There is no such thing as pre-detonation. The air/fuel mixture is never meant to detonate, only to burn relatively slowly. The only reason to advance ignition timing is because the mixture burns slowly. This is why ignition timing is advanced as engine speed increases. Detonation is the simultaneous combustion of the entire load of air & fuel. Under normal circumstances the air/fuel mixtures is ignited by the spark plug and a combustion begins. The combustion flame front progresses slowly away from the spark plug until the entire air/fuel mixture is consummed. When octane is too low then the air/fuel mixture auto ignites and literally explodes (detonates) throughout the combustion chamber almost simultaneously.
Detonation is usually caused by a combination of extreme pressure and temperature. However, extreme pressure or temperature alone can cause detonation.
Pre-ignition is not detonation. Pre-ignition is the air/fuel mixture is ignited before intended but the mixture still burns slowly. This scenario is only caused by excess temperature in a small zone of the combustion chamber.
slunar,
Higher octane fuels are not more energy dense and therefore do not increase fuel efficiency, in general. Please do not confuse maximum power potential with efficiency. The exception is a higher octane fuel can use a higher compression ratio which does increase efficiency. Basically street vehicles will exhibit the same efficiency on 87 octane as 93 octane.
Ok, so it's detonation without the pre- and it's different from preignition. They're both abnormal combustion.
Using an octane rating that's too low will cause detonation as the air-fuel mixture ignites from the high temp/pressure with a new flame front and collides with the flame front from the spark plug ignition - the collision is the 'knock' and it destroys pistons. Increasing the octane will increase the fuel-air mixture's ability to withstand high temp/pressure without spontaneously igniting, thus avoiding the detonation.
I think you misunderstood what slunar said. He said that when you use 87 octane in a LS designed for 91 that you will experience lower fuel mileage AND lower performance. The reason for loss of performance and fuel economy is that the computer must retard the timing to compensate for the lower octane to prevent detonation. It's not the octane, it's the retarded timing that's the culprit.
"Basically street vehicles will exhibit the same efficiency on 87 octane as 93 octane. "
Only if the street vehicle was DESIGNED to use 87. If it's designed to use 91 then that's not true. Once again, it's not the octane that's responsible for the increase or decrease in efficiency - it's the timing.
I used 87(regular)octane fuel one time and noticed a steep decrease in performance and in gas mileage. Plus, the degrade of performance makes you want to get on the gas more to get up to the desired speed and thus decreasing fuel economy even more. I ran the tank to almost empty and then filled it up with Amoco Ultimate(93 octane) and also added some octane booster to make up for the loss of using 87 fuel. Long story short; premium fuel pays for itself for the increase of MPG and engine life. I forgot who mentioned it about the price per gallon of petrol vs. water but it is so true that gasoline is cheaper than water and some people squawk over it. We have it good over here and let me explain, I went to Europe several months ago and there gas prices are through the roof. The $/Mark conversion was about $4.50 US Dollar per/gallon of petrol. That is why alot of cars over there are Diesel and they have Manual trans for the better economy and Diesel is also cheaper than petrol. One thing I loved over there is that there is basically NO road hogging, road destroying, gas guzzling SUV's or trucks over there besides the big rigs. I hate SUV's!!! Did you know that because of those hughmongous excursion SUV's that people who buy them don't really even ever need them or for that matter use them for their potential are the reasons for the increase of gas prices since they are such gas guzzlers. If it was up to me; the SUV guys and gals should pay $2.00+ per/gal and cars should only have to pay $0.80 per/gal of premium. To make that work just simply make the truck gas necks smaller requiring a smaller size pump at the station just like the Diesel cars and trucks have a bigger diameter gas neck so idiots don't put diesel into their gas powered cars. The majority of vehicals on the road are trucks and SUV's so I don't think that the gas companies will suffer at all; most likely they would make more money per barrel. I say, if you have lots children and and need a vehical that can accomidate and carry the extra load to get yourself a wagon. I don't care what any one says about wagons; they are better looking(IMHO), better handling, better on gas, safer, and can hold just as much. Please don't get my message confused. There are those people that buy those SUV's to tow a camper, a boat, go off roading, or whatever; that is a good use for them. I'm talking about the person that wants a expedition because he or she will feel safer in one vs. a car. You know whom I talking about; it is probualy your co-worker or next door neibor or maybe even yourself.
So what if people do not NEED a SUV? We do not NEED our LSs either, a Yugo will get us from point A to point B as well, though at seriously decreased enjoyment. The argument fails. NEED has absolutely nothing to do with it.
As for "talking about the person that wants a expedition because he or she will feel safer." Do you also wish to ban DRLs and side air bags because only SOME people believe they provide an extra measure of safety? Again, the logic fails.
We live in a country that is mostly free. We are allowed to decide what to do for ourselves. Personally I hate elitists who believe the masses are incapable of deciding for themselves and must have someone tell them what is the proper way to live (ie SUV owners being required to pay more for the same material than others). Freedom allows us to make these PERSONAL decisions for ourselves. Just because I disagree with my neighbor's choice(s) does not mean there NEEDS to be a law limiting his freedom or one day someone with perfect knowledge (you, perhaps) will decide for me what is correct. I believe China, Cuba, Iraq and North Korea are very good examples of that way of life. There are many opportunities to live in the Utopia you seek, why don't you move to one of those countries and be totally happy; seems like you would fit right in.
Oh . . . I forgot, it is happening already: PC promoters believe this is THE WAY. Sorry, but you will never get my vote for Emperor of the World. Or would you disallow voting too? Afterall, we might not vote the way you wish!
......and then there are needs. Some of the so called "needs" are generated by Madison Avenue, strictly to pump up the auto business, jeans business, car stereo business, etc. Do you really NEED a 5000 pound, 4 wheel drive, gas guzzling behemoth to commute to work? Generally, no. Do we live in a free society that allows us to buy one? Yes. However, do we need to drive 12 MPG vehicles that burn up oil at a rate that far exceeds the earth's ability to reproduce that oil when there are far more efficient alternatives? Personally, I say no. We've lived quite well for many years without the SUVs, and I just don't see the need for them. OK, I'll get off my soapbox, and don the Nomex...
