 12s
Anyway I get your point the Mark VIII isn't king of the road but don't make it sound like every

box they make is gonna walk it.

Not every car- virtually everything in it's class and increasingly even the compact cars. All of the new cars are getting really fast.

The Mark is still respectable, but don't expect to win all the stop light races you might engage in anymore. When a 5 door hatchback like the speed3 or a family mover like a Camry will take it, the times have changed.

And if you think it sucks for Mark VIII owners, the LS guys are STILL slower than us.

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

And if you think it sucks for Mark VIII owners, the LS guys are STILL slower than us.

Wrong. Its a shame you guys don't visit all the forums here.

Posted by: Dr. Paul

It's funny how people righteously and vehemently defend the almighty Mark VIII as god's gift to performance.

It's not. For the most part, they're slow.

Posted by: Frogman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Paul

It's not. For the most part, they're slow.

Maybe so, but God Damn it, they look good!

Posted by: Dr. Paul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman

Maybe so, but God Damn it, they look good!

Agreed. And they're pretty comfy too.

Posted by: 02V8Sport

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Didnt know an AWD car had torque steer?

I drive a friends STI from time to time and it has no torque steer with 450HP(modified of course)

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

And if you think it sucks for Mark VIII owners, the LS guys are STILL slower than us.

http://media.putfile.com/Rockets-05-LS-143--98-MPH

http://media.putfile.com/Jasons-02-LSE-runs-1454-94-MPH

Posted by: MediumD

Calabrio you won't even acknowledge that a Mark VIII can run 14s stock... I can't argue with someone who won't acknowledge something that's been proven over and over again. The only one of the cars you listed that's definitely appreciably faster than the VIII is the Mazdaspeed 3. The Civic SI is NOT, the Camry is NOT. Unless you think Mark VIIIs are incapable of anything better than low-mid 15s, it all goes back to you underestimating the Mark VIII. As far as cars in/near it's class, yep they're generally faster now as well they should be. As for the sport compact crowd, a few of them are faster, some of them are similar, some of them are slower - they're supposed to be sporty anyway so they should ALL be faster. The family cars and econoboxes are still, with very few exceptions, slower than the Mark VIII.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

The Mazdaspeed3 is considerably faster than the Mark VIII, but you don't think that matters because it has a turbo charged 4, and not a 4 cam v8.

Here's the thing about the Mazdaspeed 3. You were trying to make it look like "gee look, this mazda makes almost as much power as a Mark VIII out of a engine half the size." You neglected to mention it had a turbo. You were trying to make it out to be way more impressive than it was.

I'm only talking about straight line racing. Handling is nice, but it's pretty much impossible to compare car handling to other car people. You can't say "I did the standard autocross course in 39 seconds" or whatever, because there IS no standard course, whereas you can easily say "I run the 1/4 in 13.4." People race stoplight to stoplight WAY more than they race around curves, it's safer, there's less room for excuses, and there are way more straight roads here than curvy ones. So I personally think handling is nice but not as important than straight line acceleration. If you want handling none of these cars handle really well anyway.

I could also give less of a crap about MPG, I get 20city/30highway and that's enough for me. It would be really sad if the Civic SI didn't get better mileage than a big ass car like the Mark VIII.

Quote:

Of course driller isn't in the 12s, he's going the N/A route which is much, much harder. I don't know how many 150 shots a 145k Mark will take either, but heck if you're comparing it to a $21k Civic SI you can either find a VERY low mileage Mark or rebuild the entire drivetrain twice over.

Quote:

The Mark is still respectable,

So you rail on about the Mark VIII being a slow POS that handles like a pig runs 15s and you say that? You're SO full of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Paul

It's funny how people righteously and vehemently defend the almighty Mark VIII as god's gift to performance.

It's not. For the most part, they're slow.

I'm not defending the Mark VIII as gods gift to performance, like I said I'm just saying not every pos an asian car maker puts out on the market is going to beat it. It's funny how you exaggerate a situation to the point of making an ass of yourself.

