Lincoln LS

giowa

Does anyone know the difference in front-rear weight balance in the LS8 vs LS6 auto? Was thinking it was something like 52/48 versus 51/49. Is that a huge difference? A meaningful difference? Esp. once you add fuel, luggage, driver, and passengers? Is it statistically significant? I do not remember reading a plethora of published comments on LS8 chiding its handling due to its excessive front weight balance. Can't say I remember reading a published report which clearly lauded the LS6 auto for its weight balance and handling capabilities vis-a-vis the LS8.

The published acceleration difference, however, is large, significant, and widely reported. LS8 auto 0-60 time around 7.2-7.5. The LS6 auto 0-60 time in mid 9 seconds range. Does anyone think there is a comparable difference between a 2 second 0-60 time versus a 1% weight difference?

For those extolling the differences in weight balance and handling in favor of LS6 auto but viewing the acceleration figures as being of limited practical difference, guess I'm missing something. The numbers and reported test results appear to almost uniformly come to the opposite conclusion.

After 32,000 miles in my LS8 Sport and a couple thousand in my mom's '00 LS6 auto base, there is a HUGE difference in acceleration, passing, merging, etc. What I can do comfortably and quickly on a 2-lane road in my LS8 Sport, I can't do in her LS6 auto.

And the EPA mileage figure similarity is merely a result of a too small V-6 being used in such a heavy car. Plus final drive differences. The LS6 auto is much, much slower and doesn't produce much of a big difference in economy.

leadfoot4

Yes, the rear pillars on my 2000 LS have a bit of a wave on both sides. Being black, it does show up somewhat, but it doesn't jump right out at you. In fact, if it was that bad, I wouldn't have bought the car. You do know, however, that there is a body seam there.
Just my $.02 worth on the V-6 vs. V-8 discussion that pops up from time to time. I have the V-8, but the two LS loaners that my dealer has are both V-6's, and the first LS I drove was one of these loaners. (My friend's TC was in for service) The difference in acceleration is indeed there, but it's not exactly a night and day difference. For most daily driving, I'm sure that the V-6 is more than adequate. The difference doesn't start to become noticible until 70 MPH or so.

airwolf1000

I have the Wavy Pillars 2000 on my Feb 2000 LS8 Sport.... The wavy pillars bother me a little but not enough not to buy the car. The Rear Door Crease is part of the Manufacturing process from what I understand and all of the LS Have them... Take a look they are there...

regards,

Airwolf1000

giowa

So what is your observation in regard to the level of perceived difference in weight balance and handling between LS8s and LS6 autos? Is there more of a difference in these two areas than in regard to the acceleration difference you have perceived? Is the LS6 auto clearly superior in regard to weight balance and handling? (I think the proper comparison is LS8 non-Sport to LS6 non-Sport auto or LS8 Sport to LS6 Sport auto.)

heyjewel

I just looked at mine and I guess I can see a bit of wavyness if I look real hard. Certainly not something that bothers me.

I did have a dimple about the size of a silver dollar under the passenger rear door handle. In the center of it was visible plainly a circular spot about 1/2 size of a nickel. (Weld? I dunno) In any case this one did bother me. Dealer body shop fixed it and it looks just fine now.

Does Lincoln need to do a better job with body and paint quality? Definitely.

However, along this line, parked next to me yesterday at work was a brand new Mercedes ML430 SUV. The paint on my Autumn Red LS was *much* nicer than the Benz. Orange peel was quite easily visible on it.

Last V6 vs V8. At the autocross in Irvine, I was able to drive V6 manual, and V6 and V8 autos, all sport packages. This experience solidified the decision my wife and I had made to buy the V6 manual LS. While the V8 is undoubtedly a bit quicker, the better balance of the V6 made it the better car in the autocross, IMHO. I could plainly feel the handling difference between the two and ascribed it to the better balance of the V6. Not that I think the difference was major, not at all. But it was discernable.

lolaj42

Heyjewel, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I'm surprised that you felt you were able to discern a difference in handling level between the V6 and V8 models on the Autocross at the Mania event. The weight difference between the two versions is less than 100 lbs, and the bias between where the weight is distributed makes the difference even less. 51% of the total V6 (auto) weight on the front wheels would amount to 1,832 lbs versus 52% of the total V8 weight being 1,920 lbs. A difference of about 88 lbs. It would be hard to determine how the driver's weight would translate to the front/rear weight bias, and that could either add to or decrease the difference. I would think that a "small" driver in a V8 could more than compensate for a "large" driver in a V6.

