Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Lincoln Town Car



  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    '80 T/C had a 351 engine and it would perform. It was totaled in a parking lot accident and replaced by an 82 with the 302 engine. I had a class III hitch installed on the 82 and it was a struggle to drag a 3,500 boat/trlr. In 94 we bot our present T/C and it has a hitch dragging the same boat. 300 h.p. engine would be appreciated. Most T/C drivers don't pull anything or climb any mountains, but where we live, the mountains are a fact. A truck you say? No trucks thank you. So, you are right I'm expecting too much from the T/C, but I 've always had high expectations. The 00 Cad DTS is inviting.
  • Here, I was thinking that you were dissatisfied with the way the Town Car performs when it's not towing something. Sorry about that. :-(

    I don't know if you like GM cars, but the '93-'96 Fleetwood Broughams with the trailer towing package could tow up to 7,000 pounds with no problem. The '93 models had the old 350 c.i. TBI Brougham engine (185 h.p.), whereas the '94-'96 had the SPFI LT1 engine with 260 h.p. and 330 ft/lbs of torque. On an additional note, the rear axle ratio on Fleetwoods with the trailer towing package are 3.42:1. You might want to check out the used car market for one, but good luck if you do... Finding them is like trying to find a virgin in a maternity ward.

    I too live in a mountainous area, and I know very well how bad Town Cars lag when going up hills. If people were in back of me, I had to really mash the gas pedal on my dad's '90 TC to keep the car going at a decent speed, so I won't argue with you there. Ironically, my Fleetwood has no problem going up hills, since the engine has enough "oomph" to move the behemoth up steep grades with hardly any fuss or muss. I wish I could say its ride on bumpy roads was comparable to a Town Car's...

    As for the '00 DTS, well... I don't think FWD could ever be as suited for towing as RWD. It may be worth a try, though.
  • eweygrineweygrin Posts: 33
    I will take a little less horsepower and stick with a proven engine and the luxurious ride that my 98 TC signature series with touring sedan package offers. At least I know that the engine is reliable and parts are readily available.
  • I own an 88 TC and am looking for parts for it and was wondering if anyone knew whether the 89 TC's parts are interchangeable with the 88's?
  • gkarggkarg Posts: 230
    I'm willing to bet the parts are interchangeable. Probably depends....but I recently borrowed an altenator from a 1986 Mercury Cougar v8 for a 1990 Ford F-150 V8. One never knows!!!
  • tomsrivtomsriv Posts: 2
    The lower 3.55 (numerically higher) gear ratio in the signature will give better performance but slightly less fuel economy. Gear ratio is the amount of turns of the driveshaft compared to the amount of turns of the wheel. A lower gear ratio means that more torque is transmitted to the ground. It is just like low gear on a ten speed bike, in low gear you can climb a steep incline, but you have to pedel much faster. A lower gear ratio has the same affect. This means that you will turn higher RPMs cruising down the highway, but you will have better acceleration and towing abilities. The higher cruising RPM will hurt fuel economy.
  • tomsrivtomsriv Posts: 2
    I like the front and rear end of the Town Car. It looks like a total gangster ride. I'm only 22 and if I were to buy a new car the TC would be the only car I would want. I would get a black Signature Touring model. Since it has an engine similar to the Mustang I assume that it could be hopped up using similar methods, like SUPERCHARGING!!! How cool would that be.
    It's too bad they don't make them like they used to. My 455 powered '71 Buick Riviera will school many a modern "sports" car.
  • I have a little experience with my Grandfather's 86 TC and my Boss's 2000 TC. The 86 is a good old-fashioned American luxury car, certainly nothing to complain about for its day. I am very impressed with the comfort and performance of the new TC. If anyone has a serious complaint with the performance of this car, then stop shopping for a luxury car and go get the sports car you know you want.
  • I have a little experience with my Grandfather's 86 TC and my Boss's 2000 TC. The 86 is a good old-fashioned American luxury car, certainly nothing to complain about for its day. I am very impressed with the comfort and performance of the new TC. If anyone has a serious complaint with the performance of this car, then stop shopping for a luxury car and go get the sports car you know you want.
  • eweygrineweygrin Posts: 33
    You said it all, misterpaulson. A t/c does what it is intended for - provide a roomy, luxurious ride in an elegant looking package.
  • Had new platinum plugs and new wires installed last week and tightened all air hoses. Car stalls at lights and misses while driving slow. Didn't have problem before work was performed. Any suggestions as to a way to cure problem? Could fuel injectors be a problem? Mileage -127,000.
  • gkarggkarg Posts: 230
    Sounds like they possibly mixed up a couple of the wires. I've done my own plug and wire changes in the past and that could be possible....especially if it ran fine before!
  • fourbarofourbaro Posts: 2
    I have a new 2000Lincoln Town Car Signature Series which I chose after a lot of research. Never did I find any info relating to the problem I am having. The car now has 3800 miles and the problem is:

