Gen 1 vs Gen 2 Weight distribution

9

93mkviii

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
526
Reaction score
39
Location
jacksonville
I've been searching on the weight distribution of the Mark VIII and came across this info from tccoa.

"There are two major revisions of the Mark VIII - Gen1 (93-96) and Gen2 (97-98).
LSC coupes were available 95-98 with slightly more HP (10) due to dual exhaust & CR.
Gen1 are OBD-I EEC-IV systems except for 1996 which was OBD-II EEC-V.
Gen1 have a slightly thicker piston crown and more desirable for performance builds.
EEC-IV have coil packs (DIS) while EEC-V systems have COPs.
Body style is slightly different for Gen2 then Gen1 (headlight/taillight change).
Gen1 headlights are horrible. Clear Gen1 available w/HID late 95 and all 96 LSC's.
LSC models have 3.27 gear rear end, all others have 3.07 ratio.
LSC models have slightly more compression (9.9:1 CR) vs non-LSC (9.8:1 CR).
Steering Ratio changed from Gen1 to Gen2 (14.1:1 vs 17.25:1).
Front/Rear Weight Distribution changed from Gen1 to Gen2 (63%/37% vs 55%/45%).
Gen2 Marks are slightly wider 74.8" than Gen1 Marks 74.6"."

Mainly i'm focused on the compression, steering ratio, and weight distribution. Anyone know if this is true?
 
Thanks, needs a new paint job and more attention to detail which I hope to do when it's running perfect again.
 
93mkviii said:
LSC models have slightly more compression (9.9:1 CR) vs non-LSC (9.8:1 CR).
Steering Ratio changed from Gen1 to Gen2 (14.1:1 vs 17.25:1).
Front/Rear Weight Distribution changed from Gen1 to Gen2 (63%/37% vs 55%/45%).

Mainly i'm focused on the compression, steering ratio, and weight distribution. Anyone know if this is true?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any CR differences of the base to LSC models and cannot fathom any difference in the actual dimensions of the combustion chamber to verify this.

The steering ratios are different.

The weight distribution differences seems to be radical but I could see some minor differences. If the specs were not published by FLM, I would have a hard time believing such without a set of certified scales.
 
I just don't understand how there could be that much of a change in weight distribution. Same engine/body style(almost) and frame. Yet 300 lb was decreased from the front tires to the rear. I now know why steering my 93 is easier than the 97 and felt more precise when it didn't have play.... I just thought it felt different. Good info. I want to get my car to a scale and weight it with front tires and the rear to get precise measurements and real numbers for the distribution of the Mark.
 
I have also read on a different site the same big change in weight distribution.
I'm also skeptical and hope to put my car on the race scales this summer
 
This isn't a scientific answer by any means, but it seems to me that if there were that much difference in the weight distribution and the gen-II's were that much closer to 50/50, I would think the gen-II's would have developed a reputation on owner/enthusiast sites like this of superior handling. It would also be interesting if anyone on here who owns one of each could compare/contrast the stock handling attributes of both cars (preferably a base gen-I vs a base gen-II or a LSC gen-I vs a LSC gen-II to make it a little fairer).

EDIT: I guess I should acknowledge I know there are other variables involved that would skew the results, but it's just a thought.
 
engines are the same. i highly doubt any compression ratio difference.
and i recall a thread saying that all the steering racks are the same.
 
chris2523 said:
engines are the same. i highly doubt any compression ratio difference.
and i recall a thread saying that all the steering racks are the same.
Click to expand...

i know the steering racks are not the same

but i wonder about the compression ratio/ piston crown... i know the 1st gen will smoke the 2nd gen stock to stock in a drag from a dig
 
Just found this thread, glad I got a Gen II! Has anyone weight these cars with a full tank? Are they close to their advertised 3750lb?

I can ask around to see if anyone I know has scales that will give me the Gen II data. I always weigh cars with a full tank, to have a solid control number. If I find some one, I'll toss up an invide to Gen I owners to come with me... so long as your car is close to stock and doesn't have 223498lbs of subwoofers and TVs in it. ;)

*Maverick* said:
...if there were that much difference in the weight distribution and the gen-II's were that much closer to 50/50, I would think the gen-II's would have developed a reputation on owner/enthusiast sites like this of superior handling.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is, no enthusisats are buying these cars, especially not handling enthusiasts. Out in the marketplace, these are perceived as expensive luxo-pigs, and are likely not on the radar of anyone who would want to drive in a spirited fashion. Secondly, they have air ride, and nobody will look for handling in a car like that.

Having driven many proper sports cars, I can say that I am surprised at how well My Gen holds the road. It could be better, but it aint as bad as I thought it would be.

I knew one guy in NASA who I had convinced to build an MN12 racer. It was an SC, and he loved it so much that he sold it to build a Mark VIII. He had gotten through the gutting and cutting part of the tear-down.... then there was some legal action taken against him and he dissapeared from the world. Last I heard, he had gotten close to 2500lb w/o the cage. Not sure if he was trustworthy though. lol

Our cars were just marketed to, and purchased by, the worng people.
 
*Maverick* said:
This isn't a scientific answer by any means, but it seems to me that if there were that much difference in the weight distribution and the gen-II's were that much closer to 50/50, I would think the gen-II's would have developed a reputation on owner/enthusiast sites like this of superior handling. It would also be interesting if anyone on here who owns one of each could compare/contrast the stock handling attributes of both cars (preferably a base gen-I vs a base gen-II or a LSC gen-I vs a LSC gen-II to make it a little fairer).