Also, the 3 autocross circuits set up in Irvine, while similar, were not identical. Unless you drove each LS version on the same track, it would be even more difficult to discern a real handling difference, particularly if you drove your own model more than the other. On the Irvine autocross circuit I drove on, a V6 was not present. The only time I drove the V6 in Irvine was on the shorter Gymkana course and I was more aware of power difference than a handling difference. In all, I think most non-professional drivers would have a real tough time noting the weight and weight distribution differences.

fantom

In my estimation the advantage the V-8 enjoys in acceleration is mitigated by the weight & balance handling advantage of the V-6. In almost a year of driving each, my experience is that neither one is significant, given my driving style which is in no way passive.

However I found the fuel burn on the V6 about 25% better....which interestingly is almost the same as the cubic inch increase on the V8. It seems to be a trade off of how much we like to accelerate hard from mid-range speeds vs.how much pleasure we get from 3 or 4 more MPG.

ronniepooh

My experiences comparing the LSV8 vs LSV6 pretty much mirror what fantom, heyjewel, and leadfoot4 have experienced. As stated time and time again, magazine "tests" mean little in real world, day to day driving. Ive seen LSV8 0-60 times in the mid 8 second range in various mags. Ive seen LSV6 0-60 quoted as 7.4 seconds. Little Vtec civics can beat both of those numbers any day of the week. Who cares? I personally have a wierd BMW bias, where I favor naturally aspirated 6 cylinder engines over 4's, 8's, and 12's, and anything super or turbocharged. Thats just me and my desires and what fits my styles. If I lived out in wide open areas, like say Montana, I would probably favor something with a turbo, or maybe even a thirsty 8 cylinder.

As far as balance, I think options add to the factor. Are we comparing a LSV6 Sport Auto with FULL sized 17 inch spare and heavier Audiophile System to a LSV8 Sport Auto with the weight saving smaller spare and NO heavy audiophile? Or are we comparing a LSV8 Sport Auto with fullsized spare and audiophile against a LSV6 with small sized spare and no audiophile? Might be another 1-2% difference in balance variances right there.

bajabill

are you guys seriously debating these small differces in weight. Do you never fill your tank above half way? If you pick me up to go golfing, can I bring my clubs? Is there any knowledge of the out the door weight tolerance on cars? How about tire wear on cornering? Heat on the road surface have any impact? Any other factors to add to the noise level of the testing?

heyjewel

Hey, I'm not in a fightin mood anyway! :>)

But seriously, I understand completely your argument that the diff is small. I didn't own an LS at the time of Mania 1. We drove down in my Mark VIII, which I took out on the course a couple of times. So all the LSes I drove were provided by LM. I even got to drive Jim's blue manual. (Didn't like the mods he'd done - to each his own.) I'm not quite sure as I think about it now whether I was able to drive both engines on the same course. But I do plainly remember mashing each into/out of turns and coming away with a slightly better perception of balance in the V6. Like I said, by no means a major difference. But I could feel it.

BTW, the dimple I described in 3705 was actually nearer to the front door handle than the rear one. It was on the rear door an inch or 2 from the front door seam and about same distance down from the window.

Last thing: just got back from lunch with a coworker. I drove. He opined "It's hard to believe this car (my LS) is made by the same company that makes the Town Car." He had rented a TC for the previous 2 days in Austin and said he felt confident driving it "only when I had it pointed straight ahead." :>) He drives a Saab 9 5 turbo 5 speed BTW and loves it.

stanny1

With about a .2 second 0-60 difference between the 2000 and 2001 Manual and V-8, it should be interesting to see what 0-60 time the mags come up with when testing the 2002 Manual with the 10 hp difference. Scooter says that the only change to the exhaust was a change in mufflers. We can all change those in our existing cars or buy the Borla system. The other change was the new airbox unit, and we need to compare an older LS with someone who gets a 2002. Let's hope than in two months we have a new 2002 V-6 owner on the forum that will let us do a side by side. I'll volunteer my car as the old one if someone in the San Diego area gets a 2002 V-6. Since I think the airboxes on the V-8s are the same, V-8 owners are also candidates for the new airbox as well. Let's hope it doesn't cost an arm and a leg or take some serious modification work.

lolaj42

I'll take the power advantage every time! While most of my driving is the mundane commuting type and "performance" and "handling" differences are virtually meaningless, I have more wide open spaces and seriously big mountains to climb when not otherwise commuting. On the 5+ mile climbs up 7% grades, and altitudes sometimes exceeding 7K ft, the hp difference between a V6 and V8 are striking. When climbing hills, there is no substitute for horsepower!

Bajabill brings up another excellent point as far as weight is concerned . . . the weight difference between a full tank of fuel versus a near empty tank more than offsets any weight bias differential that may exist for a given driver and "payload" the car may be carrying.

