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

Gen 1 vs. Gen 2 insight after datalogging

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

Posted by: 98LSC32V

Well after datalogging a few days both the 96 and 98 Mark VIII, I have come to a few conclusions that are very insightful in my opinion. First let me breakdown the specs on both cars.

The 98 LSC has 85,000 miles and it has 2.5 exhaust with no mufflers and Magnaflow 3rd cat, a custom Sniper tune, Amsoil 9 inch conical, 255LPH fuel pump, NGK TR55 copper plugs with GMS 4v connecter kit.

the 96 Mark VIII base has 96,000 miles and has 100% stock exhaust with a custom smoothed intake and 9 inch K&N conical, Motorcraft platinum plugs and Motorcraft wires.

The motors in these cars are exactly the same besides the intake manifold, IMRCs, intake tube and throttle body. The 96 even has the same Beehive valve springs as the 98.

What I found was that the 98 breathes more air at idle (18 vs. 14 grams/sec) but at WOT the 96 breathes in a peak of 930 grams/sec versus a peak of 853 grams/sec for the 98. The 96 is also much more volumetric efficient, it's peak load % is 98.6% which is really efficient. Getting 100% or close to to it on an NA motor is not easy. This is definitely due to the design of the intake manifold for both the air flow and the VE. The peak VE number for the 98 LSC is 85% and is usually in the low 80 percent range. With that said, the 98 LSC seems to like to rev a lot higher and can easily be taken to 7000 rpm without it feeling like it noses over. The 96 is quite happy with going to just 6000rpm although I'm gonna guess 6500 rpm shifts would be ideal so not to fall out of the powerband. Right now it has the stock tune on it because I put it back to stock to tune my friends 97 Cobra. I am waiting to datalog his Cobra this weekend, i'm anxious to see how his VE and incoming air flow stack up to the Marks.

If anyone is interested I can send my datalogging files, they have a lot more info than what I have talked about. I must say after starting to datalog I would not want to get a chip burned blindly for any of my cars, you really need to datalog to see what is going on with it because every car is different.

Posted by: unity

I am surprised by the differences. Wish I knew what my setup had though!

Posted by: 93' Blue on blue

Makes me wonder why Ford changed the intake style, as the gen1 obviously flows abit better. Maybe it was cheaper, or quieter, or maybe had a slightly better low end response... not sure.

Posted by: 98LSC32V

No the gen 1 intake manifold produces more torque. The VE load % directly correlates to calculated torque. The gen 2 intake manifold peaks airflow at a much higher rpm. The gen 1 intake peaks at 5600rpm, the gen 2 intake peaked at 6800rpm for me. My guess is Ford changed the design to a front mount throttle body intake manifold for easier service.

Posted by: Dmaup

From what I have heard the gen 2 intake is not quieter. They have more of a rumble to them.

But it is defiantly cool to see the differences between the two.

Posted by: 98LSC32V

The information is definately interesting but i'm not sure that it would be the same for every gen 1 and gen 2, it's impossible for me to say since I only have datalogged my cars. Every car is different but my gut feeling says the results would be similar for other gen 1 vs. gen 2 comparisons.

Posted by: 93' Blue on blue

I see... Yeah the low end torque response was just a guess, going by the fact that it flows better at idle - i thought maybe Ford may have engineered it for a better low end response. But yeah, maybe they felt the need to re -design it due to the throttle body location.

Whats different about the IMRCs between your two? I thought 96 up all had electrically operated ones, as opposed to the older vacuum design. ( or was it 95 up? Darn, cant remember now lol)

Posted by: Psychostang

At least federal emission 96's have the vacuum cans, with internal prox switches. The cali 96's may be different.

Posted by: Roadboss

You are getting on to why I personally will never buy a mail order chip. My second car should be heading for the tuner's after the holiday.

Posted by: unity

Quote:

Originally Posted by 93' Blue on blue

I thought 96 up all had electrically operated ones, as opposed to the older vacuum design. ( or was it 95 up? Darn, cant remember now lol)

96 still has vacuum but with wires going to the actuators to monitor the open/closed position. The 96 is ODB II, but more like a 95. Its a unique year.

Posted by: 98LSC32V

The 97/98 IMRC's are plastic, the same as the 98 Cobra ones for less heatsoak. The ports are also different than the gen 1 design.

Posted by: 93' Blue on blue

Cool info! Yeah, i think my modular tuning book is wrong in some bits. (It states all Marks had the early type runners, 96 and 97 cobras had aluminum runners and the 98 cobra had the plastic with the slightly larger ports)

Roadboss hit the nail on the head with regard to chips - tailor made is best. (just like a suit) Will be interesting to see the effects of different mods with the data log.

Posted by: poniesviii

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.