The new Car & Driver (April 2002) has an article on spedometer accuracy and surprise, surprise out of 200 cars that they tested 187 of them read high. GM had the best accuracy averaging a 70.49 MPH reading at 70 MPH (average of 34 GM models tested). Ford was the worst American car averaging a 72.12 reading (21 Ford models tested). But low and behold the worst of all offenders is BMW. With 17 BMW's tested, BMW averaged a 73.18 MPH reading at 70 MPH true speed. One BMW (They didn't say which one) read 9 MPH high. Interestingly the trip computers on cars so equipped were very accurate. So it appears that accurate speedometers can be made, just the industry norm is to have them read high.
Took about an hour to drive two miles to the post office today (got lost again. It's happening a lot lately).
Gas pedal found the floorboards a couple times, in respect for Stan and Scott. What sweet cars these are. Smooth response, tight shifting when pushed hard, and while it won't cause whiplash, goes much faster than I need to much more quickly than I generally need it to. The beauty is that the power is there when I need (or just want) it, and it's delivered so smoothly.
Sure, I'd take a little more, but this car is spoiling me.
I also use a GPS (Garmin -- don't leave home without it).
The LS's speedometer has always appeared to be dead-on at the typical checking speeds -- 60, 80, etc. Also, the odometer tracks the GPS daily trip mileage almost exactly.
Before somebody mails me a rocking chair, I should point out that I said I had never put the gas pedal all the way down from a standing start until a couple weeks ago. Highway passing is another story. Thanks to my commute I get to do it 3-4 times on an average day. Don't always have to use WOT, but almost always do, just for the kick.
Anybody wants to talk about 60-100 times, I'll be right here.
I remember back in August of 99,scrolling through the web pages of edmunds searching for car info. Up until then, I had been a Lexus GS fan, even though I did not own one, for some time. It was time for me then to buy my car. After 14 months of researching and test driving (difficult but someone had to do it) I was Set on the Lexus GS. It displayed what I expected of myself. Performance and the ability to enjoy life with the means to help protect it through multiple safety devices. Yep that was going to be my car..."was" is the definitive word here.
For this would be my first new car and there was no way, I was going to have buyers remorse. I stumbled upon a Black sporty looking Lincoln, a which time saying Sporty Lincoln would have been a oxymoron. I figured what the heck. I befriended a local sales rep, which was fond of fast cars, and in no time, we were on the road. The rev from the engine as I pressed the accelerator to the floor and we flew in the LS 8 still lingers in my mind. I was impressed to say the least ;-) However, after having been in an accident in 96' that nearly took my life I knew there was more to a great car than just 0 - 60 times. The next thing was one that would help sell me on the LS. Emergency and 60 - 0 braking. There we were a nice straight road with no one around. The accelerator goes full tilt... the sound of the engine {rreevvvvv}...smooth transition between gears... "Ease up ease up" I said under my breath as I slowed back down to 60 mph... "hold it hold it".... Now! Screecch, screech, screech came the intermittent sound while the ABS thumped at my senses. Then came the alarm of the VSC telling me "I'm going to help you as much as I can".. We came to a stop just slightly off center but in our own lane. The road was wet that day. The same way it was 3 years early when someone decided to take my life into their own hands. The Volvo cab over tractor-trailer I was driving, at the time, did not live through the accident. But because of its superior build and details to safety, I did. My brother wasn't so lucky. Some 16 years earlier he was one of the first persons to be a victim of the infamous T-top Cutlass. I swore I would never buy a car that would expose me or my loved ones to unnecessary risk so that the car would look "Cool". So, in October '99 at the age of 25 I took delivery of my LS 8 sport. One of the best decisions I have made in my life.
Now here was the bummer of owning an LS. I lived 1.5 miles from work :-( and after having a second unsuccessful back operation I had to say good bye to my Lincoln after only 18 Months and 13K miles of ownership. I had many great memories of my wife and I driving around in the car. We even eloped and had "Just Married " on the back window as we drove through the twisty roads of the Great Smokey Mountains. I am all of 28 now but my physical being resembles that more like a 50 year old on bad days. But the lemons in life just make the good times seem that much sweeter. One day I will drive again and when I do My Lincoln will be helping to ensure a safe ride for My wife, our new baby girl and myself. One last comment before I end this long-winded post. I was one of the originals to start an LS Topic back in '99. I have enjoyed reading about everyone’s ups and downs with this wonderful driving sedan we call a Lincoln LS. I am no poet so excuse me but I said years ago and will say it now... "If the car you drive, drives you to love driving then you made the right choice".