Not trying to pick a fight here, but I concur with giowa and bajabill that the weight bias / balance issue when comparing the LS6 and LS8 is insignificant while the horsepower differential is. FWIW, IMHO.

rec3

With due respect to those who notice the advantage the V6 has in balance, I am not sensitive or skilled enough to utilize this fine of a difference. However, I sure can use that 60 to 90 rush the V8 gives when I pass on a two lane road.

glenns3

llsoc looked at swaping a getrag 292 to the v-8, but has anyone looked at swaping the 292 to the v-6? If the manual tranny is the weak link wouldn't the 6 speed solve lots of problems? It would handle more power so supercharging, headers, or whatever floats your boat could be done to increase the power above that of the v-8. Your comfort level and pocket book would be the limit on how much the v-6 is modified. The car would accelerate better due to the lower first gear ratio without the need to sacrifice fuel mpg by lowering final drive ratio in the rear end. Lincoln might even learn some things (and provide technical help in exchange?) that would make them want to offer the six speed from the factory some day. What does everyone think?

azlels

I was the first to mention this issue. If Lincoln would let cars like this to be shipped, it really makes me wonder what else they just overlook. I also have a 528 and in many ways I like the LS6 much better. But I promise you BMW would never ship cars with this kind of sloppy finish work. If they did, they would do a recall immediately on them and fix them. I think Lincoln should do a recall on all LS' with wavy pillars. When I checked out the other 12 LS with the same problem I also looked closely at the TC's and tha Sables. Neither had wavy pillars. They may have had other rough spots but the pillars were perfect. This kind of thing could keep me from buying another LS.

One positive note is that the pearlescent white paint on my LS is better than the clearcoat black on the BMW. It has plenty of orange peal.

azlels

The V6 weight distribution is 50/50. The V8 is 48/52. That is about an 8% difference in the V8. In a 3500 lb. car and 8% difference is nearly 300 lbs. of front loading. At least one review I read said there was a noticeable handling difference in the sport models with the V6 much better. I drove both repeatedly and noticed a real difference. Also a Lincoln mechanic mentioned that in 2000 the V8 had problems with a noisy timing chain and since it is a new engine long term reliability is unknown. Some of these problems may have been solved in the 2001 V8. The 2000 V8 reviews by owners on Edmunds repeatedly mentioned bad gas mileage. Of course if the 60 to 90mph rush is important to the driver, gas mileage is not.

reneleblanc

From mileage reports I've seen posted, I didn't think there was typically a 3-4 mpg difference. I expect there COULD be if the driver gets in the habit of putting his/her foot in the V8 all the time. The potential power is there, and the more you use it the more gas it will convert to kinetic energy, but if you drive smoothly and moderately MOST of the time I think the V8 and V6 mileage won't be more than a mile or two per gallon apart. As with many things, with power comes responsibility ;-) I have learned to get pretty close to 17 MPG in city driving with our V8, and on the road we get 24-27 MPG. How different is this from the V6?

stanny1

As Glenns3 mentioned, the six-speed Getrag would solve a lot of problems in the LS Manual. It would be much easier to match the Getrag to the V-6. As Mark mentioned, the 3.9 has a "wierd" mounting area that would require a complex adapter plate for the Getrag. The bellhousing is already made for the V-6. So is the Luk disc, pressure plate, hydraulic clutch cylinder, and dual mass flywheel. You would have to make many of these parts for the 3.9. At the most, you might have to modify the tranny end of the bellhousing for the six-speed, maybe not. The shifter may have to be designed, and depending on the length of the tranny, the console may have to be redesigned. But these are small capital items compared with mating the V-8 to a manual tranny.
It's not so much a lower first gear in the Getrag 6er that's the magic; it's the overdrive sixth gear. In fact, the first gear may not be any lower in the 6er. Not to worry, because the overdrive sixth gear enables the rear ratio to go to at least a 3:58 and still reduce the cruise rpm and at the same time decrease acceleration times. Lower rpm at cruise also increases MPG and reduces NVH. Right now, the Manual turns 3000 rpm at 75mph with the 3:07 rear. Not acceptable for the long haul! A sixth gear ratio of about .70 would be fantastic. Even an overdrive five-speed manual would do the job if cost is a problem. Toyota made the great W58 overdrive tranny from 1982 to 1996 or so in millions of Supras and Cressidas. Bulletproof to 650 hp and definitely world-class. At this point, I'd even consider the Tremec or BW American six-speed as used in the Cobra. And I'd take the IRS LSD differential unit from the Cobra as well. In any case, LM brought the LS Manual to life quickly and on a budget. It's time for finishing school. With a six-speed, a 3:58 rear with LSD, VVT and that's all, we are talking about at least 6.8 0-60 times with better NVH and CAFE numbers.

fantom

While driving predominantly in the city over extended periods of time I got about 16.3 MPG in a 2000 V8LS and 19.8 in a 2001 V6LS. Out on the open road the difference narrowed to about 2 MPG. While my driving technique, of lack thereof, was the same, I can't say there isn't some tendency to lean on the stronger V8 more.

