Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
The discussions from Mark would speak about how the torque convertor would lock, but I don't know what this means to me.
Also, all this talk about airbox, why not put a cone filter on the intake? Is the heat in the engine compartment that detrimental to having the increased airflow? At highway speeds and normal driving, the cone would seem like a good fit since the air flowing into the car would be relatively cooling. But in traffic or at standstill, would the gas consumption increase that much do to the sucking in of hot engine air? And would this increase be compensated for by normal driving conditions and a great increase in MPG? I have also heard that cones tend to be noiser than traditional airboxes.
Hey Brian, maybe this is the next test for the project car?
Jeff
With a manual transmission you press the clutch to disconnect the engine from the transmission when you need to shift. The torque converter slip does this function for an automatic.
The slip also has a down side. When you are not stopped and not shifting you are losing fuel economy with that slip because some of the engine's power goes to turning slip into wasted heat. When the computer sees that the car does not need the converter to slip it activates a clutch inside the torque converter. This clutch locks the torque converter input and ouptut so that there is no slip. That's what is called lockup.
Mark
http://auto.com/industry/iwirf21_20010821.htm
Speaking of perception, in reading this article it is my conclusion that if it were not for the Thunderbird both production lines might not have been stopped. The automaker is "being super, super cautious" with the 2002 Thunderbird according to a Ford spokesperson.
The assembly of these cars using Mickey Mouse suppliers of parts made to Ford engineers' specifications does not exude quality and only supports marketing research in an analysis that "Ford is sloppy when it comes to quality." The mantra, "Ford quality is job one" is recognized only in the stalls of various restrooms. "You cannot keep having these kinds of problems."
It appears Ford maintains a status of being re-active instead of pro-active. The fact that they caught this problem on the production line does not address the quality of part and supplier.
My feelings on this can easily be as a result of the constant bombardment of Ford failures in the print, TV and other media outlets. A realization has to set in sooner or later that Ford is it's own worst enemy.
Back in the'80's, Ford "had a better idea." It was Total Quality Management, or whatever they called it that week. I rented (by default) a number of Ford products back then when our corporation was allied with Hertz and was, in fact, really impressed.
I haven't read the right books lately, so I'm not sure if this is common knowledge, but it takes 10 to 20 years to completely integrate a "Total Quality" system in a corporation. But the worst is. . .it's cheaper to blow it off to achieve quarterly or annual "metrics." To see the results of customer-driven TQ programs requires years. Management is judged quarterly or at least annually. Can anyone spell "director and higher bonus programs?" If senior management stands behind TQ, it will eventually pay off, but if they blink, they can look really, really good for a quarter or two.
And that's for companies that don't have to deal with tire liability that goes to the moon and a couple of other recalls that we don't need to go into here.
One person's opinion.
My steering controls didn't work like this: mute, didn't work; channel up, volume up; channel down, volume up; the volume and media button worked as they should.
Speaking of air filters, I put the K&N in just about a year ago. I inspected it a couple of weeks ago, and it was quite clean and free of debris. The cabin air filter, however, was quite another story. In a word, it was filthy !! I guess the base of the windshield is indeed a source of high pressure air.......Ram air anyone ???
I can't visualize this until I take off my air box and look around. When Airconhall showed me his mods, he first took off that black plastic piece that goes across the front above the grill by twisting off four "screws". Then access to to the airbox is much easier.
Thanks
Do you think this hurts Lincoln? I do. Even if you view the Conti as a dressed up Taurus/Sable, doesn't the name LINCOLN deserve better treatment?
Surely the company can put some pressure on volume thinking like this. For anyone who could do so, the culprit is Mac Churchill in Ft Worth.
I see on autoweb that the 2001 V6 is rated at 210HP and the 2002 V6 is rated at 210 HP . Is there really a 10 HP increase for 2002 ? If you have a V6, are you satisfied with acceleration ?
The cone filter induction systems wound need a port for the temperature sensor though in order to work properly. I think you are best off modifying the stock box the best you can and keeping the air intake fresh.
And yes, the cone filter does increase acceleration noise. Some may like it, some may not.
YMMV.
If you upgrade to the 2002 airbox there is no reflash necessary. The computer learns about the change and automatically adjusts for the increased air flow by increasing the fuel flow also.
The FIPK kits that K&N sells for some cars are essentially just this, except many do have the "heat shield" mentioned by ronnie.
Brians comment about the computer making automatic readjustments for the new airbox leads me to wonder if it will do so for a cone filter, or will the temperature be so out of range that it would throw off the calculations?