Do we really NEED a car that can take curves at 2-3 times the recommended rate? D we really NEED a car that creates an insane grin on the face of everyone fortunate enough to drive one? Of course not! However, I will firmly support the right of anyone to purchase such a vehicle.
We also lived quite well with "Muscle cars" that couldn't do anything but go straight down the road but that does not mean we ought to never "improve" our lot. Those who wish to drive Monstrosities, whether a SUV or an Aztec, ought to be permitted to do so. There are plenty of places where one who wishes to be free of said offending vehicles can live. If the previously stated countries are "too severe" then Europe is probably the right place, semi-free but primarily socialist; they will be delighted to make your auto purchasing decisions for you by imposing such limitations as another poster suggested.
Enjoying my freedom, a 100% disabled veteran who even supports the right of morons to burn the American flag.
My Expedition 5.4 gets 15.5 mpg. My LS V8 gets 16.5. My Expedition is ULEV and puts out less emissions than a lot of older economy cars. People in glass houses.........
Then again, badazzls6 also said it never rains in Florida and you can't hydrolock a LS. Maybe you should explain that to the guy that's having his engine replaced as we speak after driving through an unexpected deep puddle with the stock airbox and hydrolocking his engine.
...My wife's LS V-8 AVERAGES 20MPG, with the highway figures as high as 26.5 MPG, while my Corvette equals or even betters that figure. The S-10 4x4 pick-up that I use in the winter, however, gets a dismal 18-19 MPG if I'm lucky. From what I've been told, a lot of SUVers would be happy to get 18-19, but to me, a figure that low is truly wasteful. Good thing I only drive it 3.5-4 months out of the year.
to all who defended the rights of Americans to choose what they drive.
FYI, badazz, this blind old fart has, in addition to a V6 manual LS, an SUV (Jeep Cherokee) which gets better mileage that the aforementioned LS - hey, perhaps YOU should choose a more fuel efficient vehicle - AND a BIG Dodge van, for which I'm sure you've got some hate left. I NEED both these vehicles for earning money to feed my family. Come on over and try to take one away from me.
Curious what others have experienced. My LS v8 mileage has improved from about about 15 mpg for the first two years (and 20K miles) for mostly in town driving (which by the way is only about 1 mpg better than what my 5.7L, 5500lb Suburban sees), to about 17 mpg for the last 6 months or so.
Seems a little low for a being a new, high tech, small displacement V8.
Hell, I can buy a Z06 Corvette with a 400+ hp 5.7L V8 and get better mileage (its rated for 19 city and 28 highway)
I'm not sure LS owners want to get into a MPG debate with owners of other types of vehicles.
I believe your comments and fuel economy are both right on, dbossman.
Over 10,000 miles of city driving a 2000 V-8 LS gave me about 16.5 MPG. The same number of city miles in a 2001 V-6 LS have yielded about 20.0 MPG. Clearly fuel economy is not one of the LS's strong points, but it sure makes up for it in handling, comfort, style, and overall value. And BTW, our Lexus RX-300 SUV gets better fuel economy than our Lincoln V-6 LS. I guess we just have a "badgas" ls6.
Isn't there still a gas guzzler tax out there, ineffective thought it may be? As a third generation American combat veteran, folks who want to somehow legislate their personal view on the rest of us is worrisome.
<<. The exception is a higher octane fuel can use a higher compression ratio which does increase efficiency.>>
Babylou: What I was attempting to say is that since the LS engines have 10.5:1 compression ratios they are designed to run on 91 octane. Running 87 octane makes the engine controls retard the timing so much, to prevent knocking, that efficiency (HP & MPG) drops.
Although most LS owners keep saying that they never bought their LS for the gas mileage, the gas mileage of the LS is pretty pitiful. Consider that the 290 HP 4.6L DOHC engine in the larger, heavier Continental gets significantly better gas mileage than the LS-8 and as good if not better than the LS-6. Sorry but when I pay $35K for a car I want everything, great handling, all the luxury bells & whistles and gas mileage as good as other cars in the same class.
At least the '03 LS's will be better with their VVT and revised intake manifolds. I heard a rumor that the mileage for both '03 engines will be 2 - 3 MPG better than the '00 - '02 engines.
"My LS v8 mileage has improved from about about 15 mpg for the first two years ... to about 17 mpg for the last 6 months or so."
Sounds like someone's getting old and just doesn't have their foot in it anymore!
Anyway... if the LS8 gets less than 20, I won't be too put out - my '97 SHO gets about 17 (for some reason).
And speaking of compression ratios, the public '03 LS specs on Ford's media site a few weeks ago revealed a 10.75:1 compression ratio. Methinks that higher octane fuel will be more important than ever with these cars...
I sense a little sarcasim in akirby's Mr. Wizard response. We are in agreement. I just wanted to make sure that there was not any misinformation regarding fuel. Yes, both of you are correct that a modern engine designed for 91 ocatane will be more efficient than if used with 87 octane because the ECU will pull out timing if knock is sensed. What I meant to convey was the misconception that many people have the more octane the better idea. For instance a Miata is designed for 87 octane but many people put in 93 octane believing they will get more efficiency/power. All they are doing is spending 15% more for the same performance.
On my mother's '93 Sable, the air conditioning doesn't just blast away the moment you turn it on. It recirculates the air around inside for a few seconds, then allows it to vent to the cabin.
No big deal, perhaps, but with the crazy heat/humidity here in the northeast recently, I'm reminded of that Sable's AC every time I turn the key in my LS and get immediately blasted with even hotter air that's been cooking in the ducts all day.
I don't know how common that AC function was/is, or if there's a name for it, but now I want it.
among so many great attributes of the LS, one that i'm reminded of daily is how beautiful the car really is. i've had people as young as 13 and as old as 78 tell me how sharp the car looks.
Another factor that causes variation in fuel consumption here in the Phoenix area is that during the summer they can't use oxygenated fuels. I'm getting about 18.5 MPG in city driving these days with my LS-8.