    A vibration in the right seat front and back which I thought was a need for the tires to be balanced. Hasn't helped. Then I thought alignment. Hasn't helped. I thought maybe tire not true but am told that has been checked.

    In addition, it feels like the right front tire is bumping and I can feel it in the steering wheel although the dealer can't.

    Any ideas would be appreciated.
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    My guess would be to check the brake disks.
  • With 12,000 miles on my 1999 Lincoln Towncar (Signature w/touring package)and as a previous owner of 1990 and 1995 TCs, my comments are:
    1. great handling (slightly harsh for Towncar)
    2. nice interior (Alpine radio/cd very good)
    3. fantastic paint job
    4. responsive (but noisy) engine (18-21 mpg)
    5. very poor door stops...will not stay open
    6. ineffective cup holders...cups will turn over
    7. miss the auto closing trunk lid

    Thanks for listening....
  • brooksw1brooksw1 Posts: 1
    I have a 99 t/c and am extremely disappointed in the front seat roominess, especially the front right seat. Embarrssingly had to seat a valuable 6'3"" client in the back for his own comfort. Have been told that front seat would have to be "handicap equipted" in order to extend the seat. What's this all about....I thought the t/c was the biggest and most spacious thing before going to limos etc.!Also miss the automatic trunk closure as in my 97 cartier. brooksw1
  • wwilberwwilber Posts: 4
    Bought new. I admit it was a dumb move. The front seat is very uncomfortable and the power controls do not adjust adequately. I'm 5'8", 170 lbs. so its not me but Lincoln. No outside combo lock. gas mileage only 18.5 at its best. No power. I complained about the transmission but the problem is without power 3rd gear just lags. Stabilizer bar went at 40,000. I had had a steering problem and dealer convinced me to buy new front tires, align the car and balance all wheels (cost $350.00) then it was discovered by me that the stabilizer bar was worn. The new tires etc. had done nothing for the car. New stabilizer bar corrected the problem but I'm out $350.00. As far as I am concerned Ford has abandoned Lincoln and is spending all its time on Jaguar which also has a lousy front seat. I tried out the new LS 6 cylinder. A joke. Absolutely no power and steering is terrible (wheel does not return when going around a corner). My best car was a 1986 lincoln. I had a 1993 lincoln that at least had power and a better transmission as well as better trunk space. Ford was the car of the '80's but is rapidly going downhill in the '90's. Cadillac and buick are much better. I was recently shopping for a new pickup truck and considered ford but I bought a new GMC with 280 hp. This truck moves and gets 18mpg with 4 wheel drive. Ford cannot even come close. Too bad because in the past I always swore I would never buy another GM product. I think Ford must have hired some of the GM idiots and GM has hired the smart Ford people.
  • wwilberwwilber Posts: 4
    If you have a vibration and do not know where it is coming from I suggest that youmake sure the front stabilizer bar is OK. This is in response to Fourboro's problem. Don't let the dealer tell you its tires, alignment etc. Also look at the 16 pages of defects investigation.
  • vjsvjs Posts: 2
    I have a 96 Cartier and have been looking for a newer model. I enjoyed the ride and performance of the TC. I bought the car because when I took it on a trip I didn't want to get out of it. Unlike the "performance" cars that I have had over the years that handled well if I wanted to drive in the Grand Prix, but were hard to ride in for any length of time. The Town Car is one that when I am on a trip, I don't want to get out of. When I arrive, I am refreshed and comfortable.