If I were doing lots of mountain driving and hill climbing the choice between a V8 and a V6 manual would be interesting, as would trying to get my wife to drive a stick. Think I'll keep the V6 Sport until there is a real screamer available. Say a 300 HP V8 Sport with a 6 speed manual. Then I may join the ranks of the vitriolic V8 defenders.

lolaj42

Rene, Good to hear from you. I'm getting the exact mileage that you report for the V8. We must have similar driving styles considering we live only a few miles apart and see the same roads. I rarely exhaust a whole tank of gas in "pure" city traffic, as I usually have some highway miles mixed in my Phoenix metro driving, so the worst mileage I ever see on a full tank is around 19+ mpg (running A/C full blast in this 105 degree heat!) My 5 speed manual 300ZX got about the same (normally aspirated DOHC 3.0 liter V6 with VVT & 4 valves/cyl - pentagonal roof heads, et. al.) I think the LS8 gets exceptionally good mileage compared to my previous vehicles.

lolaj42

I'm a little curious on how you arrive at an 8% difference in "front end loading" between the V6 and V8. My calculations were based off the weight reported for the V6 automatic and V8 automatic as published in the 2000 LS sales brochure. The LS6 weighs in at 3598 lbs distributed 51/49 front to rear; while the LS8 weighs 3692 lbs distributed 52/48.

Most, if not all published reports I have seen have made the general comment that the LS possess a "nearly 50/50 balance"; which, to my way of thinking, applies equally to both the LS6 and LS8.

The distributed curbweight of the LS6 is:
(.51 x 3598)/(.49 x 3598) => 1835 lbs./ 1763 lbs.

The distributed curbweight of the LS8 is:
(.52 x 3692)/(.48 x 3692) => 1920 lbs./ 1772 lbs.

Front end weight of the LS8 is only 85 lbs heavier than the LS6. If the LS6 does in fact have a 50/50 balance as you state, the difference in front end weight would increase to 121 lbs. Still far less than the 300 lbs you state.

None of these calculations take fuel loads, payload, or passenger weights into consideration, nor how these weights would translate to the overall vehicle balance. My point is that the weight differences are so small between the LS6 and LS8 as to render this a moot issue for debate.

As far as the 2000 V8 having a noisy timing chain, I have not observed this to be a problem. Perhaps other 2000 LS8 owners have observed this problem and can elaborate? Further, the 3.9 liter V8 is far from a "new" engine as you assert, it has been in the Jaguar stable for a few years now, although I'm uncertain as to when it was actually put into service.

rec3

The Premier Group has a number of 3.9L V8 powered vehicles that need a 6-speed manual to provide appropriate options for the driving enthusiasts: the LS8, Jaguar S V8, XK8, and XKR. Based on the European preference for manual transmissions, the lack of a manual for the Jaguars is more surprising than Lincoln only offering a manual for the V6. Providing the same 6-speed for each line would provide more volume and therefore lower unit cost for materials and design. Ford's knowledge of manual transmission design has retired, but Aston Martin could lend a hand (They still offer manual transmissions). Subcontracting the design to others and buying the parts is also an option for smaller volumes.

If a torgue converter housing can bolt to 3.9L block, it would seem that a bell housing could also.

scottc8

IMHO the only reason the V8 seems noisy to some people is that they're used to the sound of engines with timing belts rather than chains driving the camshaft(s). Take a look at the V8 cam drive photo in the LLSOC picture gallery. No rubber belts to replace every 60k miles, and no plastic gears (like the old 326 Pontiac from the '60s, which were notorious for breaking timing sprockets). I'll take this setup anyday. The only time I've found it to be noisy was for 15 seconds or so after starting on extremely cold mornings, and switching to synthetic oil has eliminated that.

As for '00 vs. '01 V8s, I drove my '00 immediately after a test drive of an '01 and there's no difference whatsoever.

There are valid reasons to prefer the V6, but there's no need to invent problems with the V8 to justify the preference.

stanny1

I agree. If more manuals appear in Premier vehicles, they will come from European applications, and in the case of LM, no doubt Jaguar will be the prototype producers. The LS inherited much from Jaguar but luckily not their wierd shifters. Who knows - Jag may be working on more Manual applications as we speak. Last summer, the Ford spokeswoman at the San Diego International Auto Show hinted at a Manual T-Bird. I was sort of surprised because the psycho and demographics for the T-Bird would IMHO indicate less demand for a Manual than in the LS. To me, it's a chicken and egg dilema. If the LS Manual was a real barnstormer, the mags would shout "winner" and sales would increase. Right now, you get a Manual for the "principle" of it, not superior acceleration as in most model lines where the engine is the same and the Manual makes a second or more difference in 0-60 times. If the Manual LS did mid 6's, it would be more of a "performance" value. At least I would not fear those VTEC Hondas and Acuras. Luckily, most of those are lowered so much and so poorly they have become more or less slow low-riders - afraid to drive fast over manhole covers.

sclark8

I seem to recall somebody posting a link to a Company that has touch up paint online for the Lincoln. I seem to remember that they have a color and clear coat combination kit that matched factory paint.