Starting in October, they'll start putting the junk back into the gas, and I expect to lose 1.5-2 MPG again.
Perhaps the "Worst Utility Award" would have to go to the MB SUV with the cut off rear akin to the 1980 Seville. There is so little room behind the rear seat that I spotted an MB SUV owner today with some kind of storage box hanging off the trailer hitch. I thought you had to have a red flag with that kind of gross extension. Some of these people should rediscover the lowly station wagon. My 96 Volvo 960 Wagon can swallow a 4x8 sheet of drywall with only a small part hanging out the hatch. And even with the second seat up, there is about 3 to 4 feet of space in the rear, enough to contain the rear facing 3rd seat and extend capacity to seven humans. The MB seems to be nothing more than a raised hatchback sedan!
babylou: We are in agreement. A car designed for 87 octane with a 9.5:1 compression ration and has a knock sensor will see a slight improvement in HP & mileage due to more advanced timing. However those improvements will usually be very small and in almost all cases will not justify the extra cost of 93 octane.
C&D did a test of mileage & performance vs. octane gas on several cars a few years ago. They found the same thing. Higher compression cars designed for 91 or higher octane saw both a HP and mileage decrease when run on 87 (They used a rear wheel dyno.) When they put 93 octane in the lower compression cars designed to run on 87 they saw a very, very small increase in HP & mileage.
<<Linebacker in an Armani suit>>
That is a pretty good description of the LS, especially the V-8.
elless, I've had 26 cars and have received more complements from both young and old than almost any other car I've had. My friend's 16 year old thinks my LS is the coolest thing. On the other hand I've gotten into conversations at the gas pump or store parking lot with 70+ year olds that think the same way.
The auto press has continually knocked the LS's styling. The most common negative adjective that I have seen is "Derivative Styling". I'd call it more like understated elegance with toned muscles.
In general, I think that the automotive press just likes to knock the LS, period! For every good thing they say, they manage to find two negatives. The car is more like Rodney Dangerfield, just doesn't get any respect......
I think there will be newfound respect (at least temporarily) when the 2003 debuts. They've fixed everything that anyone has complained about except the exterior styling:
more power smoother shifting and more responsive tranny (ETC, new gearing, 1st gear SST starts) tons of interior storage better quality dash material xenon headlamps DVD Navigation Improved ride comfort several new gadgets
The only thing I would change on the exterior is the license plate surround. It's too big. If they cancel the manual tranny, which seems likely, they'll moan about that, but not for long. Maybe this will put the LS into the Mercedes E class, BMW 7 series and Audi A6 arena where it belongs and out of the 3/C/A4 class where it's too big.
Hi all! I'm considering a LS lease, and wonder if the factory money ($3K) plus discount from the MSRP will bring the car's cap cost to ~ $33K. Has anyone done this recently? Were you able to combine the factory money and plus the discount? What would you consider to be a reasonable monthly payment on a 36 month lease with 20K miles a year? Also, has anyone done a 24 month lease on the LS? Thanks!
I'm not positive but I think there are factory lease rates of $399 and $479 for 39 month leases on the V6 and V8 respectively with $0 down. 20K/yr will drive that up a little. As for cap cost, you should be able to get any LS except for possibly a LSE or Vivid Red very close to dealer invoice minus the $3K rebates.
A while back I purchased two heavy duty workbenches for the garage. They were delivered to my place of employment and my boss offered me the use of his pickup to transport them home. I thought, well, let's see. Two 30*60" hardwood tops, well packed in boxes, plus two more boxes about 3*3*1' with the legs in them. I made it easily in two trips with the LS, with the trunk lid closed. It's not the handiest space to use, there's the trunk opening to lift stuff over, and the area where the seatbacks fold down is pretty narrow, but there's nearly as much cargo room as the mid-size Subaru wagon I traded in. I also hauled four new 17" Firehawks to the shop to be mounted.
Plus, I can out-drive any Corvette Z06 on the road. Provided we each have four people in the car.:):)
Great description Akirby! A real mean but composed look from the front with slick clean elegance from the back. Kinda like broad shouldered in the front with nice curves in the back. Appealing to both sexes! I love the front more. My wife loves the back more. Interestingly, as I see fellow LS's from a distance on roads, it appears more narrow and compact, again a look that I love!
"The auto press has continually knocked the LS's styling"
Slunar & Leadfoot: Most of what I read regarding the looks centered around "sharp looking". An exception was that one person said that the front needed a serious makeover. My wife and I immediately thought that he was talking about his brain.
In my opinion, the car already has great respect in nearly every way, not to mention the respect that Lincoln carries. Of course, I have a 2002 so I would see it no other way! Although I know the 2003 will be improved, I'm so happy with my 2002! If only I could convince my wife to get a 2003 when her Saab lease ends at the end of Jan 2003. She wants a wagon to throw in the future kids and current skis. I think the LS would do fine!
Have a good day with your well-dressed linebacker...
there are two basic schools of design regarding fuel requirments and engine performance and drive- ability: one is to utilize a knock sensor circuit to allow the use of lower octane and certain loss of performance. the other, is to engineer the motor to run on regular and achieve almost the same performance as the knock sensor type engine. there is a very small (almost neglible) loss of performance with the latter design. generally, the american engineers have been designing motors that utilize regular and have no added benefit from the use of premium, versus the knock engines that will see an increase in performance. some of the premium makes and most of the euro engineers utilize the knock design, mostly out of perceived performance increases. it's not a big deal to engineer a hi-performance motor to run on 87 and still make 300 hp.. it's all in the cams and the squish area....actually alot of other stuff too. jackg
the first time I saw the LS, I walked out of the show room saying to myself, "no way." I thought the back was just plain auk. Now, after owning two LS's (2000 and 2002) I have come to appreciate the timeless design that actually seems to improve with age. The LS front and side have a lean, mechanical look while the rear has a certain snob appeal to it. Every day I still look forward to going for a spin in my V6 Sport Manual. I'm sure the new '03 will be nice, but I'm set until 2005. I think. Well, maybe!
takakjian: You can apply the $3,000 rebate to cap cost reduction. The dealer discount is automatically used as cap cost reduction(lowering the price of the car) as no dealer I know would cut you a check for their discount.