C&D did test the odometer accuracy, but their #'s may not be all that accurate as they put each car through a 19 mile test and then extrapolated to 1000 miles. The result (average of vehicles by make): Actual Mileage = 1000 miles Odometer reading GM 1000 Chrysler 1011 Ford 1008 Toyota/Lexus 1007 Honda/Acura 1020 Nissan/Infinity 1001 Mercedes-Benz 1006 VW / Audi 1001 BMW 993
So, stated another way, while the average of 21 Fords was the spedometer read 3% high, the odometer on the Fords read 0.8% high. I guess that I would buy into anything under 1% off as acceptable. They also noted that tire pressure and even tread wear affect the readings, and of course make both the odometer and spedometer read higher as the tires wear, up to a 2% change over the life of the tires.
Interesting that BMW had the highest reading speedometers but the lowest reading odometers.
Now 1% accuracy in the speedometer at 70 MPH is 0.7 MPH which I think is adcceptable but 2 MPH off is not.
It's my own doing this time. The club site is the victim of it's own success. We've had so many visitors over the past two weeks that we were starting to bump up against our traffic limit. So far this month we've had 280,000 hits against the site in the first five days.
So I went ahead and upgraded the site to a business hosting plan which gives us triple the traffic limit per month. The site should be back up by tomorrow. It was supposed to only take two hours to transition, but as usual with all things internet, that would depend on your way of keeping time.
Stanny may have a point about the younger and more aggressive drivers killing the CTS's engines. One thing the engineers might have overlooked though, is that they're dying of embarassment. IMHO that car is so-o-o fugly, I'd be embarrased to death if I had to power it!!
I've been reading with interest the recent posts on the "State of LS" relative to the competition. As a owner of 2000 V8 Sport and a first-time contributor to the Town Hall, here are my two cents.
I took a hard look at the Infiniti G35 and Caddy CTS at the recent Auto Show. Their exterior stylings are similar with the G35 being slightly more "fluid" than the slab-sided CTS. Neither is as handsome as the clean, elegant sheetmetal of the LS which has aged well IMHO. While the LS's interior has justifiably taken it share of knocks, the G35 and CTS seemed no more luxurious and, indeed, busier. I find the current 5-Series to be one of best looking cars and the LS is not far behind.
In a couple of years of real world driving, I found that LS to be a good car on an excellent platform. And yes, I've had my share of the normal MY 2000 teething problems. A couple of features that I found especially useful are the power tilt/telescopic steering wheel which really lets you dial-in a good seating position and the fold-down rear seat which allows me to transport an assembled road bike with the trunk closed.
This is my wish list for the 2003 model.
1) The 0-60 thing is overrated. If pure acceleration were king, Camaros would rule the world. What I want to see is a smoother engine/transmission combination, especially in the low rpm ranges.
2) Spiff up the interior.
3) Get rid of the trunk hinges.
4) Don't make it such a reach to close the front doors.
5) This may be controversial, but I wish the sport suspension was more compliant while retaining the good handling. The combination of cold weather and bad Wisconsin roads can make for a rougher ride than I would like. Maybe I'm just getting old.
6) I do not care for the base wheels and chrome bumper strips. At the same time, the sport wheels are among the best looking OEM wheels around. It would be neat to be able to get the base car without the chrome strips and be able to get the sport wheels as an option.
You fortunate few that attended Mania3 know to what to what extent these issues are being addressed. I have my fingers crossed.
"Now 1% accuracy in the speedometer at 70 MPH is 0.7 MPH which I think is adcceptable but 2 MPH off is not."
I think you're referring to the recent C&D article on this... in the guts of the article it says the percentage they are allowed to be off is not based on any given speed, but the absolute range of the speedo. Thus a car with a 150 MPH speedo is allowed to be off by, say, 1.5 MPH (1%) at any given speed in that range.
