A Switch to Windsor power . . .

RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Good luck! It sounds like you have just about everything worked out.

But don't just get a chip burned, have the car put on a dyno and have someone that really knows what they're doing tune it. A mail-order chip won't even come close to a good tune on something as non-standard as what you're doing.
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Believe it or not Dave, there are guys out there who could get VERY close with a mail order chip.
I did a built engine,heads, cam,blower,headers,converter car,with a mail order chip and it runs great and made 400RWHP at ONLY 7 Pounds of boost.

So IF you can do a dyno tune, than great.But dont be affraid of a mail order chip.
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

This has been a very interesting thread. However, if I was going to do a radical hot rod version of the Mark VIII, I would ditch the Ford engines completely. (And the crummy 4R70W trans)

I think oneof the new small block Chevy 454 CID engines would be just the ticket for this car. Coupled to a 4L60E trans, and you would have the torque you need to move this heavy car (it would be a little less heavy with the Chevy engine) and a smooth and reliable 4L60E trans.

Dart (I think) makes the large small block, and it uses any Chevy head, accessories, etc.

GM, and others, make the electronic engine controls as a stand-alone package. Also works the trans.

As a side benefit, the Chevy engine is smaller on the outside than the Mark VIII engine, by a lot, and the engine compartment would be a lot neater.

I know, I know, there is a lot of prejudice onthis board against Chevy engines. But the results speak for themselves.

Bob
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

I'm all for wild and crazy ideas, but putting a chevy motor in a Mark VIII is just wrong!
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Hi, Bob (relton)--

While I appreciate your input and ideas, there are several reasons why the 408 is the best choice for my goals; here are a few of them:

1.) The whole point of the swap is that I can make as much power in N/A form with a 408 as I can with a blown/juiced 4.6L DOHC, and the 408 combination costs less and has more potential (if I decide to juice it or pressurize it at some later date).

2.) Since I mentioned cost in item number 1, I'll talk about it in this item. As I've already mentioned in a previous post in this thread, the cost of building a 408 including all electronics and machine work is going to run around $6500, while building up a forged 4.6L with a blower will cost around $10,200; how much does one of those SBC 454's run? I'd bet it would cost quite a bit MORE than even the 4.6L combination!!

3.) I want to be able to continue to use the Information computer in the dash, and that runs off the EEC-V ECU (try hooking an electronic EFI system from a GM into a Ford!! It ain't gonna happen!!).

4.) I will be making this complete drivetrain combination emissions-compliant; while it may be a little bit difficult, I don't think the inspectors would pass the car on the visual inspection if they saw it said "Lincoln" on the trunklid, and "Chevy" on the valve covers!

You mentioned something about Ford 4R70W's being bad transmissions, but I can tell you, it's not any worse or any better than GM's 4L60E!

Why do I know this? Because I worked for a division of GM for 8 years, and went around handling warranty claims on those very transmissions! They have (or had, anyway) vane-type front pumps that would break at the most inopportune times, and fill the converter up with broken and ground up metal parts (actually, the TH125 and 440-T4/4T60E transmissions also used this type of pump assembly, and they failed reguarly as well)! At least Ford got the pump right, and FINALLY got the Torque Converter Clutch system right with this transmission!

Besides, I'd bet Jerry would have some things to say about how strong and reliable these transmissions can be made!

Also, Considering that there were MN12's made with the 5.0, there are a LOT of parts I can use straight from the factory to make this a LOT easier and cheaper to swap than a Chevy combination! Price *IS* an object here!!

Oh yeah, one other thing--I don't have any predjudices against any GM engines whatsoever; I just wouldn't use one of them in my Ford!!

( ;-{D}
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

I guess if the 408 is cluttering up the garage that's one thing.

There are other alternatives.

but you have the SBF already, and its not a bad choice.

Keep us posted!



David
Colorado
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

you could do it pretty easy. i have been thinking about doing a 347 in my green car. you could keep the entire factory harness and would only need a easy reflash to make every thing work. i think it is a good idea.
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Anyway, here's a little story about a previous buildup I did--back in the early '80's, I had a '74 Malibu with a bone-stock, 235HP net 454 and 2.73:1 gears in the rearend.

It would CONSISTENTLY do 0-60 in 7.1 seconds with my girlfriend onboard, and the car had an empty weight of 4100lbs!!