With that said, I have analzyed leases several times and have always come to the conclusion that a $0 down lease is the best deal. It is also a better deal to take the $3,000 factory rebate as cash and NOT apply it to cap cost reduction. Yes I know emotionally you feel better with a lower montly payment, but analytically it is better to have the cash in your pocket and pay a higher montly rate over 3 years.
The only reason I can come up with to put one cent into cap cost reduction is if you would not be approved for the lease any other way.
As far as lease rates go, there will be variations in different geographic areas, but the current LS lease promo in Ford's NY market is:
LS V-8 with moon roof (Base, that is not a sport, not other options).
$399 / month, 36 months, 12,000 miles per year, $1,999 due at signing, $3,000 repate applied to cap cost reduction. (taxes are additional). I would estimate that going to 20,000 miles a year would raise the montly payment by $50 per month. This lease payment corresponds to getting the LS at invoice price.
You should be able to get any '02 LS at invoice price + local marketing fee ($350 typical) - $3,000 factory reabate + taxes + registration etc.
Lease Manager mentioned that current 2002 LS's are availabel with .5 lease rate and you get the $3,000 rebate. Regular lease rates are 2.9-3.9.
Just had 30,000 mile FREE service ($800 on formerly-owned '85 Mercedes 300). No problems. I like my 2001 LS better every day. Mileage has jumped 2.5 mpg on daily 46 mile work commute to aroung 20 mpg. Better than my V-6 Explorer (2WD).
AdvanceTrac-why? If you have ever done a 360 after hitting black ice and ended up in the median grass in a 97 Explorer 2 WD and you own a LS with AdvanceTrac that has saved your butt on more than one occation during similar, unexpected situations, you will readily understand why I will not purchase another vehicle without stability control. It works great!
I took a 2001 LS manual out for a spin today. It had about 10k miles on it.
Not bad.....not as powerful as I'd like, but shifter action was good. Light clutch. Not a lot of punch off the line but at about 3500 rpm in third gear was pretty good sweet spot to hit with the car.
Overall not bad....not stellar though. Car had sport package and still felt soft. Steering got better feel as speed increased.
I thought the engine was not particularly smooth. I have driven Fords with Duratecs before and they were smoother. A little coarse for 80mph interstate travel. Otherwise this would be a fine touring car.
I'd consider buying the car if it was cheaper but the dealer wanted too much.
I liked the seats and the console and controls even if the plastic was a bit Ford like.
I leased my first LS (2002) the other day after looking at just about everything else on the market, Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar. Hadn't even considered the LS. Then I dropped by the Lincoln dealer, drove the black V6 Sport that they had decorated with what looks like wood, and fell in love. They're adding a moonroof for me. In the part of California where I live I never see the LS on the road and would never have thought to get one. There's no advertising to speak of. I think that compared to anything else in the price range, I definitely got the most car for the money and a great deal. What a wonderful, quiet, beautiful, well handling car. I can't believe no one else has figured this out. Does anyone know why they're not more popular?
Washed the car Friday night - it's now Sunday afternoon and the PS headlight is still 'foggy', is there a TSB for this?
Also noticed a degree of 'orange peel' in the paint. Should I bother to mention this to the dealer or is it just something else we'll have to 'live with' ?
It's scheduled to go in the shop again on Friday. At least this time it won't have to be towed
I purchased an 02'LSE, Black exterior. A short time after delivery I notice a lot of "orange peel". I complained to my service manager and he showed me most of the Ls's he had on the lot and they all had various forms of "peel" also. Well I still complained and even put my complaint down when I filled out a new car survey which I received in the mail from a Research Group in Michigan. They called me in a follow up and I really gave them my 2 cents about the poor quality of paint. I kept complaining about it and I was refered to their collision shop manager. He looked it over and agreed it was bad. He said he would have it "buffed out" by an outside tech. Well they did that and he was still not satisfied. They ended up painting my hood, roof, trunk and rear quarter panels; all under warranty. Looks great now. Complain until you get satisfaction.
Orange peel is, unfortunately, "normal". And not just on the LS. If you look around your parking lot you'll find a lot of it - even on $60k-$80k cars. Most people don't notice it or care about it, so most automakers probably don't put the extra $$ into preventing it. If your dealer is willing it is possible to polish it out if it's not too bad, but you're actually removing the clearcoat layer which is not very thick to begin with, so it's tricky. If it bothers you a lot then complain to your dealer, otherwise don't worry about it.
As for the water in the headlamps - known problem, no permanent fix yet. It should evaporate when you use your headlamps. If it doesn't evaporate after a few more days then ask your dealer about replacing it.
bebe3: Congrats on your new LS. The price / performance on the LS is still hard to beat.
<<Does anyone know why they're not more popular?>>
Probably a whole bunch of reasons:
1. Lincoln is still perceived as a vehicle brand that you buy just before you purchase your coffin.
2. Lincoln does not have a performance image.
3. The car rags seem to love to pick on the LS. One of their favorite lines seems to be "Nice try Lincoln but the LS just doesn't hold up to your competitors." Of course those competitive cars seem to cost over $10,000 more than a LS.
4. The car rags also seem bent on comparing it to cars like the BMW 3 series which only cost a little more than the LS and then the turn around and pan the LS for being too big, too slow and not nimble enough.
5. Lincoln does not have the prestige that BMW, Mercedes, Lexus etc. have. Let's face it the vast majority of car purchasers are seeking prestige. It's the minority who buy for the Zoom, Zoom factor.
6. Ineffective Lincoln advertising & marketing. Every time I turn on the TV I see several Navigator or Town Car ads. I haven't seen a LS ad on TV in over 6 months.
7. Many Lincoln dealers were not prepared for the LS and appeared reluctant to learn a new trick, that is, sell cars to people under 60 years old and to customers (regardless of age) who are more knowledgeable about cars and are looking for performance.