Posted by: 02V8Sport

Quote:

Originally Posted by 02V8Sport

Didnt know an AWD car had torque steer?

I drive a friends STI from time to time and it has no torque steer with 450HP(modified of course)

disregard my post, I was thinking of the Mazda Speed 6, not the 3, whoops.

6-AWD
3-FWD

Posted by: Dr. Paul

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediumD

It's funny how you exaggerate a situation to the point of making an ass of yourself.

This coming from the guy who provides us gems of automotive wisdom such as " Quicker to 60 does not a quicker car make."

Keep on keepin' on smart guy.

Posted by: MediumD

If a car A is quicker to 60 but car B runs the 1/4 in less time and traps higher... which one is quicker Paul?

Posted by: 98LSC32V

Well if you want to talk about quick or fast in the drag racing world, quick is your ET and fast is your MPH. I ran my dad's bone stock 96 Mark VIII a couple months back and it did 14.93 at 95.79mph in drive.

Posted by: poniesviii

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogman

I hear those NASCAR stickers are good for 100HP a side.

Posted by: Dr. Paul

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediumD

If a car A is quicker to 60 but car B runs the 1/4 in less time and traps higher... which one is quicker Paul?

In general, if a car is quicker to 60, it will be quicker through 1320 feet.

If a car traps higher than another, it is faster, not quicker.

Posted by: MediumD

In general perhaps, always.. no. As for quicker vs faster, do you see the word AND between runs the 1/4 in less time AND traps higher? I guess that would make it quicker AND faster?

Posted by: poniesviii

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Paul

In general, if a car is quicker to 60, it will be quicker through 1320 feet.

If a car traps higher than another, it is faster, not quicker.

It means car A is quicker to 60 than car B and car B is quicker through the 1320 than car A.

There's no wrong answer to the question. If you're asking which one's quicker through the quarter in that case it would be car B.

If a car traps higher than the other it means with a better driver and better traction it's likely quicker, even though in that case it wasn't. When you're talking about the quarter mile it's all about quickness, not who's faster. That's what the salt flats are for.

And, if a car has a higher trap speed than the other but the other made it there first it's faster. And quicker. Lol. Not really faster but it's an interesting subject, ..faster, vs quicker.

Posted by: vr4

wow this thread got heated.

the NEWEST civic Si is a completly different car than all previous versions. its actually halfway decent for a stock honda.

264 HP out of an OEM stock turbo 2.3 is pretty damn good.

yes mark 8s run 14s stock. the 1s in great shape and with good conditions. (mine did 14.666 with me driving and 14.665 with my GF driving it the next month.)

AWDs DO have torque steer. at least my stealth and both of my 3000gt VR4s did/do. some are much more pronounced than others.

stock for stock marks are for the most part quicker than an LS. i smoked a couple over here pretty good. the new LS is quite a bit more impressive than the early 1s though.

Posted by: Calabrio

[quote=MediumD]Calabrio you won't even acknowledge that a Mark VIII can run 14s stock... I can't argue with someone who won't acknowledge something that's been proven over and over again.]/quote]
Does your run stock 14s? Do most? And are most of those cars that did it in 1993 still doing it 14 years later?

Are there some that may? It's possible. I've seen claims. Do most. No. So, when we look at these cars, do we look at the few cars at the small end of a bell curve, or do we use the majority of them in the middle for our baseline?

To compare the best case example of one to the median one of another is unfair. But with that said, even if we determine that every stock Mark VIII ran 14.9s- it doesn't change anything. That ties it with the Motor Trend numbers of the Civic Si, it's still .6 slower than the speed3, and using that figure it just barely makes it faster than a Toyota Camry.

So, I fail to see why you are making this an issue.

Quote:

The only one of the cars you listed that's definitely appreciably faster than the VIII is the Mazdaspeed 3.

Quote:

The Civic SI is NOT,

The 2.0 liter four cylinder is not "appreciably faster in a straight line. This is your big point? So, it's just " a little faster" in a straight line, and then corners, stops, and has better build quality.