After a recent OS install, I lost some of my links.

Anybody have it in their favorites?

Some bone head scuffed my rear bumper in the parking lot.

giowa

From Car & Driver...

1. 11/99 test of LS6 Sport manual. Weighed 3,642 pounds. With 50.5/49.5 percent distribution. That gives 1839/1803 pounds distribution.

2. 2/00 test of LS6 base auto. Weighed 3,611 pounds. With 51.4/48.6 percent distribution. Gives 1856/1755 pound distribution.

3. 5/00 test of LS8 Sport. Weighed 3,800 pounds. With 52.1/47.9 percent distribution. Gives 1980/1820 pound distribution.

Compare to Road & Track...

1. 9/99 R&T had an LS8 Sport with a 3,800 pound curb weight and 3,930 pound test weight. It had a 53/47 percent distribution.

2. 7/00 test of LS6 Sport auto with a 3,760 pound curb weight and a 3,940 pound test weight. Also had a 53/47 percent distribution.

If there is any meaningful difference, and a small one at that, must be with LS6 manual. R&T results imply hardly any real difference between LS6 and LS8. The C&D LS6 Sport auto vs LS8 Sport has only 124 pounds more on the front of the LS8 Sport.

As for power comparison, I've always concurred with C&D's 11/99 test of LS6 Sport manual: "more serious complaint lies in the notable lack of power... clearly over-stressed when attempting to launch the 3,642-pound machine from a standstill. Acceleration remains vividly underwhelming. Zero to 60 comes in a modest 8.0 seconds and the quarter-mile drifts by in 16.3 seconds at 86 mph. Hardly memorable performance by any measurement." Their 2/00 test results for LS6 auto were abysmal in this class. 0-60 in 9.0 seconds.

emc3

http://www.paintscratch.com/

giowa

1. 10/99 Consumer Reports test of LS6 base auto. Weighed 3,655 pounds. With 52/48 percent distribution. 0-60 mph in 10.2 seconds.

2. 11/99 Motor Trend test of LS6 Sport manual. Weighed 3,598 pounds. With 51/49 distribution. 0-60 in 7.4 seconds. 1/4 mile in 15.7 seconds at 88.5 mph. Pulled .83g and went 63.6 mph in 600 ft slalom.

3. 1/00 Motor Trend test of LS8 Sport. Weighed 3,671 pounds. With 52/48 percent distribution. 0-60 in 7.2 seconds (w/3.58:1 final drive). Quarter mile in 15.4 seconds at 90.7 mph. Pulled .84g and went 63.2 mph in 600 ft slalom.

Published tests appear to show LS6 Sport manual as being the weight and weight distribution champ. Still a bit slower accelerating than LS8 Sport. And the skidpad and slalom numbers don't appear to clearly favor LS6.

buckwheat

I disagree that in the Jaguar stable there is a 3.9 liter unless of course you consider 3,996 cubic centimeters, 4 cubic centimeters short of 4.0 liters, is equal to a 3.9 liter. The LS is 3,950, 50 cubic centimeters short of 4.0 liter and much more accurately described as 3.9+ liter. Differences in HP - "S" type 281HP - LS 252HP. This differentiation up to now purposely done so as to not conflict Jag owners/cutomers. As changes come about, so long as there is product differentiation in the Premier Group, there will always be a separation purported to extol luxury/value$$.
Over 12,679 posts since the beginning of the original LS Topic (my first post #12) this same subject has repeated itself countless times, nothing wrong with that it ranks right close to hopes, dreams, aspirations of the V8 manual that re-cycles more frequently but alas any realization of this coming to frution anytime soon is still only that dream whether daytime or nocturnal it emits frustration to many.

stanny1

Catching up on my reading. Popular Mechanics, page 54, April 2001 issue, "Jay Leno's Garage":
"I love to quote my father who used to say "Why do you always have to get the stick shift? Why don't you get the automatic? You don't have the nonsense with the gears." Of course, when he was a kid, if you had an automatic, that meant you were a rich, successful guy, whereas to me, it meant that you were a big, fat lazy guy."

lateralg

Out of curiosity, I posted the following on the Jaguar S-Type board.

"Two serious questions for Jaguar S-Type owners, or potential owners:

1)Do you know the horsepower ratings of the S-Type and the Lincoln LS?

2)Would it concern you if they both had the same horsepower?"

