How often do you go wide open throttle?

[KStromberg]

Everyone says how they want to spin these motors higher and higher but has anyone even had theirs on the dyno up to 7000-7500 rpm? Does it make any power up to that point?

No, my car does not make power up to 7K rpms, but that does not matter in terms of acceleration. With these cars shifting PAST peak power is optimal. It all depends strictly upon setup with how far you go before you shift.

Here, I'll attempt to explain:
With my commanded shift points now near 7K rpms, the car is picking back up at approximately 5000 rpms into the next gear. That is pretty much perfect because that is on the windward side of the tq/hp "mountain" on my graph. I am building torque into the next gear by starting at the side of the mountain and peaking hp throughout the gear rather than starting off the next gear over in the field 2 miles away and having to travel all the way through the flat field before I reach the mountain and start climbing again. Staying in the sweet spot on the curve when you begin the next gear is going to provide maximum acceleration which is why you shift past peak power. If you shift at peak power however, you have a whole lot of ground to make up on the next gear, and as a result, you will run slower times.

A perfect example of my theory proven true was last year on the chip tune. I made my first two passes letting the tune shift the car at 6200 rpms in 1st and 6400 rpms in second. I ran a couple low-14 second passes. I then said screw this crap, it's obvious the car needs more rpms so my only choice was to manually shift the car. So I held out the gears. I did that a few times bouncing the rev limiter and then finally getting it down to some good passes without hitting the limiter and wa-lah, I started running 13 second passes and my trap speeds were up 2-3 mph.

So needless to say, after that adventure I inquired of DLF to get some input on where he is shifting. Sure enough, he is up there right at about 6900 rpms shift points. When I got it on the dyno, I told the operator, "do that" LOL The car feels even faster than 13.59 now, so I think I went the right direction.

So anyhow, if anyone knows these cars especially tuning-wise, DLF is one of them. I will quote him here: "7000 rpms was a bit too much and 6800 rpms was not enough". I'll go with what this guy says, especially considering I don't have a doubt in my mind he will have the fastest all motor Mark8 before the year's end.

 

[warrioralumni08]

Many times a week, but I shouldn't! Just can't resist! The looks I get at the car, and just love the way it sounds downtown at night, with nobody around, and you can just hear the echo. I need to stop though, as I want a vehicle for the winter. Who knows, may be too late for the Lincoln, had low oil level today, and just checked it two days ago, and was full. This, does not seem to be a good sign.

 

[KStromberg]

Many times a week, but I shouldn't! Just can't resist! The looks I get at the car, and just love the way it sounds downtown at night, with nobody around, and you can just hear the echo. I need to stop though, as I want a vehicle for the winter. Who knows, may be too late for the Lincoln, had low oil level today, and just checked it two days ago, and was full. This, does not seem to be a good sign.

So when it does say LOW OIL LEVEL, what is your dipstick reading?

 

[warrioralumni08]

So when it does say LOW OIL LEVEL, what is your dipstick reading?

First time it has happened, but I couldn't tell you at the moment. I pulled in, low oil level message comes on, so of course I turned the car off. I will check in the morning. I hope all is well. :shifty:

 

[KStromberg]

First time it has happened, but I couldn't tell you at the moment. I pulled in, low oil level message comes on, so of course I turned the car off. I will check in the morning. I hope all is well. :shifty:

If the dipstick still reads full even with the message, I would assume you have a bad oil level sensor. If it is indeed low, keep in mind that as soon as the oil pan is 1 quart low, that message will be displayed. If that is the case and it was full a few days ago, obviously there is a massive oil leak. I can't imagine that you wouldn't see some sort of oil leak on the ground underneath your car. Check to see if there is oil pissing out of the oil filter adapter housing.

 

[MarkVIIIS]

Aren't shorty headers better for higher revving engines just like shorter runners in the intake I think longer headers are better for low end power

 

[Spree]

Well, at least it's not a girl Lol!

You know just what to say at just the right time....now that made me laugh!. With 195+K I don't want to push it! I would like to have this car around at least another 2 years, that way my youngest son will get a chance to drive a bad a$$ MK8...The rest of the kids choose this car over any of the newer ones, I know he'll like it too.....I wounder why??? hhmmm

 

[NetKeym]

Aren't shorty headers better for higher revving engines just like shorter runners in the intake I think longer headers are better for low end power

I know long tubes help in the bottom end because of scavenging, but I can't see any way shorties could possibly be better for higher revving engines. I'm pretty sure you'll find long tubes are better across the RPM range - I've never seen any evidence otherwise.

If anybody has time slips or dyno graphs to prove otherwise, than by all means, let's see them!


BTW, short runners are better on the intake side on high rpms because there is simply less restriction and work needed to suck in the air - basic flow theory. Longer intake tubes speed up the air flow at lower rpms and there is an ideal speed for the air entering the engine which comes in sooner (lower rpm) with longer runners.