Gee, Mark, I was sure the torque converter engaged at somewhat slightly lower rpm. Like 700 or so. Maybe the word "stall" is the wrong word, especially in the world of electronically modulated hydraulics. I just can't imagine not leaving the stoplight until 2800. Sounds like 2800 would be a great way to launch! I guess it's a matter of degree of lock-up. Back in the "good old days", a high stall torque converter in a Torqueflite or a 400 was the way to go (although not so much for the average driver, especially if you put in a 4000 rpm unit). I guess a torque converter is probably not all or nothing, but has degrees of efficiency over a certain rpm range. I was merely suggesting a higher lock-up rpm. 2000 seemed higher than stock. 2800 seems really high for someone like me that "locks-up" my Manual way before 2800 in "normal" driving. You're the Auto Tranny guy. Tell us what a good stall speed would be or if you could manipulate (perhaps electronically) the stall speed without the "old tricks". Maybe B&M sells circuit boards now instead of valve bodies? The "auto" world is not my bag as you can tell. I should probably suggested a higher speed but a 5000 rpm converter might be weird for the average LS driver.
Just for a point of comparison, the converter in my Z-28 Camaro stalls at 2400 rpm. As far as I know, this is considered fairly high for a stock application, however this is considered a high performance car.
From the 3/7/02 New York Times, "March-6: Cadillac acknowledged today that it had encountered engine failures on a small number of its new CTS sedans"
"Cadillac did not disclose the problem publicly, but discussed it after reports of CTS defects were cited on Autoextremist.com, a Web site that follows the industry. "
Lutz announced Tuesday that Cadillac will not send the CTS to Germany because of its poor quality interior.
Lutz also said "the quality of interior elements from external suppliers - such as the seats, instrument panel and steering wheel - was not good enough for the German luxury segment"
But the quality it is apparently good enough for the unrefined US.
cclittle: I was referring to my own idea on what is accepible accuracy. To me < 1% error in indicated speed is acceptable and given the high accuracy of trip computers apparantly very obtainable. Having good accuracy in the range of 35 - 80 MPH is of importance to me as that is the speed which most of us drive at. Accracy over 80 is of less importance to me. If I was ever clocked at 147 MPH I don't think that I would start arguing with the officer "Are you sure about that? My spedo. said an even 150!"
I think that if you have a large cubic inch engine with a lower torque peak rpm, you would want to match it with a lower rpm stall converter. The LS engines, especially the V-6, needs the higher rpm. Maybe Mark can explain the mystery of what % of stall or lock-up is at various rpms. Like, Mark, do you get 90% of "stall" at 2500 rpm in the LS? 80% at 2300? Or is this electronically controlled? Can you make it "lock-up" earlier, like in high gear lock-up? With todays electronics, I can see a lot of variables. Almost mind-boggling. As for my LS Manual, my left foot stall speed is variable at about 1100 rpm with the wife in the car, and with me and the dog only, it is about 2500-3000 rpm. I normally don't watch the tachometer during each shift, but I did this morning and about 2800 "feels" right for the shift. So I guess 2800 would be a good point for an auto to shift, if that's the same as lock-up or stall. Not really in the heavy torque range for the V-6, but not everyone needs to go over 3000 to move the car from an intersection. So maybe I should have suggested a 4000 rpm stall speed with the converter coming on at 800 rpm? Maybe a switch like my Volvo 960 that has "E" for economy and "S" for Sport and "S" could change the tranny to a 4000 rpm stall speed. In Sport it will shift near redline (Wife does not approve the "S" setting).
This issue just came up on Horsepower TV last weekend. They said you needed to match the torque converter stall speed with the camshaft so that the engine was allowed to reach it's maximum torque output before the torque converter engaged. Otherwise it would bog the engine down if it engaged too soon. So I think the answer to Stan's question is yes - if you have an engine with max torque at lower rpms then the converter can engage at a lower RPM. And if you have a small, high rpm low torque engine (like the S2000 e.g.) then you would want it to engage at a higher RPM. In the case of the LS, it seems to build it's power at higher rather than lower RPMs so 2800 sounds about right to me. I hope I explained this correctly - I'm just repeating what I heard on tv.