( ;-{D}
Click to expand...


wow that's full 1.3 seconds SLOWER than my BONE STOCK 265,000 Mile N/A 4.6 in my 4000LB car, WITH my girlfriend in the passenger seat.
If you add her 100 lbs with my 200 lbs, the car, myself and her weigh in at 4300LBS!

Best 0-60 was 5.8

your car had 173 more Cubic inches and made 50 less HP and went slower?

no thanks, but GOOD LUCK!
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Hi, XLRVIII--

Did you, by any chance happen to read the rest of what I wrote? In case you didn't here it is:

A couple of years later, I picked up a '78 Malibu for something like $400, built up a nicely warmed-over .030 over 454 (460 c.i., with a small cam, square-port valves in oval-port heads) and put it into the car using ALL factory components except for the transmission crossmember (including a stock air cleaner for the "stealth" effect).

I had a 12-bolt out of a '64 Chevelle I used for the rearend with a 3.08:1 posi, and I built up a Turbo 400 with a "Variable-Pitch" torque converter (it had two stall speeds, activated by a solenoid in the front pump).

With a stock, cast iron intake and Quadrajet, stock exhaust manifolds, 2-1/2 exhaust with Turbo mufflers and the rest of the combination mentioned above (using the LOW stall speed on the converter), it would do low 13's on street tires, and that thing would HOOK!!
Click to expand...

By the way, the STOCK '74 Malibu engine was a 235HP, carbureted, emission-strangled 454 in a car that was a 4100lb beast --without my girlfriend or myself (see where it says, "empty weight"? That's what was on the title; check your own title--it might also list the "empty weight" as well).

Now, if we're talking apples to apples, the Malibu weighs 4100lbs empty, and could do 0-60 with 235 NET HP.

I apologize, but according to all the people who have actually WEIGHED their cars, the empty weight of a Mark VIII is around 3800lbs, and all of the information I'VE been able to find indicate that they can do 0-60 in 7.1 to 7.4 seconds in bone-stock form.

Also, here is a link to a few magazine article test-drives for STOCK Mark VIII's (as well as dozens of other makes & models), that shows the 0-60 times to be in the 7.1 to 7.4 range (scroll down to the Lincoln section):

http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

OK, so we have a 235HP, carbureted, pushrod, low-tech 454 that pushes a 4400lb car (loaded with two passengers, gas, and assorted unmentionable items in the trunk) from 0 to 60MPH in 7.1 seconds, and we have a 280HP 4.6L DOHC EFI, computer controlled 4100lb car (loaded with you and your girlfriend) that does 0-60 in the 7.1 to 7.4 range in stock form (according to all the magazine article test drives available). Sounds to me like the big engine ain't so bad after all . . .

Of course, assuming what you're stating about the performance is accurate, it would definitely be magazine material!! I for one would LOVE to see a bone-stock Mark VIII that weighs 4000lbs empty, 4300lbs loaded and can run 0-60 with a bone-stock 4.6L DOHC engine, let alone one with 265,000 miles (as I'm sure everybody ELSE on this site would!).

Do you have any timeslips? Are you planning to run the car somewhere that we would be able to verify your times?

Granted, I can see a warmed-over Mark VIII cutting those kinds of times with a stock weight of 3800 or so lbs, plus driver, but with all due respect, not a bone stock one, and I would venture to guess that nobody else here has seen that either.
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Tom (XLRVIII) has been posting time slips for a long time. I wouldn't doubt what his car runs.
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Hi, Dave (sleeper)--

Here are the facts--

Mark VIII's do not weigh 4000lbs empty--my own (Texas) title shows empty weight of 3800lbs.

Did you happen to visit the link I posted with the 0-60 times?

Now, this is the statement made by XLRVIII:

my BONE STOCK 265,000 Mile N/A 4.6 in my 4000LB car, WITH my girlfriend in the passenger seat.
If you add her 100 lbs with my 200 lbs, the car, myself and her weigh in at 4300LBS!
Click to expand...

I dispute the weight figures based on what is posted just about anywhere anybody chooses to look, including my own title, and posts in these very forums regarding the actual race weight of those who have weighed their cars (which puts them closer to 3765lbs), as well as the factory figures that are published.

Next, notice the statement, "BONE STOCK"; that means absolutely NO modifications.