OK, just the first question, please.:)
Since the case you mentioned involves used cars, though, I doubt that Lincoln would (or should) have much influence. If a dealer goes to an auction and buys a bunch of used Continentals and spends his own money advertising them, I don't see how Lincoln could have much say in the matter. I hear what you're saying, but if Lincoln isn't helping to pay for the ads, then they probably shouldn't be able to dictate content. Just my .02 worth...
Note: I have no idea how the used-car advertising deal works--does the factory support dealer used-car advertising?
Tell you what though. It sure is gratifying to see the board looking like it used to; the kind of give and take that got me involved in the first place. I've enjoyed reading each and every one of them & that's something I couldn't say of late.
We'll be heading out on our annual summer trek to Maine next week. I can't imagine how many posts I'll have to catch up on if things stay like this. It's great. Keep 'em comin'!
Artie
http://www.auto.com/industry/irep21_20010821.htm
I hope production will be underway for LS Mania 2.
Also, I hope my 2000 LS's hydraulic cooling fan keeps working perfectly... I wonder if the production problem was related to something that just recently occurred.
With all the bad press about Ford's problems I'm almost beginning to think that they would be better off (publicity wise) to ship these vehicles with known problems and fix them at the dealerships silently under warranty. Geez - they put a process in place to find problems before they leave the factory (I'm thinking of the LS/Tbird overheating and the Explorer V8 engine problems, plus I think there were a few more in that category lately) - it works - and people start griping about poor quality. Damned if you do - damned if you don't. You can't expect something as complex as an automobile to be perfect. Actually, you could - but nobody here would be able to afford one. I personally applaud Ford for halting shipments until the problem is fixed. I would rather have a vehicle with 4 recalls in the first 2 months than have one with 2 problems that they know about but don't tell you and don't try to fix until they break.
I think Ford is so much under a microscope right now, that anything that happens, no matter what, is going to be reported as news. While this is a serious problem, I think in years past it wouldn't have even rated a mention. I'd be curious to know how demoralizing it must be for the Wixom people to have to function this way. Production line problems have always existed, inside and outside of Ford.
"The LS-V8 could be faster than 7.0 (mid 6's) if it had a proper first gear. It doesn't so it is slower even with a more powerful engine."
What would be a proper first gear? The automatic's first gear is 3.25:1. What would you propose as a proper first gear?
Mark
Mark, was the rear ratio change dictated by the fact that the limited production of T-Birds would be more CAFE friendly?
Would installing a 3:58 by current LS V-8 owners screw up the TC, ABS sensors?
Thanks, Stan
1. Upsize the engine to a larger displacement engine. (Good ol' American hotrodding mentality. No substitute for cubic inches)
2. Supercharge the current engine and add VVT to the mix (More exotic but relatively commonplace)
3. State-of-the-art components (not sure what that would be since they would be state-of-the-art and complex )(Head-of-the-heap type stuff that you would read about typically from BMW)
My preference would be the first one purely from a service perspective. If the power increase would be the same, a relatively simple engine transplant to a bigger engine that produced more horsepower would be simpler to fix in the middle of nowhere if the car broke down. If it was built off of an existing block there would be more parts available. Granted, this approach doesn't quite have the panache of the other two.
P.S. This is completely blue-sky stuff, since Lincoln isn't doing anything, but I thought it would be fun to daydream for a while plus I'm curious about how the rest of you would build the M-killer if we could!
Brian
It would be easy enough to make a 540i killer, though. The parts are already on the shelf. Easy.
Take the LS as it is. Raise the srping rates a bit for the slightly heavier drivetrain. Drop the Cobra engine in, AS IS. Put the entire IRS Cobra rear end in, AS IS, including the (missing in the LS) limited slip differential. Just modify the mounting hardware. The Tremec is not a "world-class" six-speed to LM, but I would take it. Ok, build a new flywheel housing to take the Cobra clutch and the six-speed Getrag but this is gonna cost money. It would be simpler just to put the WHOLE Cobra drivetrain in the LS.
Yes, you could fuss with the 3.9. Jag it to 4+ litres, add VVT, etc. But the American approach has always been to be simple and do it the least expensive way. Toyota put the Supra drivetrain in the Cressida in 1982 for a four-door Supra. Why not a four-door Cobra. American car companies have yet to realize what BMW discovered long ago: The ONLY difference between a two door and a four door IS two doors. You don't have to throw in demo or psychographics when you add two doors. No, marketing #%$^@s, four door buyers don't suddenly get older, slower, poorer or whatever. They want a dual purpose car. If you don't make them, they hop-up Civics, modify Trucks, buy BMWs instead. At least pick-up trucks have RWD at a reasonable price. So Ford can build a 21st century 4 door GTO if they want to. Instead of some of those styling gurus with the long hair, you could hire Jim Wangers for some input. He has a place up in Carlsbad, Ca that car companies use.