Anyone care to predict the outcome?

scottc8

Think I see where you're going with this, and I like it. But the response might not be what you (and I) would hope, because of the type of people who frequent these boards. What would be illuminating would be the response to this question from a poll of ALL S-Type owners. We've discussed owner demographics here a couple times, and from what I see on the roads it still looks to me like the average LS or (especially) S-Type owner bought luxury first, performance second.

desertguy

You might even get some "what is a Lincoln LS?" Some Jag owners much like some Porsche owners are only focused on their respective cars and don't even consider others.

giowa

Neither Lincoln nor Jaguar go out of their way to hype the corporate relationship between LS and S-type.

Lincoln and Jag focus their advertising in different areas. Their target demographics are also different. Does anyone have Daniel Heraud's 2001 Road Report? I have the 2000 edition. In it he puts the S-type in Luxury Cars ($35-70K) and LS in Luxury Cars (under $35K). He wrote that for S-type: 60% of owners were men, 78% of owners married, 75% with college degree, average owner age of 45, and average income of $100,000. He didn't have any demographic data for LS.

S-type and LS look significantly different on outside and inside such that the casual observer wouldn't likely recognize the similarities.

The S-type is much more luxurious than the LS. Interestingly, the LS is much more sporting. Auto press commented extensively on the way the LS has a more sporting, aggressive ride and handling set-up, even base and more so with Sport Pkg. Jag doesn't even have manual tranny option.

While the 300M may be the "poor man's LS", the LS is better said to be the "smart buyer's Jag S-type". Don't think Ford would want that to get out!

ronniepooh

7.4 for the V6 Manual? Interesting, as MOtorweek found it to be over a full second slower, @ 8.5 seconds. http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt1839.shtml

I believe the V6 Auto get 0-60 at 8.8 seconds, not 10.2 seconds. And Ive rarely seen any reviews for the LSV8 getting 7.2 seconds for the 0-60 times.

But once again, who cares? Its which one best suits your needs. Some of us must be living in areas with absolutely no acceleration lanes to the highway, forcing mad 0-60 dashes each day to and fro from work. I actually find myself facing more curves and handling situations myself. Thats just me

areynolds

I'm looking for a shop manual for my 2000 v8 (print or cd). Also, has anyone successfully changed their PCM to allow 1st gear off the line in SST?

giowa

ronniepooh: It's certainly fine with me that you love your LS6 auto. (Forgot if you have the Sport Pkg or not.) The LS with Sport Pkg is quite a good handler. But the LS8 also adds power which translates into acceleration. Acceleration useful in lots of day-to-day normal situations. When merging on interstates. Passing on 2-lane roads. Driving in mountainous or hilly areas. These are areas lacking in the LS6 auto.

What I can't figure out is why you keep (wrongly) repeating the mantra that the LS6 is the superior handler. All due to a less than 1 percent (Sport automatic) difference in front-rear weight distribution? All of about 125 pounds weight. The non-Sport LS, 6 or 8, can't hold a candle to the Sport Pkg. And the LS6 auto base is completely outclassed by the LS8 Sport.

The 2 published times I'm immediately aware of for the LS6 Sport Manual are 7.4 and 8.0 seconds 0-60. Average it out and it is around 7.7. Probably with a standard deviation of around .25. The same figure for LS6 auto would be around 9.25 seconds.

scottc8

I'm surprised you say the target demographics are different for the LS vs. S-Type. I would think they'd be almost identical, income (or willingness to spend) being the major difference. Casual interest in the Jag is what steered me toward the LS. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't give up the LS suspension for the Jag's extra HP even if the price were the same. The average age figure you quoted confirms my suspicion that my judgement is skewed by where I live (older than average population around here). The age 45 is average, as opposed to median, correct?

Just in case anyone cares enough about this topic to wonder why I keep coming back to it: I think driving enthusiasts are a small minority of LS owners, and probably S-Types as well. Some of this is no doubt due to Lincoln's somewhat half-hearted efforts at promoting the LS as a performance car, at least initially. Have to wonder how serious Lincoln will be about the future of the LS as a SPORT sedan. Yes, there are people at Lincoln who share our enthusiasm but ultimately the bean counters rule. As they must.

giowa

It only makes sense that Ford is using two versions of this platform to appeal to at least two different groups (really more than two). If they wanted the platform to appeal to the same buyers, they certainly didn't need to develop two such different iterations off the same platform.

The Jag costs about $10K more. It was designed to be inherently more opulent inside (and to have classic Jag lines outside), so it is always going to be marketed upscale. The LS was deliberately made sportier, though it varies on that scale from LS6 base auto to LS8 to LS6 Sport auto to LS8 Sport to LS6 Sport manual. The Jag's sales are limited in US by its smaller dealer network. But Jag gets some volume back by Lincoln not selling overseas. (Would be interesting to see how Ford would market both in Europe or Asia. Guessing Ford might've sold only LS6 Sport manual, to keep cost down and fuel economy up.)

alphanstein

"The V6 uses a Ford block while Jaguar's variable-valve-timing heads, intake system and drive-by-wire throttle body top the Blue Oval low-end. These changes add 55 horsepower to the Duratec V6, giving it 240 horsepower and 212 foot-pounds of torque."

