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

How aerodynamic is the Mark VIII?

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

Posted by: 98LSC32V

Anyone know the Cd numbers for gen 1 and gen 2?

Posted by: Moes8

gen i's are .34 cd at stock ride height,and drop to .33 cd when car lowers at highway speeds.

Posted by: unity

How does this compare to other vehicles? Just curious

Posted by: Scorpio1118_2000

IDK but back in the early 90s some ford engineers got a fairly stock one round 175mph at bonneville raceway in Utah. Hows that for aerodynamics?

Posted by: MediumD

That's very odd considering my ETC tops out just a little north of 150, has the same .33 coefficient of drag, 20hp more, and a 3.71 diff.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediumD

That's very odd considering my ETC tops out just a little north of 150, has the same .33 coefficient of drag, 20hp more, and a 3.71 diff.

Bonneville Mark ran with 2:73 gears I believe which is what I'm putting in mine.

Posted by: unity

And I think once they removed the side mirrors, rear brakes (drag) and adjusted the suspension computer to lower more they got her up to 181. Weeeeeeeeeee!

Posted by: Scorpio1118_2000

Thats right, they got 175mph on their first run and then they removed the mirrors rear brakes. Then they dropped the car a little bit and then acheived a little bit over 182mph. And broke the record in their class, there was no other personal luxury car faster at the time.

Posted by: MediumD

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Bonneville Mark ran with 2:73 gears I believe which is what I'm putting in mine.

They must've been running it locked in 3rd gear then, or had some shorter than stock tires.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scorpio1118_2000

there was no other personal luxury car faster at the time.

Except in the 1/4 mile. And around turns.

Not to bash the Mark VIII which is a good car, good enough for me to buy one and maybe another... but stock for stock it wasn't the fastest thing out there even in 93.

Posted by: Moes8

Quote:

Originally Posted by unity

How does this compare to other vehicles? Just curious

it compares decently for 1993,today its not anything special.

a toyota camry is .28.

but a 90's t-bird was .35 i believe.

most cars today range from .28 to .32-.33

a prius is .26,very good,but look what its built for,.....mpg.

a Lincoln Ls is .32.

they have been able to get good grag numbers from relatively boxy looking cars,has lots to do with how the air flows over car,but also how it flows into grill openings and then out back of hood,also how it flows under the bottom of the car,

my guess is that with most of our cars lowered more than stock we might be achieving .32 cd.

Posted by: rmac694203

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediumD

They must've been running it locked in 3rd gear then, or had some shorter than stock tires.

I'm pretty sure I remember reading that they did run it in 3rd.

Posted by: rmac694203

Just found the article.

The axle was changed to a 2.47 axle. We wanted to run in 3rd gear to have higher transmission efficiency. Anytime you have to turn a gear set, you are giving up power. Third gear is direct drive and you are not spinning any gears. So we figured we needed a 2.47 axle to run in 3rd gear.

http://mark8.org/lod/bonneville.htm

Posted by: Scorpio1118_2000

You took my comment too litteral this is bonneville salt FLATS we are talking about not nurmberg.

Posted by: Dominus

Some of the md 90s T-Birds actually had a .30 coefficient. NASCAR aerodynamics and all.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scorpio1118_2000

IDK but back in the early 90s some ford engineers got a fairly stock one round 175mph at bonneville raceway in Utah. Hows that for aerodynamics?

Average speed of 181 mph... best was I believe 182 that day. Set the record for its class.

article

Ooops should have read further..

Posted by: BigBoyBoelts

Thanks guys I always wondered about the Cd of the Marks, I have been doing some work on CFD and CAD apps to see how they work for if I ever build a race car Ill have some understanding behind it!

Posted by: vr4

guess you need the cage in there for aerodynamics?

i keeed.

Posted by: Scorpio1118_2000

stock for stock it wasn't the fastest thing out there even in 93.[/quote]

Ok I will just say it was the fastest car at this particular event that day, dont be so technical.
It was at the bonneville salt FLATS, not laguna seca.

Posted by: Scorpio1118_2000

And by the way mespock I said around 175mph not exactly 175mph oops yourself.

Posted by: davidm

If I could only fix my whistling door seal at 160, would make me so happy.