I have a MY 01 LS8 Sport, and I was wondering if any one knows if the wire harness in the trunk is hot? I am thinking about buying the OEM amp and enclosure from the dealer, and wanted to know if it would be a “plug and play” job. Also if the harness is hot can I buy an aftermarket amp and use speaker inputs for the amp and power switch. And just run a wire to the battery for the juice. Thanks
Yes, I need to switch to HID or get a masters in Auto trannys. I'll just stay ignorant and have you guys correct me. I'm sure that we'll all learn something. Maybe some tuner will bring out a chip for the LS Auto Tranny since there supposedly is not much you can do to the engine computer. I can just see it now. A little box on the dash. "Please set your stall speed!" "Now set all your shift points for all gears!" "Set yes or no for 1st gear starts in SST mode!" Then I wouldn't need a manual anymore. Yes, I know, dream on Stanny! (Hey, I think I do well for a real estate broker. The mistakes I make in real estate can cost other people a lot of money. The mistakes I make on my cars just cost me a lot of money. But it's always fun to learn the hard way (and greasy too))
The torque converter is ALWAYS engaged. It is transmitting torque whenever the engine is turning.
Stall speed is defined as the engine speed at full throttle with the vehicle not moving. Hold one foot very firmly on the brake and the other mashes the throttle to the floor. The engine speed in this condition is the the torque converter stall speed. Don't try this at home - it generates a HUGE amount of heat in the torque converter. It isn't really good for long life. I have always found it interesting that you can increase the stall speed just by increasing the engine torque.
I am not aware of any torque converters that are electronically controlled to modify stall speed. I do know that GM had a dual stall torque converter in the 60's. At some speed the vanes would move inside the converter and change it's effective stall speed.
The industry replaced that idea with torque converter lockup clutches. This is a clutch very much like a manual transmission clutch that activates once the torque converter is out of the range where it multiplies torque. This eliminates slippage and gets the automatic transmission within a few percent of a manual transmission in terms of efficiency.
As for ideal stall speed for the LS, I think 2800 RPM would be just about perfect. What else would you expect me to say? ;-)
Actually there are tradeoffs that can be discussed. The torque converter matching is a comprimise between fuel economy, performance, and noise. A higher stall converter gets worse fuel economy, usually better performance (to a point) and often gets customer complaints for excessive engine noise, and sometimes complaints that the transmission is slipping. Lincoln felt that the torque converters that are in the LS are the best comprimise for all of these. Performance was considered the highest priority. I don't think there is much to gain with a higher stall converter. We looked at that.
My early-build 2000 V-8 with 3.58 rear axle, when asked, would launch in a very impressive manner.
Left foot on the brake, ~ 3/4 throttle, release brake, stomp throttle. Three-four revs of the tires, some blue smoke, and a quick exit.
According to the power curves, I see that 2800 RPM stall has a HP output of about 130. A mighty fine starting point in my mind ... and things get better fast.
I'm learning a lot here. Don't know what I'll do with this knowledge, but it's intrinsically good.
Mark, I think I'm hearing that the load on the converter with brakes locked limits engine RPM to 2800. Yeah, I'll bet this does produce some heat. As the fluid "cooks" (and I assume thins), does the stall speed increase?
Somewhere in here, I think I'm also learning why torque and a relatively flat torque curve are so important with an automatic transmission.
As for GM's variable pitch vanes, something tells me automatics are complex enough without adding that feature.
Can I get continuing education credits for reading this board?
I haven't really thought about that. I expect that the stall speed would go up a little, due to the fluid thinning out as it gets hotter. It wouldn't be very much, probably down in the negligible range.
Continuing education credits are granted. Just tell 'em I said so!
Ok, everyone go over to howstuffworks.com and read about torque converters. Although I have to confess that even after reading their excellent article and diagrams (moving diagrams!) I still don't fully understand how a differential works. I do know that I don't want to know any more about it, though. Makes my head hurt.
At 2800 RPM, the LS 3.9L engine output is about 130 HP. So, at stall (WOT, foot firmly on brake), 331,071 BTU's/hour are being generated. This would heat a few houses, even here in Michigan.
Where are the BTU's going? The torque converter, I think. Don't try this at home is right!
I'm learning a lot here. Don't know what I'll do with this knowledge, but it's intrinsically good.