Looks like VVT is a good thing for the V6 as well, if they get 240, that's 20 more than the 2002 V6 of 220. But the torque is kinda low, could that be due to the weight of the car or different tranny config? In any event, if Lincoln can approach some refinements such as these for the LS, it will make future buyers have more warm fuzzies and reviewers will harp less on the gas mileage.

ronniepooh

Of course, opinions and rebutalls are fine, but lets not misquote, as I'm fairly certain I didnt make ANY post stating that the "V6 is the better handler than the V8", much less repeatedly stating it. Where did I allegedly post that? Although as a rule, all other handling factors being equal, lower weight does usually translate to a lighter, more nimble vehicle. How much more nimble, is an opinionated factor. Yes, I have the Sport Package. Washington DC and the immediate surrounding suburbs that I live in are not "mountainous". 90% of the time, I am the only payload in the car. I cant think of any two-lane roads around here that require, or even, allow passing. Very few wide open straightaways, but lots of beltway battling.

So for me, the V6 Sport is the ticket. If I routinely hauled a full load of pasengers and luggage, or lived in the mountains, my priorities might be different.

Again, I have a personal preference for 6 cylinder engines. Look at what Nissan and Acura can do without 8 cylinders. Ditto for BMW. Lots of smooth power, without the "drawbacks" associated with 8 cylinders. (Costlier maintenance, more fuel usage, more weight).
To me, that translates to more efficiency. I dont know if I'll fall for the argument that the 3.9 V8 in the LS is more efficient/better than the 260hp V6 in the new Acuras...

Additionally, if we look back to 1999, when the LS was introduced. I6 in the 1999/2000 BMW 5-series? 193hp. V6 in the LS? 210hp. V8 in the BMW 5 series? 282hp. V8 in the LSV8? 252hp.

Course the BMW engines are different now, but at time of LS introduction, the V6 engine was very in line with the 6 cylinder competetion of the day. The LSV8, less so.

Im not saying 252hp isnt good, Im just saying that if Lincoln had 2 LS's, a V6 putting out 210hp, and a V6 putting out 252hp, my choice would have been instant back when I purchased the car. The 252hp V6 would have been sitting in my driveway this very second!

Still, the LSV8 is a great car. Period.

mkovalsk

The torque on the Jaguar engine is higher because of the differences in the engines.

Engine torque is measured at the engine flywheel. Transmissions and vehicle weight have no influence on engine torque. Both will affect acceleration, but not rated torque or horsepower.

Mark

desertguy

I just bought a 2002 Toyota Corolla S which has a base price of $13000 and it has the VVT engine so it can't be all that expensive vs the non-VVT. With the 5 speed it has rating of 32mpg city and 41mpg hwy. My first tank was 37mpg. And, it is a very free reving engine. Would love to see a VVT in the LS.

stanny1

Even the cheapest "economy" cars are getting VVT and six-speeds. This technology must not be that expensive. Of course, there are different kinds of VVT. Intake only and both intake/exhaust. In addition, some engines deactivate two of the four valves and/or have a set of butterfly valves on one side of "dual" intake tracts to keep flow speed high at low cylinder fill volumes thus increasing torque. The LS engines are kind of old tech now.

jnowski

While I've read a lot on comments about handling differences due to weight distribution, I haven't seen anything at all about polar moment of inertia. The difference in habdling felt by most people between the V6 and V8 is probably due more to this factor than the 1%-2% weight distribution difference. It is WHERE the additional 1%-2% is added at that is more important to handling than how much. For instance, if that 1%-2% is added at the end of the vehicle, (as the V8 does to the front end), the difference in handling under dynamic conditions will be more noticeable than the small percentage number would seem to suggest. If, however, the weight were to be added/subtracted closer to the vehicles CG, (as the fuel tank is), one would expect the handling dynamics to be less affected.

cdnpinhead

Last Fall I took a pleasant road trip through several western states & was particularly impressed with the capability of the V6 to pull seriously steep grades in 5th gear (I have a manual), or 4th when necessary, at speeds well above the posted limits. I'm sure the V8 exhibits an even more powerful climb, but I'm quite pleased w/ the V6/manual combo in the mountains. I'm sure the LS's excellent ability to maintain speed around corners eliminates some of the need for acceleration.

I'm in Germany on a business trip, and sure enough, many of the cars are diesel. I've got a rental Audi w/ many creature comforts (automatic climate control, high-end sound system, excellent seats, etc.) and a diesel mated to a manual. Drives great so far, and it's nice to already be used to the German manual shift pattern. (thanks, Getrag). I'll be interested to see how many (if any) S types I see tomorrow on my drive to Switzerland. Too bad we'll not be seeing any LS's over here.