David

Posted by: Markviiiedrea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominus

Some of the md 90s T-Birds actually had a .30 coefficient. NASCAR aerodynamics and all.

The thunderbird SC had .28 in 89 I'm guessing the other years are the same.

Posted by: MediumD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markviiiedrea

The thunderbird SC had .28 in 89 I'm guessing the other years are the same.

What year SC, and do you have a source for this info? I'm curious since I have an SC now..

Posted by: Markviiiedrea

Got the info from my friend an in FL he has the nicest 89 SC, best one that I have ever seen. No source though.

Posted by: 96mark8

look 181

Posted by: poniesviii

Hey that's Dan Hollerans car. He painted that car a looong time ago, bought it new I think also.

If stock is .34 I'm sure I get a least a .32.

Posted by: Markviiiedrea

You know Dan? When I went to collage down there, Him and I hung out allot. I haven't talked to him in a while . I should give him a call.

Yha I love his paint job, but it looks so good cause he has like 26 coats of ZANO on it! Its so slippery that his car cover wont stay on, its awesome, I'm trying to get my car to look like that.

Posted by: Hardgear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markviiiedrea

Got the info from my friend an in FL he has the nicest 89 SC, best one that I have ever seen. No source though.

I have seen that car. Impeccable detail. It looks better than new. Even the engine bay looks like it was made by some kind of deity. Simply incredible.

Posted by: Markviiiedrea

The man is an awesome detailer! He taught me allot about taking care of my car! I've driven that one a couple time's and it runs as good as it looks. Last time I talked to him he said he has over 260,000 on it with an engine bay like that.

Oh and did I mention has the original head gaskets too.
Best SC hands down

Posted by: torquemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markviiiedrea

Oh and did I mention has the original head gaskets too.
Best SC hands down

That is impressive! Now the next question... Does he have the original stock aluminum harmnonic balancer?

I went with a billet steel piece. Swapped it out after the stock one went through the radiator. Ran it about 100 miles before I spun a bearing.

Posted by: Markviiiedrea

Not sure on the balancer, I would guess so, I know he has a 5% pully on the blower.

Posted by: turborich

dont you guys know that the mark is soooo freakin areodynamic that it gets 40+ mpg!

Posted by: MediumD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markviiiedrea

Got the info from my friend an in FL he has the nicest 89 SC, best one that I have ever seen. No source though.

Heh mine looks like the white one in the reflection off of your friends car... ~15% overdrive will be in the mail next week

(yes it has headers/exhaust, MLS headgaskets, and ARP studs.)

Posted by: bryanswens

Where can a person find 2.47 or 2.73 gears for a Mark. Ive looked at some websites and I only see them go as high as a 3.08. I commute 75+ miles day 5 days a week thats why im intrested.

Posted by: Markviiiedrea

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryanswens

Where can a person find 2.47 or 2.73 gears for a Mark. Ive looked at some websites and I only see them go as high as a 3.08. I commute 75+ miles day 5 days a week thats why im intrested.

Buy a Honda and don't abuse a mark like that.

Jk try summit or jegs, call maxx see what he has, you never know he might have some thing.

I was thinking the same thing cuz with the 4.10 my gas is crap and I like to take long trips with it and wanted to carry both with me for when I travel.

Posted by: Moes8

you might like 2.73 but and higher and you might not gain anything, the engine may have to struggle too much to be efficient,
i dont know this for fact,but just a thought

Posted by: slowmkviii

mustangs came with 2.73 with and overdrive of .68 the 4r70w is .70
I think you would see an improvment

Posted by: Moes8

Quote:

Originally Posted by slowmkviii

mustangs came with 2.73 with and overdrive of .68 the 4r70w is .70
I think you would see an improvment

i agree ,i think he might like 2.73,but not any higher(lower numerically) is what i said.

consider the wieght difference of a mustang .

Posted by: slowmkviii

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moes8

i agree ,i think he might like 2.73,but not any higher(lower numerically) is what i said.

consider the wieght difference of a mustang .

86 gt only came with 210 hp and 265 torque

Web Advertising:Loans:eHarmony Coupon:Jordans 5:Vegas Hotel