Mark, I think I'm hearing that the load on the converter with brakes locked limits engine RPM to 2800. Yeah, I'll bet this does produce some heat. As the fluid "cooks" (and I assume thins), does the stall speed increase?
Somewhere in here, I think I'm also learning why torque and a relatively flat torque curve are so important with an automatic transmission.
As for GM's variable pitch vanes, something tells me automatics are complex enough without adding that feature.
Can I get continuing education credits for reading this board?
Thanks, Mark. It's so good to still have you here!
GM did indeed have what they called "switch-the-pitch" in some 60's THM 400's. (The GM THM-400 was one of the most bulletproof automatics ever made and the GM automatics in use today are decsendants of it). Drag racers quickly caught on to this and hooked up a toggle switch so they could control the pitch manually. In the high setting the stall speeds up near 3000 RPM. These are still coveted today and hard to find; the junky..., excuse me, auto parts recylers wrer stripped clean yeras ago, but there are aftermarket conversions.
Check out the latest posts on the CTS board. Seems like they've misbehaved a tad too much in the name-calling department. Funny how the LS forum, while we have gotten snippy at times, haven't had to be called for time out!
Yeah, I thought it was funny to be accused of libel and slander by a 14 yr old because I said he was 14 and couldn't drive legally. And that was after he said that anyone who drove a manumatic was a WIMP who couldn't drive a real manual (no comments, Stan!). Although it is fun to get in the occasional Ginny cream ale reference for gio...err..Riez, who so far has totally ignored them.
I was looking forward to seeing the 2003 LS vs. the 2003 CTS. Now I'm not sure it would be a fair fight. There still isn't anyone on the forum that's actually bought one and Lutz has even said the quality isn't up to par, the interior needs to be redesigned. I think Caddy will be playing catch-up for quite some time.
The LLSOC website is back up. Brian and Matt are currently working on getting the Message Board working correctly. You can view the Board but you cannot post. Hopefully everything will be back to normal tomorrow. We are sorry for the inconveniences, please bear with us. They say things happen in three's, so maybe this is the last crash for a while.
About a year ago I had the famous TSB applied to my 2000 LS8 (10/99 build date) that eliminated the delay when shifting from D to R (and vice versa). Recently, however, the problem has re-surfaced. Is it possible that something else has gone wrong, or the software needs to be re-programmed? Any insight appreciated.
Now this is really wierd. I too have a 10/99 build V8 and had the reflash applied almost a year ago. My biggest problem was a delay in the 2-3 upshift that just didn't feel right along with the 1-3 upshift (auto mode, light throttle) that actually feels like the engine cuts out for a split second. . After the reflash these were not noticeable anymore. Within the last month or two it seems to have reappeared. Haven't noticed the reverse delays but I'll double check it tonight. I was thinking maybe it had something to do with the cold winter temps we had in January. I think a similar thing happened after the first reflash. Mark - any suggestions?
The software does not need to be reprogrammed. It doesn't change.
Try this when the car is warmed up: Shift from D to R and back to D 5 times, with a 5 second wait between shifts. Thats' D to R, 5 seconds, R to D, 5 seconds, etc. This will help reset the learned parameters for the shifts.
Allen,
The engine does cut out for a split second on the 1-3 shift. The spark is retarded for about 0.3 seconds during the shift to make the shift smoother. It's always done that. For some reason you are more aware of it.
Don't know if he'll hear it, but I suspect it will be hard on the tree. I've heard some grumbling about this transmission, generally addressed by software changes (which I still need; that D-R delay is a drag), but I believe a lot of people drive these cars fairly hard, and some have accumulated some miles. I don't remember ever reading about a transmission failure.
I'm getting the sense this is a pretty tough transmission.
I don't know if anyone else is having this problem, but I can't post. I get an error message. I'm not complaining, just passing on information. We STILL have the best site on the net. I went back and read some of the CTS posts. Is that forum about a car or a psuedo law class?
Has anyone noticed their right rear brake lamp burning out more often than not? I have a 2k LS and have replaced that lamp about 5x since taking ownership a few years ago. Just wondering. Very minor inconvenience...
Mark, I have to agree with the 1-3 shift I also notice the delay. I also began to notice it more after the TSB...