Ford has the parts, they just don't have the will.
But sit still, and the market will come to us. The new Sentra SE-R has a six-speed. The Infiniti G35 must be creating nightmares for many marketing wonks. RWD, limited slip, six-speed, 270hp, 3.5 litre.
It's time LM realizes that there are two distinct markets for the LS - Luxury and Performance. For the Conti replacement market, the non-sport LS as is. For the BMW wanna-be market (at a better price point, because BMW's are IMHO overpriced at the performance levels), the LS needs to do serious homework. Cars vs. appliance buyers - you can make them all happy. And it's already in the parts bin.
Ah, that was better than a dry dream.
#2 works for me. A bigger engine probably won't fit and has all kinds of CAFE baggage.
I'm 95% convinced that CAFE is behind many of the problems we discuss here: miserable AT gear spacing (somewhat due to other applications), driveability issues with the manual (why is it that so many of us who have driven manuals for 30 years kill this engine so often?), absolutely abysmal fuel mileage relative to the competion, and on and on.
But, I digress (as usual). Turbo- or superchargers (plus the obvious VVT that most cars in this category already have) offer the biggest bang for the buck, because with proper computer magic, the emissions stay reasonable, the package doesn't get (much) bigger, and the motor gets much stronger. Good tradeoffs.
Then there's the counterpoint, which I think is irrelevant to most users (hate to say buyers) of the LS. A lot of this stuff impacts long-term reliability. While many folks who populate these forums think long-term is 18 weeks (or 3000 miles, whichever comes first), one or two of us are thinking in terms of 6 - 8 years and 150K miles.
Having only participated in the Edmunds forums for the past 18 months, I've learned that many (if not most) of the people who are pumped up about cars could care less about whether it's possible to afford them when the warranty doesn't cover whatever goes wrong. Lease it, pay the monthly, lease the next one. If that's where everyone is going, I only have one question. What happens to all those cars coming off the lease?
Ya think the value of your car could go south if the off-lease vehicles sell for $1.85?
Just a thought. . .or so.
How's that for compromise? . . . I want it ALL!!!
18 inches long and 6 inches wide...of course I change it regularly to keep it looking fresh..
.
Now that would be a great TV spot to show the "Lincoln Committment" to customer satisfaction..
Kevin
Who's still waiting for the dealer to call and tell me to bring her in for the second RR window repair....by the way... for those interested... the dealer insists that I got the "upgraded"
regulator assembly the first time it was fixed...so if they are telling me the truth (which by the way I doubt... from past experience) I look forward to spending lots of time at Home Depot replenishing my supply of Duct Tape...at least until the darn thing is paid for and I can trade it in on a BMW. ( that was a joke... really... can't afford a BMW... at least not yet..)
1st now shift around 47mph. A 4.40 would shift at 35mph but would lower the 0-60 time from 7.4 seconds to 6.7 seconds.
This is a significant improvement without any "major" changes (because of the interaction of the drive and overdrive gears it probably is "major").
IIRC the LS doesn't normally launch in 1st anyway, unless 60% throttle occurs, so fuel economy wouldn't be effected but launch "feel" would be greatly improved for those occasions when a quick launch is necessary.
This is assuming the engine is revving at 2900 rpm for launch (which the mags do for their "fast" runs - except for the M-B C32 AMG reviewed in the sep. R&T which has a maximum launch rpm at 1500 due to wheel spin).
(3.58 Rear: not practical due to gas mileage - it effects ALL gears. Nor is it strictly necessary as changing "just" first gives the desired off-the-line push without effecting gas mileage significantly.)
So, for me, leave the suspension and balance alone, add limited slip to the current LS rear end, some serious wheels and tires, and give me everything Jaguar (or Aston-Martin!) has under the hood. This won't just blast 540s, it will "make the rubble bounce". M5s may still drive away from us, but slowly.
jnowski: Hear, hear!
Easier - super-charger: look at the M-B C32-AMG. A 3.2L V6 that does 0-60 in 5.1 seconds @ 3780 lbs weight and an automatic (with a 540i price though). A less expensive SC would give 540i performance with maybe an ~$2K cost.
SHIFTING - it all depends on the engines torque curve. High revving engines with "poor" low rpm torque need fast 1st gears to get the rpm's up to the torque band. I've run a simulation using the LLSOC published torque curve and the present transmission does 0-60 in 7.4 where-as a 4.40 1st (all other gears the same as now) does 0-60 in 6.7.
I've simulated the ZO6/C32AMG/Maxima/3.2TL-S/SHO/A6-2.7T/M roadster/SLK32AMG/boxster-S/etc and all simulations are very close (+/- 0.3) to the actual numbers that the mags are getting so I have confidence in the numbers I'm getting.