Well I wrote that first bit yesterday, and today I'm back from Switzerland. My Audi A3 with a 1.9 litre diesel certainly made a believer of me today. It's very strange to be driving at 105 mph (love them autobahns) in a car with a <2 litre engine that feels as solid as the LS, and then in the bargain getting passed by a minivan. I'd be interested in hearing from any of the Lincoln guys who may have test-driven the LS over here where it's possible to drive at high speeds in heavy traffic legally.

Saw no S type Jags, one Maxima, one STS Cadillac, and more unavailable in the States cars than you could shake a stick at. The real impression was with the quality of the driving. Everyone signals, everyone uses rear-view mirrors, everyone is considerate; in short everyone drives like a truck (professional) driver. What a country! You guys need to get over here and see what cars & driving are supposed to be all about.

When I get home I'm going to see if any of the bigger Audi's have manuals. BMW's are quite expensive and carry a lot of image baggage I could do without. Who's tried an Audi relative to the LS or BMW?

fantom

To cdnpinhead.......I envy you driving in the superb Teutonic environment. Driving autobahns is special and, not unlike our V6/V8 comparisons, there is reason top F-1 drivers come from Europe while oval racers and dragsters come from the US.

Last year I looked at the Audi A-6 with a 2.7L turbo engine. It can be had with a sport package and a 6 speed. You would get LSV6 Sport handling and 0 to 60 times of about 6 seconds. It is just as fast as an Audi A-4 Sport but much roomier. The main reason I went with an LS was that I needed an automatic and the Audi A-6 2.7T was about 7 grand more.

slunar

Been on vacation for a week, a lot of posts to catch up on. I believe that the S-type V6 is available with the 5 speed manual in Europe, but not the US. I think that the 7.4 sec 0-60 LS V6 manual acceleration times were with ringers with 3.31 rear ends. If I remember correctly the C&D V6 test listed the rear end as 3.31. Could be a mistake in the rag or could be they got a ringer, just like early V8's came with 3.58 rear ends which gave them 7.2 sec 0-60 times. Giving the car rags ringers to test has been going on for as long as car mag road tests have been published.

drolds1

Greetings in Europe, Steve. While I haven't done a lot of mountain driving with my SST V6, I think I can agree with you about its high-speed prowess. As Mark noted a while back, the gearing advantage of the manual fades away at speed. I've made a lot of trips from NY to the Boston area and one to Maine, always with luggage. Obviously, the V8 is going to outrun it, but I am always amazed at how quickly this little V6 can get this heavy LS from 60-90. The best part is that unless my wife looks at the speedo, she has no idea how rapidly we're traveling. The car is so solid and planted, the passenger has no sensation of speed. This is not to say I'm not anxious for more power; just that the engine makes the most of what its got to work with.

I was in Italy in April and can echo your observations of the automotive scene. There'll be more details of my trip in the upcoming premiere issue of "Lincoln Synergy"

Have a safe trip. Don't get carried away on the autobahn

Artie

lolaj42

Steve,

Enjoy yourself on those high speed autobahn cruises while you can . . . you're not missing anything here in Phoenix! I was seriously considering an Audi A6 2.7T with Quattro before ultimately selecting the LS8. The A6 has three engine offerings, 2 of which compare (in both hp and torque) closely with the LSs. The base A6 is a FWD platform, but the Quattro option provides AWD capability. The base 2.8 liter aluminum V6 engine provides about 200 hp, while the 2.7T is the same basic block (with steel cylinder liners, thus reducing overall displacement) but adds twin turbos, resulting in 250 hp. The A6 also has a 4.2 liter V8 engine option, but it was way more than I wanted to pay (about what a BMW 540 goes for). The 2.7T with Quattro was $5K more than my LS8.

I believe all Audis have manual transmissions as no-cost options, but you will be hard pressed to find one on a dealer lot. Most Audis are equipped with the tiptronic/SST type automatic transmissions. Here in Phoenix, there are only 2 Audi dealerships (one in Scottsdale, and the other on the Camelback corridor) and I did recall seeing a few manuals on the Scottsdale lot, but those had been ordered in advance. Tucson has only 1 dealership. Good luck finding service if you're not in one of these two cities while in Arizona!

The A6 interior is about the same size as the LS, maybe even a little larger. The A6 layout is more elegant in appearance and has nicer materials, but, option for option, its at least $5K more than an LS. I took the base 2.8 liter A6 with Quattro for a reasonable test drive, but concluded I liked the feel of the LS better. The AWD system provides a different sensation in high speed cornering than either a FWD or RWD provides, and it definately didn't feel as well balanced as the LS. The AWD could come in handy in the mountains though (or generally outside our dry desert). The A6 is very nice, I just concluded the LS had better balance and was a better value. FWIW