It doesn't feel to smooth. This is when you are mashing on the gas from a a start....Correct? I am trying to recall from memory, however it does feel like the car is stalling..
Comments
I assume this means that the odometers are accurate. Is that your belief?
Gas pedal found the floorboards a couple times, in respect for Stan and Scott. What sweet cars these are. Smooth response, tight shifting when pushed hard, and while it won't cause whiplash, goes much faster than I need to much more quickly than I generally need it to. The beauty is that the power is there when I need (or just want) it, and it's delivered so smoothly.
Sure, I'd take a little more, but this car is spoiling me.
The LS's speedometer has always appeared to be dead-on at the typical checking speeds -- 60, 80, etc. Also, the odometer tracks the GPS daily trip mileage almost exactly.
FWIW.
Anybody wants to talk about 60-100 times, I'll be right here.
For this would be my first new car and there was no way, I was going to have buyers remorse. I stumbled upon a Black sporty looking Lincoln, a which time saying Sporty Lincoln would have been a oxymoron. I figured what the heck. I befriended a local sales rep, which was fond of fast cars, and in no time, we were on the road. The rev from the engine as I pressed the accelerator to the floor and we flew in the LS 8 still lingers in my mind. I was impressed to say the least ;-) However, after having been in an accident in 96' that nearly took my life I knew there was more to a great car than just 0 - 60 times. The next thing was one that would help sell me on the LS. Emergency and 60 - 0 braking. There we were a nice straight road with no one around. The accelerator goes full tilt... the sound of the engine {rreevvvvv}...smooth transition between gears... "Ease up ease up" I said under my breath as I slowed back down to 60 mph... "hold it hold it".... Now! Screecch, screech, screech came the intermittent sound while the ABS thumped at my senses. Then came the alarm of the VSC telling me "I'm going to help you as much as I can".. We came to a stop just slightly off center but in our own lane. The road was wet that day. The same way it was 3 years early when someone decided to take my life into their own hands. The Volvo cab over tractor-trailer I was driving, at the time, did not live through the accident. But because of its superior build and details to safety, I did. My brother wasn't so lucky. Some 16 years earlier he was one of the first persons to be a victim of the infamous T-top Cutlass. I swore I would never buy a car that would expose me or my loved ones to unnecessary risk so that the car would look "Cool". So, in October '99 at the age of 25 I took delivery of my LS 8 sport. One of the best decisions I have made in my life.
Now here was the bummer of owning an LS. I lived 1.5 miles from work :-( and after having a second unsuccessful back operation I had to say good bye to my Lincoln after only 18 Months and 13K miles of ownership. I had many great memories of my wife and I driving around in the car. We even eloped and had "Just Married " on the back window as we drove through the twisty roads of the Great Smokey Mountains. I am all of 28 now but my physical being resembles that more like a 50 year old on bad days. But the lemons in life just make the good times seem that much sweeter. One day I will drive again and when I do My Lincoln will be helping to ensure a safe ride for My wife, our new baby girl and myself.
One last comment before I end this long-winded post. I was one of the originals to start an LS Topic back in '99. I have enjoyed reading about everyone’s ups and downs with this wonderful driving sedan we call a Lincoln LS. I am no poet so excuse me but I said years ago and will say it now... "If the car you drive, drives you to love driving then you made the right choice".
Actual Mileage = 1000 miles
Odometer reading
GM 1000
Chrysler 1011
Ford 1008
Toyota/Lexus 1007
Honda/Acura 1020
Nissan/Infinity 1001
Mercedes-Benz 1006
VW / Audi 1001
BMW 993
So, stated another way, while the average of 21 Fords was the spedometer read 3% high, the odometer on the Fords read 0.8% high. I guess that I would buy into anything under 1% off as acceptable. They also noted that tire pressure and even tread wear affect the readings, and of course make both the odometer and spedometer read higher as the tires wear, up to a 2% change over the life of the tires.
Interesting that BMW had the highest reading speedometers but the lowest reading odometers.
Now 1% accuracy in the speedometer at 70 MPH is 0.7 MPH which I think is adcceptable but 2 MPH off is not.
Mike
LLSOC Charter Member
Brian must be tearing his hair out....AGAIN!