EDIT: I guess I should acknowledge I know there are other variables involved that would skew the results, but it's just a thought.
Click to expand...

I've owned both. And I have to say that my GEN1 '96 base was surprisingly fast compared to my GEN2 '97 LSC. The '96 would literally walk away from the '97 LSC. I was very disappointed in how slow the '97 LSC was when we got it. Even after the cherry bombs and deleted 3rd cat and H-Pipe, it still takes it a tick more than 7 seconds to get to 60. The '96 would do 0-60 in around 6.7-6.8 seconds, even with 200k miles on it. As far as handling, the LSC handled very well with the OEM LSC front shocks. When I had to get new ones and went with Arnotts, the handling suffered. The front end now wallows and pushes more than it used to. However, the heavy duty shocks I just installed in the rear slightly makes up for the mushy front end. The '96 always handled great. Even with Arnott front shocks it still would outhandle the '97 any day of the week. The '96 also "felt" a lot lighter and nimbler than the '97. The '97 LSC feels like a gigantic boat compared to the '96. I love my GEN2, but sometimes I find myself wishing I had the '96 back just because it was so fuggin fast!
 
thaywood said:
I've owned both. And I have to say that my GEN1 '96 base was surprisingly fast compared to my GEN2 '97 LSC. The '96 would literally walk away from the '97 LSC. I was very disappointed in how slow the '97 LSC was when we got it. Even after the cherry bombs and deleted 3rd cat and H-Pipe, it still takes it a tick more than 7 seconds to get to 60. The '96 would do 0-60 in around 6.7-6.8 seconds, even with 200k miles on it. As far as handling, the LSC handled very well with the OEM LSC front shocks. When I had to get new ones and went with Arnotts, the handling suffered. The front end now wallows and pushes more than it used to. However, the heavy duty shocks I just installed in the rear slightly makes up for the mushy front end. The '96 always handled great. Even with Arnott front shocks it still would outhandle the '97 any day of the week. The '96 also "felt" a lot lighter and nimbler than the '97. The '97 LSC feels like a gigantic boat compared to the '96. I love my GEN2, but sometimes I find myself wishing I had the '96 back just because it was so fuggin fast!
Click to expand...

What is the difference in the two, aren't the suspensions pretty much the same thing
 
topher5150 said:
there is a city dump right next door to me, ya think they'll let me weigh my car
Click to expand...

City run... so I doubt it. However, nearly every truck stop on the planet has scales that will service anyone willing to pay the fee. I think it cost me $9 once. This won't get you distribution data, your car isn't long enough to trip their rear scales. :P

Last timeI did it, it was at a grain elevator.
 
topher5150 said:
What is the difference in the two, aren't the suspensions pretty much the same thing
Click to expand...

the front air shocks. as he mentioned. the arnott variety he installed are softer than the ford ones he took out. front end dives and rolls more, so it will push that front end and not turn.
 
topher5150 said:
What is the difference in the two, aren't the suspensions pretty much the same thing
Click to expand...

chris2523 said:
the front air shocks. as he mentioned. the arnott variety he installed are softer than the ford ones he took out. front end dives and rolls more, so it will push that front end and not turn.
Click to expand...

+1 what he said.

As far as why the '96 "felt" better in the curves than the '97 even though both have Arnott front shocks...I don't know. It may be because the '96 is a little lighter than the '97 and therefore handled better. From a "seat of the pants" feel, the GEN1 is a featherweight compared to the hefty smurf GEN2's bulk. The actual difference in weight probably isn't that much, but it feels like a ton and an half.
 
I have one of both and have been all over both and I see no reason a 2nd generation has a better weight distribution than a first generation ???
 
Fiberglass Hood vs aluminum will be several pounds sprung weight.
 
there is NO WAY the weight dist, changed more than 1% either way, 55/45 is the weight dist of the mustang cobra when it first used the independent suspension.
 
scales

slowmkviii said:
I have also read on a different site the same big change in weight distribution.
I'm also skeptical and hope to put my car on the race scales this summer
Click to expand...

I have a stock 94 --- ill try to get it to my buddies farm scales and weigh both ends - he leaves them on all the time so he don't have to get out of the truck-- lol i might tell the wife she has to drive the ranger tomorrow~

merlin_color.jpg
 
I went to a local scrap yard last year. They have a drive-on scale that is typically on 24/7. My 98 weighed 4040# with me in the car.
 
Well someone needs to put some numbers and with the replies I think we may get solid numbers soon. Is the 55v45 weight distribution of the 2003-2004 cobras? Remember they use a solid cast iron block which adds a few pounds right to the front of the car. I was also checking that the middle point of the car is right at where you sit(about one feet back from where the windshield meets the roof). A full tank would help the distribution if anything. Also, moving a 60lb battery from the front nose to the trunk would help. You would need to at least run a 2 gauge wire though which in my opinion isn't that hard and it would free up the engine bay a bit. Also, it depends on how you run the your suspension height. Mine is lower from the back which actually will put a little more pounds to the rear tires but you also need stronger shock absorbers to compensate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 314 (members: 0, guests: 314)
Back
Top