Quote:

the Camry is NOT. Unless you think Mark VIIIs are incapable of anything better than low-mid 15s, it all goes back to you underestimating the Mark VIII.

Even pretending most Mark VIIIs run a 14.9, which they don't.

Even according to lore, only the 93-96s had the chance of doing that. The 97-98s never broke into the 14s stock. So, if you want to compare the small part of the bell curve again, fine. End result, again, is about the same performance to the 1/4 mile, and the other figures still give the 6 cylinder Camry the advantage.

So, after all your huffing and puffing, you're basically just finding more ways to state that "those cars aren't much faster."

Quote:

As far as cars in/near it's class, yep they're generally faster now as well they should be.

Yes.

Quote:

As for the sport compact crowd, a few of them are faster, some of them are similar, some of them are slower - they're supposed to be sporty anyway so they should ALL be faster. The family cars and econoboxes are still, with very few exceptions, slower than the Mark VIII.

You're very wordy, but you're just agreeing with everything I said.
Many of the good sport compacts are now faster than the Mark VIII.
And there are still cars slower than it.

What are you taking issue with? In 1993, there really wasn't much on the road, stock, that could take the Mark VIII. Nowadays, the industry and technology have advanced and even some of the little cars will outrun it.

Quote:

You're projecting alot more on my statement than I ever did. I don't care how it makes the power. Turbo, supercharger, or VTEC- it doesn't need to be explained. The point is, it's a compact, hatchback, that makes about 260 horsepower and blazes through the performance benchmarks. Turbo or not.

Quote:

I'm only talking about straight line racing. Handling is nice, but it's pretty much impossible to compare car handling to other car people. You can't say "I did the standard autocross course in 39 seconds" or whatever, because there IS no standard course, whereas you can easily say "I run the 1/4 in 13.4."

This might be relevant if we were comparing cars that were competitive. No one in their right mind thinks the 8 will handle better than any of the other cars mentioned.

And there are issues like grip, figure 8 times, and the such can be used in a pinch.

Quote:

People race stoplight to stoplight WAY more than they race around curves, it's safer, there's less room for excuses, and there are way more straight roads here than curvy ones. So I personally think handling is nice but not as important than straight line acceleration. If you want handling none of these cars handle really well anyway.

They race stoplight because it's easier.

Handling is what driving is about.

And if you want handling, both the speed3 and the Si are excellent.

Quote:

I could also give less of a crap about MPG,

this isn't about you.

Quote:

You mean compared the the $40k cost of the new Mark VIII?

Quote:

So you rail on about the Mark VIII being a slow POS that handles like a pig runs 15s and you say that? You're SO full of it.

I've owned my Mark VIII longer than you, I've driven it more than you probably have, and I've done a considerable amount of work on it, so I'm intimately familiar with it.

Your reading comprehension is terrible. You also lack the ability to discuss something without intensely personalizing.

I've have stated, repeatedly, the Mark VIII is STILL a car that has respectable performance. This is a testament to how impressive it was when it came out, that despite time, it still is competitive.

But, it does handle like a bit of a pig, despite the bigger tires and sway bars on mine.

Quote:

I'm not defending the Mark VIII as gods gift to performance, like I said I'm just saying not every pos an asian car maker puts out on the market is going to beat it.

Who said that? Did you read, or just defensively and ignorantly respond in fits of passion?

The point is, many of the small imports are faster now. That wasn't the case 14 years ago.

Quote:

It's funny how you exaggerate a situation to the point of making an ass of yourself.

You're the wordy guy who has, despite your intention, reinforced my arguments. Frankly, you're not even arguing at this point, you're just defensive.

Posted by: J3FF

Hold on a minute! Who on this forum would prefer a fiberglass pos with an engine smaller than a half gallon of milk, rather than a MArk VIII?? I wouldn't drive a Civic...EVER. Those...(is it safe to say vehicles?) are too hyped up to be something they aren't. I sware, when I opened the hood of a civic for the first time, I thought it looked just like something out of my Zip Zap RC cars..