So I went ahead and upgraded the site to a business hosting plan which gives us triple the traffic limit per month. The site should be back up by tomorrow. It was supposed to only take two hours to transition, but as usual with all things internet, that would depend on your way of keeping time.
Brian
IMHO that car is so-o-o fugly, I'd be embarrased to death if I had to power it!!
As a owner of 2000 V8 Sport and a first-time contributor to the Town Hall, here are my two cents.
I took a hard look at the Infiniti G35 and Caddy CTS at the recent Auto Show. Their exterior stylings are similar with the G35 being slightly more "fluid" than the slab-sided CTS. Neither is as handsome as the clean, elegant sheetmetal of the LS which has aged well IMHO. While the LS's interior has justifiably taken it share of knocks, the G35 and CTS seemed no more luxurious and, indeed, busier. I find the current 5-Series to be one of best looking cars and the LS is not far behind.
In a couple of years of real world driving, I found that LS to be a good car on an excellent platform. And yes, I've had my share of the normal MY 2000 teething problems. A couple of features that I found especially useful are the power tilt/telescopic steering wheel which really lets you dial-in a good seating position and the fold-down rear seat which allows me to transport an assembled road bike with the trunk closed.
This is my wish list for the 2003 model.
1) The 0-60 thing is overrated. If pure acceleration were king, Camaros would rule the world. What I want to see is a smoother engine/transmission combination, especially in the low rpm ranges.
2) Spiff up the interior.
3) Get rid of the trunk hinges.
4) Don't make it such a reach to close the front doors.
5) This may be controversial, but I wish the sport suspension was more compliant while retaining the good handling. The combination of cold weather and bad Wisconsin roads can make for a rougher ride than I would like. Maybe I'm just getting old.
6) I do not care for the base wheels and chrome bumper strips. At the same time, the sport wheels are among the best looking OEM wheels around. It would be neat to be able to get the base car without the chrome strips and be able to get the sport wheels as an option.
You fortunate few that attended Mania3 know to what to what extent these issues are being addressed. I have my fingers crossed.
I think you're referring to the recent C&D article on this... in the guts of the article it says the percentage they are allowed to be off is not based on any given speed, but the absolute range of the speedo. Thus a car with a 150 MPH speedo is allowed to be off by, say, 1.5 MPH (1%) at any given speed in that range.
Why would a lower stall converter help the launch feel? The torque converter in both the V8 and V6 stall at 2800 RPM!
Mark
You're the Auto Tranny guy. Tell us what a good stall speed would be or if you could manipulate (perhaps electronically) the stall speed without the "old tricks". Maybe B&M sells circuit boards now instead of valve bodies? The "auto" world is not my bag as you can tell. I should probably suggested a higher speed but a 5000 rpm converter might be weird for the average LS driver.
"Cadillac did not disclose the problem publicly, but discussed it after reports of CTS defects were cited on Autoextremist.com, a Web site that follows the industry. "
Lutz also said "the quality of interior elements from external suppliers - such as the seats, instrument panel and steering wheel - was not good enough for the German luxury segment"
But the quality it is apparently good enough for the unrefined US.
http://www.autonewseurope.com/2002geneva/cts305.htm
As for my LS Manual, my left foot stall speed is variable at about 1100 rpm with the wife in the car, and with me and the dog only, it is about 2500-3000 rpm. I normally don't watch the tachometer during each shift, but I did this morning and about 2800 "feels" right for the shift. So I guess 2800 would be a good point for an auto to shift, if that's the same as lock-up or stall. Not really in the heavy torque range for the V-6, but not everyone needs to go over 3000 to move the car from an intersection.
So maybe I should have suggested a 4000 rpm stall speed with the converter coming on at 800 rpm? Maybe a switch like my Volvo 960 that has "E" for economy and "S" for Sport and "S" could change the tranny to a 4000 rpm stall speed. In Sport it will shift near redline (Wife does not approve the "S" setting).
Stall speed is defined as the engine speed at full throttle with the vehicle not moving. Hold one foot very firmly on the brake and the other mashes the throttle to the floor. The engine speed in this condition is the the torque converter stall speed. Don't try this at home - it generates a HUGE amount of heat in the torque converter. It isn't really good for long life. I have always found it interesting that you can increase the stall speed just by increasing the engine torque.