Look at the bright side bebe3, you just got a nice car with a bunch of exclusivity at a bargain price.
I tried to look up a Fram SureDrain quicker oil change draining adapter but the LS is not listed. Since Fram lists the plug dimensions on the packages, I was able to mic my plug and determine that the V6 oil plug is 12 mm X 1.75 in size, so I picked up a SD-4 kit and installed it. I thought that the forum here would like to know, in case someone else wanted to try the kit on for size but were unable to due to there not being a listing.
There are 5 different SD kits available. I bought mine at Wal*Mart due to their price being around USD$12.50, as opposed to discount autoparts stores running at around $15. I think that these kits will make life easier for folks that change their own oil. BTW, no Fram oil filters for me, thanks.
Mike ========== 2000 LS MTX 1996 Mercury Grand Marquis 2003 Mercury Marauder
Thanks, slunar. I think it's especially great because the dealer is including a loaner car even with minor service, which is the same thing that Audi is doing; and I really like having a car that no one has. They just gave me a 2002 LS V8 while putting my moonroof in. It's extremely fast and handles beautifully.
I was talking on the phone with someone somewhat older than myself today that think that they're "cool" because they have a Lexus, which I had three car leases ago. Now I actually see Lexus as a blue-haired car. To make matters worse, I had chrome wheels on my Lexus that rusted on the inside and caused blowouts on the freeway (in the left lane) three separate times!!!! No one from Lexus or Toyata would ever answer my calls or do anything about it.
Then, there was one time that I was in a bad accident, and my air bag light went off, but not my air bag. I know they are supposed to be safe, but you couldn't prove it by me. I had really bad luck with my SC300 and wouldn't have another Lexus.
I was driving a BMW 328 right before my Ford SUV, and it handled beautifully, but there's no way to compare the comfort of the LS with the 328. The 328 was fun to drive, but it wasn't that comfortable a car, and I'm pretty small (5'6", 125). Besides, everyone has one :-)
All in all, the Lincoln is a great change. Hope my windows stay up, though.
You can tell what month your LS was made by looking at the blue DOT sticker on the driver's side door jam (up front by the A pillar).
The window sticker that shows the MSRP & options has a date code on the bottom right. There lower right box has a whole bunch of #'s on it. The last 6 digits on the right give the invoice date MM DD YY, but the invoice date may not be the same as the actual build date.
The last way to check the build date is to have your dealer's service department look up your VIN on the Oasis system. This should give the actual build date, but I have heard of cases where info such as this was missing from the system.
Sorry to hear about your Lexus problems. Although Toyota has an incredible reputation I have heard several horror stories where Toyota is unbelievably arrogant towards customer complaints and just will not accept the fact that the car has a defect and they should fix it.
I agree with you on the 328i, I test drove a couple (2dr & 4dr). They were fun to drive, especially the 2dr, like a go cart, but I couldn't deal with driving a 328i every day. Too small inside, too harsh and skittish and missing too many luxury items, such as no dual climate controls, manual tilt steering wheel etc.
Finally I echo what lobsenza posted, make sure you check out LLSOC with your complementary membership. An incrediable amount of info there, such as access to TSB's, recall notices, after maket accessory tests, etc. Makes it well worth joining after your trial is up.
Comments
Mark
There is no such thing as pre-detonation. The air/fuel mixture is never meant to detonate, only to burn relatively slowly. The only reason to advance ignition timing is because the mixture burns slowly. This is why ignition timing is advanced as engine speed increases. Detonation is the simultaneous combustion of the entire load of air & fuel. Under normal circumstances the air/fuel mixtures is ignited by the spark plug and a combustion begins. The combustion flame front progresses slowly away from the spark plug until the entire air/fuel mixture is consummed. When octane is too low then the air/fuel mixture auto ignites and literally explodes (detonates) throughout the combustion chamber almost simultaneously.
Detonation is usually caused by a combination of extreme pressure and temperature. However, extreme pressure or temperature alone can cause detonation.
Pre-ignition is not detonation. Pre-ignition is the air/fuel mixture is ignited before intended but the mixture still burns slowly. This scenario is only caused by excess temperature in a small zone of the combustion chamber.
slunar,
Higher octane fuels are not more energy dense and therefore do not increase fuel efficiency, in general. Please do not confuse maximum power potential with efficiency. The exception is a higher octane fuel can use a higher compression ratio which does increase efficiency. Basically street vehicles will exhibit the same efficiency on 87 octane as 93 octane.
Ok, so it's detonation without the pre- and it's different from preignition. They're both abnormal combustion.
Using an octane rating that's too low will cause detonation as the air-fuel mixture ignites from the high temp/pressure with a new flame front and collides with the flame front from the spark plug ignition - the collision is the 'knock' and it destroys pistons. Increasing the octane will increase the fuel-air mixture's ability to withstand high temp/pressure without spontaneously igniting, thus avoiding the detonation.
I think you misunderstood what slunar said. He said that when you use 87 octane in a LS designed for 91 that you will experience lower fuel mileage AND lower performance. The reason for loss of performance and fuel economy is that the computer must retard the timing to compensate for the lower octane to prevent detonation. It's not the octane, it's the retarded timing that's the culprit.
"Basically street vehicles will exhibit the same efficiency on 87 octane as 93 octane. "
Only if the street vehicle was DESIGNED to use 87. If it's designed to use 91 then that's not true. Once again, it's not the octane that's responsible for the increase or decrease in efficiency - it's the timing.