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediumD

If a car A is quicker to 60 but car B runs the 1/4 in less time and traps higher... which one is quicker Paul?

Bringing this up, in this thread, is still foolish, given that all the cars I listed were faster both in 0-60 AND 1/4mile....AND passing.

2007 Toyota Camry
January 2007 Motor Trend (COTY)
0-60: 6.0
1/4: 14.5 @ 97.5 mph
passing 45-65: 2.9 sec

2006 Civic Si
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...s_pricing.html
0-60: 6.3
1/4: 14.9 @ 94.7 mph
passing 45-65: 3.4 seconds.

2007 MazdaSpeed 3 Grand Touring
11/2006 Motor Trend
0-60: 5.9
1/4: 14.3 @ 99.4
passing 45-65: 2.8

Lincoln Mark VIII
0-60: 6.9
1/4: 15.2 at 95.5 mph
passing 45-65: 3.7

But, clearly, these numbers are never exact, ever refrence will be a little different. Here's another review of the Mark VIII:

Posted by: MediumD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Are there some that may? It's possible. I've seen claims. Do most. No. So, when we look at these cars, do we look at the few cars at the small end of a bell curve, or do we use the majority of them in the middle for our baseline?

To compare the best case example of one to the median one of another is unfair. But with that said, even if we determine that every stock Mark VIII ran 14.9s- it doesn't change anything. That ties it with the Motor Trend numbers of the Civic Si, it's still .6 slower than the speed3, and using that figure it just barely makes it faster than a Toyota Camry.

So, I fail to see why you are making this an issue.

I made it an issue because you said it was slower than the SI and Camry, and it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

So, after all your huffing and puffing, you're basically just finding more ways to state that "those cars aren't much faster."

That's all I've been trying to say since the start (although in 2 cases I'd say "those cars aren't any faster".)

Quote:

You're very wordy, but you're just agreeing with everything I said.
Many of the good sport compacts are now faster than the Mark VIII.
And there are still cars slower than it.

Ok, I'm not taking issue with that. Some of the sport compacts are faster, some aren't. Family cars like the Camry is one thing I'm taking issue with, where the majority are still slower. The big thing I'm taking issue with is that now is the perfect time to START thinking about racing Mark VIIIs, it's still quite the sleeper because even today few people know what's under the hood, the price of the cars are low, and the performance possibilities are high. It's not time to throw in the towel because sport compacts have finally caught up.

Quote:

Handling is what driving is about.

We were talking about acceleration. You finally admitted the Mark isn't going to lose hardcore to a friggin Camry or SI, so now you bring up handling and gas mileage.

Quote:

You mean compared the the $40k cost of the new Mark VIII?

You mean I can go to the Lincoln dealer and get a new Mark VIII for 40k? You can go out and buy an SI for $21k, you can go out and buy a nice Mark VIII for $4k, today which is what matters. If you'd like to compare the Mark VIII when it cost $40k, we can compare 90s Camry/Civic/Mazdas.

Quote:

And there are issues like grip, figure 8 times, and the such can be used in a pinch.

You're missing the point on this one. Figure 8 times? What city has a figure 8 track I can go to and get times? Where can the automotive enthusiast go to get some handling numbers for his/her car? Nowhere but a magazine, and once again magazine racing is worthless even for stock cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

I've have stated, repeatedly, the Mark VIII is STILL a car that has respectable performance. This is a testament to how impressive it was when it came out, that despite time, it still is competitive.

Ignoring the insults before this quote... that's far from what you've been saying thusfar in this thread, your first posts were nothing but putting the car down.

Quote:

Frankly, you're not even arguing at this point, you're just defensive.

That's all I've ever been trying to do, defend the car when you say it's a slow pos that's not worth racing.

Posted by: poniesviii

If this wasn't internet and you two were talking in person you'd make good friends. lol.

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Quote:

Originally Posted by vr4

stock for stock marks are for the most part quicker than an LS. i smoked a couple over here pretty good. the new LS is quite a bit more impressive than the early 1s though.

Fewer LS people have tracked timed their car and the LS crowd in general doesn't race.