I am not aware of any torque converters that are electronically controlled to modify stall speed. I do know that GM had a dual stall torque converter in the 60's. At some speed the vanes would move inside the converter and change it's effective stall speed.
The industry replaced that idea with torque converter lockup clutches. This is a clutch very much like a manual transmission clutch that activates once the torque converter is out of the range where it multiplies torque. This eliminates slippage and gets the automatic transmission within a few percent of a manual transmission in terms of efficiency.
As for ideal stall speed for the LS, I think 2800 RPM would be just about perfect. What else would you expect me to say? ;-)
Actually there are tradeoffs that can be discussed. The torque converter matching is a comprimise between fuel economy, performance, and noise. A higher stall converter gets worse fuel economy, usually better performance (to a point) and often gets customer complaints for excessive engine noise, and sometimes complaints that the transmission is slipping. Lincoln felt that the torque converters that are in the LS are the best comprimise for all of these. Performance was considered the highest priority. I don't think there is much to gain with a higher stall converter. We looked at that.
Left foot on the brake, ~ 3/4 throttle, release brake, stomp throttle. Three-four revs of the tires, some blue smoke, and a quick exit.
According to the power curves, I see that 2800 RPM stall has a HP output of about 130. A mighty fine starting point in my mind ... and things get better fast.
Mark, I think I'm hearing that the load on the converter with brakes locked limits engine RPM to 2800. Yeah, I'll bet this does produce some heat. As the fluid "cooks" (and I assume thins), does the stall speed increase?
Somewhere in here, I think I'm also learning why torque and a relatively flat torque curve are so important with an automatic transmission.
As for GM's variable pitch vanes, something tells me automatics are complex enough without adding that feature.
Can I get continuing education credits for reading this board?
Tom
Continuing education credits are granted. Just tell 'em I said so!
Mark
Where are the BTU's going? The torque converter, I think. Don't try this at home is right!
Mark, I think I'm hearing that the load on the converter with brakes locked limits engine RPM to 2800. Yeah, I'll bet this does produce some heat. As the fluid "cooks" (and I assume thins), does the stall speed increase?
Somewhere in here, I think I'm also learning why torque and a relatively flat torque curve are so important with an automatic transmission.
As for GM's variable pitch vanes, something tells me automatics are complex enough without adding that feature.
Can I get continuing education credits for reading this board?
Tom
GM did indeed have what they called "switch-the-pitch" in some 60's THM 400's. (The GM THM-400 was one of the most bulletproof automatics ever made and the GM automatics in use today are decsendants of it). Drag racers quickly caught on to this and hooked up a toggle switch so they could control the pitch manually. In the high setting the stall speeds up near 3000 RPM. These are still coveted today and hard to find; the junky..., excuse me, auto parts recylers wrer stripped clean yeras ago, but there are aftermarket conversions.
For a good discussion on torque converters in general and switch-the-pitch, go to http://www.boyleworks.com/ta400/psp/Twisting.html
Artie
Charter Member, LLSOC
Brian
I was looking forward to seeing the 2003 LS vs. the 2003 CTS. Now I'm not sure it would be a fair fight. There still isn't anyone on the forum that's actually bought one and Lutz has even said the quality isn't up to par, the interior needs to be redesigned. I think Caddy will be playing catch-up for quite some time.
Tom
LLSOC
Try this when the car is warmed up: Shift from D to R and back to D 5 times, with a 5 second wait between shifts. Thats' D to R, 5 seconds, R to D, 5 seconds, etc. This will help reset the learned parameters for the shifts.
Allen,
The engine does cut out for a split second on the 1-3 shift. The spark is retarded for about 0.3 seconds during the shift to make the shift smoother. It's always done that. For some reason you are more aware of it.
Mark
But what I really want to know is ... If a tree falls in the forest on top of an LS transmission, will Mark hear it?
:-)
Joe
LLSOC Charter member
I'm getting the sense this is a pretty tough transmission.
Has it been measured?
Maybe it's 1/(speed of light)?
I have to agree with the 1-3 shift I also notice the delay. I also began to notice it more after the TSB...
It doesn't feel to smooth. This is when you are mashing on the gas from a a start....Correct? I am trying to recall from memory, however it does feel like the car is stalling..
Regards,
Victor