Did you know that because of those hughmongous excursion SUV's that people who buy them don't really even ever need them or for that matter use them for their potential are the reasons for the increase of gas prices since they are such gas guzzlers. If it was up to me; the SUV guys and gals should pay $2.00+ per/gal and cars should only have to pay $0.80 per/gal of premium. To make that work just simply make the truck gas necks smaller requiring a smaller size pump at the station just like the Diesel cars and trucks have a bigger diameter gas neck so idiots don't put diesel into their gas powered cars. The majority of vehicals on the road are trucks and SUV's so I don't think that the gas companies will suffer at all; most likely they would make more money per barrel. I say, if you have lots children and and need a vehical that can accomidate and carry the extra load to get yourself a wagon. I don't care what any one says about wagons; they are better looking(IMHO), better handling, better on gas, safer, and can hold just as much. Please don't get my message confused. There are those people that buy those SUV's to tow a camper, a boat, go off roading, or whatever; that is a good use for them. I'm talking about the person that wants a expedition because he or she will feel safer in one vs. a car. You know whom I talking about; it is probualy your co-worker or next door neibor or maybe even yourself.
As for "talking about the person that wants a expedition because he or she will feel safer." Do you also wish to ban DRLs and side air bags because only SOME people believe they provide an extra measure of safety? Again, the logic fails.
We live in a country that is mostly free. We are allowed to decide what to do for ourselves. Personally I hate elitists who believe the masses are incapable of deciding for themselves and must have someone tell them what is the proper way to live (ie SUV owners being required to pay more for the same material than others). Freedom allows us to make these PERSONAL decisions for ourselves. Just because I disagree with my neighbor's choice(s) does not mean there NEEDS to be a law limiting his freedom or one day someone with perfect knowledge (you, perhaps) will decide for me what is correct. I believe China, Cuba, Iraq and North Korea are very good examples of that way of life. There are many opportunities to live in the Utopia you seek, why don't you move to one of those countries and be totally happy; seems like you would fit right in.
Oh . . . I forgot, it is happening already: PC promoters believe this is THE WAY. Sorry, but you will never get my vote for Emperor of the World. Or would you disallow voting too? Afterall, we might not vote the way you wish!
Do you really NEED a 5000 pound, 4 wheel drive, gas guzzling behemoth to commute to work? Generally, no. Do we live in a free society that allows us to buy one? Yes. However, do we need to drive 12 MPG vehicles that burn up oil at a rate that far exceeds the earth's ability to reproduce that oil when there are far more efficient alternatives? Personally, I say no.
We've lived quite well for many years without the SUVs, and I just don't see the need for them. OK, I'll get off my soapbox, and don the Nomex...
We also lived quite well with "Muscle cars" that couldn't do anything but go straight down the road but that does not mean we ought to never "improve" our lot. Those who wish to drive Monstrosities, whether a SUV or an Aztec, ought to be permitted to do so. There are plenty of places where one who wishes to be free of said offending vehicles can live. If the previously stated countries are "too severe" then Europe is probably the right place, semi-free but primarily socialist; they will be delighted to make your auto purchasing decisions for you by imposing such limitations as another poster suggested.
Enjoying my freedom,
a 100% disabled veteran who even supports the right of morons to burn the American flag.
My Expedition is ULEV and puts out less emissions than a lot of older economy cars.
People in glass houses.........
Then again, badazzls6 also said it never rains in Florida and you can't hydrolock a LS. Maybe you should explain that to the guy that's having his engine replaced as we speak after driving through an unexpected deep puddle with the stock airbox and hydrolocking his engine.
The S-10 4x4 pick-up that I use in the winter, however, gets a dismal 18-19 MPG if I'm lucky. From what I've been told, a lot of SUVers would be happy to get 18-19, but to me, a figure that low is truly wasteful. Good thing I only drive it 3.5-4 months out of the year.
(sorry Pat, but I had to go there)
FYI, badazz, this blind old fart has, in addition to a V6 manual LS, an SUV (Jeep Cherokee) which gets better mileage that the aforementioned LS - hey, perhaps YOU should choose a more fuel efficient vehicle - AND a BIG Dodge van, for which I'm sure you've got some hate left. I NEED both these vehicles for earning money to feed my family. Come on over and try to take one away from me.
George
Seems a little low for a being a new, high tech, small displacement V8.
Hell, I can buy a Z06 Corvette with a 400+ hp 5.7L V8 and get better mileage (its rated for 19 city and 28 highway)
I'm not sure LS owners want to get into a MPG debate with owners of other types of vehicles.
Over 10,000 miles of city driving a 2000 V-8 LS gave me about 16.5 MPG. The same number of city miles in a 2001 V-6 LS have yielded about 20.0 MPG. Clearly fuel economy is not one of the LS's strong points, but it sure makes up for it in handling, comfort, style, and overall value. And BTW, our Lexus RX-300 SUV gets better fuel economy than our Lincoln V-6 LS. I guess we just have a "badgas" ls6.
Isn't there still a gas guzzler tax out there, ineffective thought it may be? As a third generation American combat veteran, folks who want to somehow legislate their personal view on the rest of us is worrisome.
Babylou: What I was attempting to say is that since the LS engines have 10.5:1 compression ratios they are designed to run on 91 octane. Running 87 octane makes the engine controls retard the timing so much, to prevent knocking, that efficiency (HP & MPG) drops.
Although most LS owners keep saying that they never bought their LS for the gas mileage, the gas mileage of the LS is pretty pitiful. Consider that the 290 HP 4.6L DOHC engine in the larger, heavier Continental gets significantly better gas mileage than the LS-8 and as good if not better than the LS-6. Sorry but when I pay $35K for a car I want everything, great handling, all the luxury bells & whistles and gas mileage as good as other cars in the same class.
At least the '03 LS's will be better with their VVT and revised intake manifolds. I heard a rumor that the mileage for both '03 engines will be 2 - 3 MPG better than the '00 - '02 engines.
Sounds like someone's getting old and just doesn't have their foot in it anymore!
Anyway... if the LS8 gets less than 20, I won't be too put out - my '97 SHO gets about 17 (for some reason).
And speaking of compression ratios, the public '03 LS specs on Ford's media site a few weeks ago revealed a 10.75:1 compression ratio. Methinks that higher octane fuel will be more important than ever with these cars...
'00 LS-V6 24.3 MPG over 6700 miles.
'89 SHO 27.1 MPG over 167K miles.