 

[thaywood]

As often as humanly possible I just WOT'd mine about ten minutes ago on the way back from lunch. I just love the sound of this engine screaming to redline with the cherry bomb mufflers. There's nothing like it (well, except maybe for the sound of the Cobra doing the same thing).

 

[keVIIIn]

No, my car does not make power up to 7K rpms, but that does not matter in terms of acceleration. With these cars shifting PAST peak power is optimal. It all depends strictly upon setup with how far you go before you shift.

Here, I'll attempt to explain:
With my commanded shift points now near 7K rpms, the car is picking back up at approximately 5000 rpms into the next gear. That is pretty much perfect because that is on the windward side of the tq/hp "mountain" on my graph. I am building torque into the next gear by starting at the side of the mountain and peaking hp throughout the gear rather than starting off the next gear over in the field 2 miles away and having to travel all the way through the flat field before I reach the mountain and start climbing again. Staying in the sweet spot on the curve when you begin the next gear is going to provide maximum acceleration which is why you shift past peak power. If you shift at peak power however, you have a whole lot of ground to make up on the next gear, and as a result, you will run slower times.

A perfect example of my theory proven true was last year on the chip tune. I made my first two passes letting the tune shift the car at 6200 rpms in 1st and 6400 rpms in second. I ran a couple low-14 second passes. I then said screw this crap, it's obvious the car needs more rpms so my only choice was to manually shift the car. So I held out the gears. I did that a few times bouncing the rev limiter and then finally getting it down to some good passes without hitting the limiter and wa-lah, I started running 13 second passes and my trap speeds were up 2-3 mph.

So needless to say, after that adventure I inquired of DLF to get some input on where he is shifting. Sure enough, he is up there right at about 6900 rpms shift points. When I got it on the dyno, I told the operator, "do that" LOL The car feels even faster than 13.59 now, so I think I went the right direction.

So anyhow, if anyone knows these cars especially tuning-wise, DLF is one of them. I will quote him here: "7000 rpms was a bit too much and 6800 rpms was not enough". I'll go with what this guy says, especially considering I don't have a doubt in my mind he will have the fastest all motor Mark8 before the year's end.

I know what you're saying, its always better to keep the rpm in the peak power band, but at the same time if the power is falling off at say 7000 there's no need to carry it out another 200 rpm, i guess it's a trade off, either let it shift later and be closer to peak power in the next gear or shift sooner to avoid useless rpm where the power band is plateuing..if it can be tuned to the point where the motor would stay at the "sweet spot" for the longest amount of time..that would be ideal.

 

[KStromberg]

I know what you're saying, its always better to keep the rpm in the peak power band, but at the same time if the power is falling off at say 7000 there's no need to carry it out another 200 rpm, i guess it's a trade off, either let it shift later and be closer to peak power in the next gear or shift sooner to avoid useless rpm where the power band is plateuing..if it can be tuned to the point where the motor would stay at the "sweet spot" for the longest amount of time..that would be ideal.

While the dyno graph is very useful, real time testing at the track is the only surefire way to know where your car should be shifting. Street tuning is always a good idea after the dyno to check driveability.

One thing to also keep in mind is that while you may be shifting sooner in order to avoid useless rpms, you could also be hurting your times just as much if not even more (seems to be my case) because when you shift sooner you are also further away from the curve and have to try to make that up in the next gear.

 

[chris]

I go WOT in the Mark every time I drive it, at least since I bought the Mustang. Now the Mark feels slow and sloppy. Still sounds good but when compared to a 2013 GT 6 speed it just feels dated.

 

[Lownslowlsc]

I will say this, when it was my summer car it saw wot quite often. As soon as it went to dd duties I started driving like a grandpa.

 

[FancyCobra8]

I do this rarely because up until 3 days ago I've been driving a Marquis & my wife's been driving a Chrysler 200. Now I'm interested in seeing what our Mark VIII can do.

 

[KingJacobo]

I do this rarely because up until 3 days ago I've been driving a Marquis & my wife's been driving a Chrysler 200. Now I'm interested in seeing what our Mark VIII can do.

I went from a 97 Crown vic to an 03 police interceptor to a 93 Mark VIII. The Mark blows the doors off the 97 and even pulls harder than the 03. I think you'll be happy :biggrin: And it's way older than both of them!

 

[KStromberg]

And I think in the case of the Chrysler 200 and the Marquis, the Mark8 still comes out ahead. The 200 is basically a 300 with its balls cut off and the Marquis is a slower version of a Crown Vic.

 

[the1andonlyGR81]

i go wot almost all the time, which is one of the reasons i need to get my 4.10 in to keep me from regularly cruising at 100 on the hwy.

 

[90boss]

I go WOT in the Mark every time I drive it, at least since I bought the Mustang. Now the Mark feels slow and sloppy. Still sounds good but when compared to a 2013 GT 6 speed it just feels dated.

Well I would hope so! As it is..........