Gen1 MarkVIII vs. Gen2 LS even match-up. Best will run 14.6-14.8 stock and 14.99 at the worse. Bad drivers aside.

Gen2 MarkVIII vs. Gen1 LS even match up. Best will run 15.0-15.2 and 15.39 at the worse. Again bad drivers side.

The LSes above only have 2 mods each. My 02 will run below 15.0 stock IMO, I'm not removing the exhaust and intake to find out unless someone bets me.

Posted by: shiryu0

why in the heck are we comparing a Mark VIII to a freaking hatch......only reason they can go fast is cause they dont weigh a thing!!!!!! compared it to something similar for crying out loud......like say, my friends '99 Solara, or my other friends '01 Prelude........and of course out of the 3 im the fastest........barely, but i win

......heavy cars w/ heavy cars........let the kids play with their RC cars in the other yard.

and if we HAVE to compare them on the street againts them......were most likely to win against a (insert favorite RC looking car model here), cause they probably wont take a Mark VIII serious........happened to me, and guess who won

, now of course you got the people that know what theyre doing w/ the little toy cars, but theyre VERY few out there.........most are just ricers that think theyre fast, and dont know how to drive............

i want that JBL 10 speaker system that mag article mentions..................

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Gen2 MarkVIII vs. Gen1 LS even match up. Best will run 15.0-15.2 and 15.39 at the worse. Again bad drivers side.

My 02 will run below 15.0 stock IMO, I'm not removing the exhaust and intake to find out unless someone bets me.

Is Union Grove Open? Let's go and settle it.

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Is Union Grove Open? Let's go and settle it.

Haha. I wish they were its been so nice I've called to see. The recording says if the weather allows they'll open, I guess 40s in the end of December isn't good enough.

Hey I got my stack of timeslips and best on video......You?

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=27765

The LS is very strong in the 1/8th 9.361@75.68 in my Gen1, the Mark does have the longer legs.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Hey I got my stack of timeslips and best on video......You?

I'm busy setting my XCal2 fuel tables to 8-1 for maximum power with 50 degrees of timing to turn my badboy into a rocket ship. I'm also adjusting my shift points up to 7500 rpm and increasing line pressure in the tranny 200% so I can chirp the 3-4 shift. Put on some 5 inch skinnies front and rear to reduced the rolling resistance for a way better launch and bumped up the tire pressure to 80 psi so this baby will really be rolling at the finish line.

What else....Hummm. Oh yeh...I'm removing the exhaust manifolds from the heads (along with the rest of the exhaust to save weight) for a truly full free-breathing exhaust system. (Yes, I have the same earplugs just like the top fuel guys have.) I also taped the grill and removed the side mirrors to make the car more aero-dynamically stable. And lastly, I removed that stupid intake tube and MAF thingy that really constricts the airflow. I wish I had an air cleaner cover that I could flip upside down like I used to do in the old days.

I expect my 'mods' to add at least 150 hp so I should be trapping low 10's with a strong 1.20-60 ft.

Mackdaddy...You better be ready

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

3-4 shift chirp huh, the tracks only 1/4mile long you'll be half way home before you hit 4th in that sled. The LSE hits 4th around 100, just after the 1/4 ends. A good wax job will help too.

LOL.

Posted by: mespock

Bryan's been nipping too much Christmas Cheer again....

I bet he creamed his shorts after typing all that LOL...

Posted by: 02LSE96LSC91SE84TC

Heres a few timeslips of me racing the same car 2 different weeks. Not my best times and, Yes I did beat him a couple times, but he won the most. Good example of the discussion here. I always have the higher trap by at least 2 mph and as much as almost 3 mph, yet he won more than me. But heres a good question, WHO HIT 60 MPH FIRST?

The races were typically close enough that it was hard to tell who won till you saw your timeslip. But at the end I was always moving faster that was obvious and a few times we stayed on it being so close and I would always start pulling more and more. A race to 120 I would win every time and by probably as much as 2-3 cars. So whos faster depends on how long the race is in this case.