'00 A6-2.7T at 25.1 MPG over 43K miles
I sense a little sarcasim in akirby's Mr. Wizard response. We are in agreement. I just wanted to make sure that there was not any misinformation regarding fuel. Yes, both of you are correct that a modern engine designed for 91 ocatane will be more efficient than if used with 87 octane because the ECU will pull out timing if knock is sensed. What I meant to convey was the misconception that many people have the more octane the better idea. For instance a Miata is designed for 87 octane but many people put in 93 octane believing they will get more efficiency/power. All they are doing is spending 15% more for the same performance.
Now we are all on the same page.
No big deal, perhaps, but with the crazy heat/humidity here in the northeast recently, I'm reminded of that Sable's AC every time I turn the key in my LS and get immediately blasted with even hotter air that's been cooking in the ducts all day.
I don't know how common that AC function was/is, or if there's a name for it, but now I want it.
Starting in October, they'll start putting the junk back into the gas, and I expect to lose 1.5-2 MPG again.
Some of these people should rediscover the lowly station wagon. My 96 Volvo 960 Wagon can swallow a 4x8 sheet of drywall with only a small part hanging out the hatch. And even with the second seat up, there is about 3 to 4 feet of space in the rear, enough to contain the rear facing 3rd seat and extend capacity to seven humans.
The MB seems to be nothing more than a raised hatchback sedan!
C&D did a test of mileage & performance vs. octane gas on several cars a few years ago. They found the same thing. Higher compression cars designed for 91 or higher octane saw both a HP and mileage decrease when run on 87 (They used a rear wheel dyno.) When they put 93 octane in the lower compression cars designed to run on 87 they saw a very, very small increase in HP & mileage.
<<Linebacker in an Armani suit>>
That is a pretty good description of the LS, especially the V-8.
elless, I've had 26 cars and have received more complements from both young and old than almost any other car I've had. My friend's 16 year old thinks my LS is the coolest thing. On the other hand I've gotten into conversations at the gas pump or store parking lot with 70+ year olds that think the same way.
The auto press has continually knocked the LS's styling. The most common negative adjective that I have seen is "Derivative Styling". I'd call it more like understated elegance with toned muscles.
The car is more like Rodney Dangerfield, just doesn't get any respect......
more power
smoother shifting and more responsive tranny (ETC, new gearing, 1st gear SST starts)
tons of interior storage
better quality dash material
xenon headlamps
DVD Navigation
Improved ride comfort
several new gadgets
The only thing I would change on the exterior is the license plate surround. It's too big. If they cancel the manual tranny, which seems likely, they'll moan about that, but not for long. Maybe this will put the LS into the Mercedes E class, BMW 7 series and Audi A6 arena where it belongs and out of the 3/C/A4 class where it's too big.
Plus, I can out-drive any Corvette Z06 on the road. Provided we each have four people in the car.:):)
Great description Akirby! A real mean but composed look from the front with slick clean elegance from the back. Kinda like broad shouldered in the front with nice curves in the back. Appealing to both sexes! I love the front more. My wife loves the back more. Interestingly, as I see fellow LS's from a distance on roads, it appears more narrow and compact, again a look that I love!
"The auto press has continually knocked the LS's styling"
Slunar & Leadfoot: Most of what I read regarding the looks centered around "sharp looking". An exception was that one person said that the front needed a serious makeover. My wife and I immediately thought that he was talking about his brain.
In my opinion, the car already has great respect in nearly every way, not to mention the respect that Lincoln carries. Of course, I have a 2002 so I would see it no other way! Although I know the 2003 will be improved, I'm so happy with my 2002!
If only I could convince my wife to get a 2003 when her Saab lease ends at the end of Jan 2003. She wants a wagon to throw in the future kids and current skis. I think the LS would do fine!
Have a good day with your well-dressed linebacker...
Since when have we come to the point of deciding who is allowed to buy what?
If I want to buy a Hummer H2 and just park it in my Garage and look at it, who’s business is that?
If people feel safer in an SUV, who’s business is that?
If I decide to buy a LS. Who’s business is that?
I am really getting sick of people that think they have the right to decide what I can buy and what is "good" for us.
What’s next besides the Tobacco and Food police?
The last time I checked this is still America and not a totalitarian state that decides everything for you.
ability: one is to utilize a knock sensor circuit
to allow the use of lower octane and certain loss
of performance. the other, is to engineer the motor to run on regular and achieve almost the same performance as the knock sensor type engine. there is a very small (almost neglible) loss of performance with the latter design. generally, the
american engineers have been designing motors that
utilize regular and have no added benefit from the use of premium, versus the knock engines that will see an increase in performance. some of the premium makes and most of the euro engineers utilize the knock design, mostly out of perceived
performance increases. it's not a big deal to engineer a hi-performance motor to run on 87 and still make 300 hp.. it's all in the cams and the squish area....actually alot of other stuff too.
jackg
With that said, I have analzyed leases several times and have always come to the conclusion that a $0 down lease is the best deal. It is also a better deal to take the $3,000 factory rebate as cash and NOT apply it to cap cost reduction. Yes I know emotionally you feel better with a lower montly payment, but analytically it is better to have the cash in your pocket and pay a higher montly rate over 3 years.
The only reason I can come up with to put one cent into cap cost reduction is if you would not be approved for the lease any other way.
As far as lease rates go, there will be variations in different geographic areas, but the current LS lease promo in Ford's NY market is:
LS V-8 with moon roof (Base, that is not a sport, not other options).
$399 / month, 36 months, 12,000 miles per year, $1,999 due at signing, $3,000 repate applied to cap cost reduction. (taxes are additional). I would estimate that going to 20,000 miles a year would raise the montly payment by $50 per month.
This lease payment corresponds to getting the LS at invoice price.
You should be able to get any '02 LS at invoice price + local marketing fee ($350 typical) - $3,000 factory reabate + taxes + registration etc.
For those who don't want to read the whole thing, skip to the last paragraph, it says it all.
Lease Manager mentioned that current 2002 LS's are availabel with .5 lease rate and you get the $3,000 rebate. Regular lease rates are 2.9-3.9.