    However, the body design of the TC is the worst I have ever seen. It reminds me of the Hudson's and Nashes of the 40's and 50's. An upside down bathtub. The only thing they forgot was the drain! Lincoln/Ford should fire the whole design and Marketing crew.
  • vjsvjs Posts: 2
    Correction to my last message. The design of the NEW (1999-2000) TC is the worst I have seen in many years. It has absolutely NO class.
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    my 94 TC Signature Touring is still in our garage. When the Mercury Marauder is produced, I will buy it to replace our 94 TC. Check it out.
  • I own a 97 Executive and bought it because I prefer a large, American style luxury car. The 97 has fantastic styling, traditional yet contemporary. When that body style came out in '90 it had sort of a "pieced together" look. The chrome trim had lots of seams. The headlamps were too big and square. The whitewalls were to wide. By 97 the car still had lot's of chrome (I love chrome) but the chrome "fit". It nicely accentuated the style, it was well designed. It had a smooth, integrated-into-the-overall-package look that the 90's did not have. The grille had a nicer shape and the headlights were narrower with a nice chrome bezel. The whitewalls were a nice, modern pin-stripe that set off the wheels very nicely (the 90 used 1965-style wws).

    The 2000 Town Car is simply not a Town Car anymore! After years of evolving an elegant, distinctively all-American "Lincoln" look they abandon success for this!!!! The grille looks like a cowcatcher! The headlamps look like cat's eyes. And the chrome (what little there is)is applied in random bits and pieces with no apparent relationship to the styling! Oh, and yes, the tail lamps have no bezel but the license-plate box has the giant glob of chrome. And the blackwall tires, every car has to have blackwall tires nowadays. What is wrong with that subtle white pinstripe the 97's have.

    If I wanted a car that looked like a Bimmer, M-B or Lexus I would have bought one! What happens in 2001 when it is time to trade? Hopefully Lincoln will go back to building Lincolns. A car can: 1- look traditionally American, and 2- perform well, one does not negate the other!

    Maybe the Continental wouldn't be such a sales dog if it, too, looked like a Lincoln!
  • kenbob1kenbob1 Posts: 1
    I'm shopping for a used Town Car and have narrowed my search to 2 candidates. The first is a 92 with 63,000 miles at a dealer asking $8995. The second is an '89 with 120,000 at a differnt dealer asking $4200.

    Both cars are in beautiful shape, clean and obviously well cared for.

    Is the 92 far superior technologically and worth twice the '89s price?

    Is the 5 liter engine basically the same 302 For has been building for 35 years?

    I'm looking for comfort, reliability, and affordability. Any info on these cars would be much appreciated.
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    Having put 125,000 on an 82 Lincoln 302, since new, and 80,000 on a 94 Lincoln 4.6L, since new - I would not hesitate to buy the 92. The 302 labored up hills a lot more than the 4.6 and the 4.6 is a lot quieter. The body design is an improvement, however, the interior quality of the 82 was superior to the leather in the 94. Both have a smooth ride, but the later model is much faster with quietness. Hope this helps.
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    If you choose the 89, remove the 20 second delay valve between the carb port and the vacuum advance by installing a new hose without the valve running direct from the vacuum advance to the carb port. Makes a big difference off the line. Because I've never seen a hearse with a luggage rack, go for the 92.
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    that advice applies to a different previous car I owned, (73 Ford 400 V8)
  • kcherrykcherry Posts: 1
    I have never owned a Lincoln period. I was wondering if any one could comment concerning the 2000 Executive model? Likes, Dislikes etc...Potential problems possibly
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    it is the best buy under $30,000,yet how much less is a Grand Marquis LS with same equipment?
  • cobra410cobra410 Posts: 1
    Hello fourbaro, sorry to hear about your problem,
    I had the same problem with our 1997 town car,
    changed tires, front end aligned, but my son said it could be the drive shaft, so he checked the
    universal joints, and that was it, we no longer have the vibration.I hope this helps you.
  • cbrookcbrook Posts: 1
    The headliner has separated from it's backing over the rear window.I tried spray adhesive in one spot before doing the rest and it bled through.Has anyone any ideas short of replacing the whole headliner. The inside of the car is like new and it is a shame to mark up the headliner with glue.Other than this problem the car is a joy to drive.Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Sign In or Register to comment.