Just had 30,000 mile FREE service ($800 on formerly-owned '85 Mercedes 300). No problems. I like my 2001 LS better every day. Mileage has jumped 2.5 mpg on daily 46 mile work commute to aroung 20 mpg. Better than my V-6 Explorer (2WD).
AdvanceTrac-why? If you have ever done a 360 after hitting black ice and ended up in the median grass in a 97 Explorer 2 WD and you own a LS with AdvanceTrac that has saved your butt on more than one occation during similar, unexpected situations, you will readily understand why I will not purchase another vehicle without stability control. It works great!
Not bad.....not as powerful as I'd like, but shifter action was good. Light clutch. Not a lot of punch off the line but at about 3500 rpm in third gear was pretty good sweet spot to hit with the car.
Overall not bad....not stellar though. Car had sport package and still felt soft. Steering got better feel as speed increased.
I thought the engine was not particularly smooth. I have driven Fords with Duratecs before and they were smoother. A little coarse for 80mph interstate travel. Otherwise this would be a fine touring car.
I'd consider buying the car if it was cheaper but the dealer wanted too much.
I liked the seats and the console and controls even if the plastic was a bit Ford like.
about $23k.
Also noticed a degree of 'orange peel' in the paint. Should I bother to mention this to the dealer or is it just something else we'll have to 'live with' ?
It's scheduled to go in the shop again on Friday. At least this time it won't have to be towed
2001/V8 Sport/Dark Blue - 6k Miles
We'll just let the car sit until December (up in snow country) and see what they gotta have then.
He looked it over and agreed it was bad. He said he would have it "buffed out" by an outside tech. Well they did that and he was still not satisfied. They ended up painting my hood, roof, trunk and rear quarter panels; all under warranty. Looks great now.
Complain until you get satisfaction.
As for the water in the headlamps - known problem, no permanent fix yet. It should evaporate when you use your headlamps. If it doesn't evaporate after a few more days then ask your dealer about replacing it.
<<Does anyone know why they're not more popular?>>
Probably a whole bunch of reasons:
1. Lincoln is still perceived as a vehicle brand that you buy just before you purchase your coffin.
2. Lincoln does not have a performance image.
3. The car rags seem to love to pick on the LS. One of their favorite lines seems to be "Nice try Lincoln but the LS just doesn't hold up to your competitors." Of course those competitive cars seem to cost over $10,000 more than a LS.
4. The car rags also seem bent on comparing it to cars like the BMW 3 series which only cost a little more than the LS and then the turn around and pan the LS for being too big, too slow and not nimble enough.
5. Lincoln does not have the prestige that BMW, Mercedes, Lexus etc. have. Let's face it the vast majority of car purchasers are seeking prestige. It's the minority who buy for the Zoom, Zoom factor.
6. Ineffective Lincoln advertising & marketing. Every time I turn on the TV I see several Navigator or Town Car ads. I haven't seen a LS ad on TV in over 6 months.
7. Many Lincoln dealers were not prepared for the LS and appeared reluctant to learn a new trick, that is, sell cars to people under 60 years old and to customers (regardless of age) who are more knowledgeable about cars and are looking for performance.
Look at the bright side bebe3, you just got a nice car with a bunch of exclusivity at a bargain price.
I tried to look up a Fram SureDrain quicker oil change draining adapter but the LS is not listed. Since Fram lists the plug dimensions on the packages, I was able to mic my plug and determine that the V6 oil plug is 12 mm X 1.75 in size, so I picked up a SD-4 kit and installed it. I thought that the forum here would like to know, in case someone else wanted to try the kit on for size but were unable to due to there not being a listing.
There are 5 different SD kits available. I bought mine at Wal*Mart due to their price being around USD$12.50, as opposed to discount autoparts stores running at around $15. I think that these kits will make life easier for folks that change their own oil. BTW, no Fram oil filters for me, thanks.
Mike
==========
2000 LS MTX
1996 Mercury Grand Marquis
2003 Mercury Marauder
I was talking on the phone with someone somewhat older than myself today that think that they're "cool" because they have a Lexus, which I had three car leases ago. Now I actually see Lexus as a blue-haired car. To make matters worse, I had chrome wheels on my Lexus that rusted on the inside and caused blowouts on the freeway (in the left lane) three separate times!!!! No one from Lexus or Toyata would ever answer my calls or do anything about it.
Then, there was one time that I was in a bad accident, and my air bag light went off, but not my air bag. I know they are supposed to be safe, but you couldn't prove it by me. I had really bad luck with my SC300 and wouldn't have another Lexus.
I was driving a BMW 328 right before my Ford SUV, and it handled beautifully, but there's no way to compare the comfort of the LS with the 328. The 328 was fun to drive, but it wasn't that comfortable a car, and I'm pretty small (5'6", 125). Besides, everyone has one :-)
All in all, the Lincoln is a great change. Hope my windows stay up, though.
I'm pretty sure that it's after 1/02, but where do you check that?
The window sticker that shows the MSRP & options has a date code on the bottom right. There lower right box has a whole bunch of #'s on it. The last 6 digits on the right give the invoice date MM DD YY, but the invoice date may not be the same as the actual build date.
The last way to check the build date is to have your dealer's service department look up your VIN on the Oasis system. This should give the actual build date, but I have heard of cases where info such as this was missing from the system.
Sorry to hear about your Lexus problems. Although Toyota has an incredible reputation I have heard several horror stories where Toyota is unbelievably arrogant towards customer complaints and just will not accept the fact that the car has a defect and they should fix it.
I agree with you on the 328i, I test drove a couple (2dr & 4dr). They were fun to drive, especially the 2dr, like a go cart, but I couldn't deal with driving a 328i every day. Too small inside, too harsh and skittish and missing too many luxury items, such as no dual climate controls, manual tilt steering wheel etc.
Finally I echo what lobsenza posted, make sure you check out LLSOC with your complementary membership. An incrediable amount of info there, such as access to TSB's, recall notices, after maket accessory tests, etc. Makes it well worth joining after your trial is up.