That also means no aftermarket exhaust system, no headers, no Nitrous Oxide, no 3:73 rear differential replacement, no Higher Stall Speed Torque Converter, no "Chip", no Transmission "J-Mod", no replacement Air filter--NOTHING.

"BONE STOCK" is just as the car came off the showroom floor.

Therfore, please explain to me how HIS "BONE STOCK" Mark VIII would weigh more and be quicker than anybody ELSE'S Mark VIII that weighs less (see proof of these times at the website referenced, and from posts in the forums here)? Remember--"BONE STOCK" is just as it came off the showroom floor.

Did YOUR "BONE STOCK" Mark VIII run anything even CLOSE to 6.0 seconds flat from 0-60, let alone a 265,000-mile one that supposedly does it in 5.8 seconds?

Can you show me ANY "BONE STOCK" Mark VIII that can equal those figures?

*IF* you can, then I'll believe it, but so far, the overwhelming information indicates these two things:

1.) Mark VIII's empty weight is around 3800lbs, NOT 4000lbs, and

2.) "BONE STOCK" Mark VIII's average between 7.1 and 7.4 second times from 0-60, and if someone is VERY lucky and a VERY good driver, they MIGHT be able to crack 7.0 seconds, and on a GOOD day, with all the planets aligned, the right elevation and air temperature, it MIGHT even get down to 6.8 seconds. That's an AWFUL big stretch.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, either the car is NOT "BONE STOCK", or it does NOT run 0-60 in those times, and if he (Tom/XLRVIII) "has been posting time slips for a long time", then you can bet your sweet bottom dollar that his car is NOT "BONE STOCK".
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Stone Cold Wrote
Hi, XLRVIII--

I apologize, but according to all the people who have actually WEIGHED their cars

Reply:
Well, after each of my 3000+ dragstrip passes I always drive my car over the scales at the track and write my AS RACED WEIGHT on my timeslip.


STonedColdWrote:
Also, here is a link to a few magazine article test-drives for STOCK Mark VIII's

Reply: I'm sorry, I dont RACE MAGAZINE ARTICLES.
If you want to compare MAGAZINES, I think your in the wrong forum.
Try www.magazineracers.com



Stonecold wrote: OK, so we have a 235HP, carbureted, pushrod, low-tech 454 that pushes a 4400lb car from 0 to 60MPH in 7.1 seconds, and we have a 280HP 4.6L DOHC EFI, computer controlled 4100lb car (loaded with you and your girlfriend) that does 0-60 in the 7.1 to 7.4 range in stock form

(according to all the magazine article test drives available). Sounds to me like the big engine ain't so bad after all . . .

Reply:My car doesnt run 0-60 in 7.1, {buzzer sounds} TRY AGAIN.
Once again, I dont race MAGAZINE NUMBERS, ONLY REALY WORLD PERFORMANCE Data here..thank you.

Stonecold wrote:Of course, assuming what you're stating about the performance is accurate, it would definitely be magazine material!!

Reply:at the risk of repeating myself.. Magazine SMAGAZINE!

STONE COLD WROTE:I for one would LOVE to see a bone-stock Mark VIII that weighs 4000lbs empty, 4300lbs loaded and can run 0-60 with a bone-stock 4.6L DOHC engine, let alone one with 265,000 miles
(as I'm sure everybody ELSE on this site would!).

Reply: WEll Mr StoneColdTX.. bring yourself to Lone Star Raceway to any ONE of the 38+ events that crazy VIII's will be participating in the '04 season..
The PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING SIR!
CARE for some pudding?
BRING IT, bring your car and we'll see how it stacks up against "GRANDMA's CAR".. P.S. BRING MONEY!

Stone COld TX Wrote:
Do you have any timeslips?
Reply:
0Ooooh I've got about 3000... Yourself?

Stonecoldtx wrote:Are you planning to run the car somewhere that we would be able to verify your times?

Reply:Define WE? I attend races every week on friday and once a month on saturday, Pick a date and show up.. your more than welcome.

Stonecold wrote: Granted, I can see a warmed-over Mark VIII cutting those kinds of times with a stock weight of 3800 or so lbs, plus driver, but with all due respect, not a bone stock one, and I would venture to guess that nobody else here has seen that either.

Reply:Define WARMED OVER please.
my ENGINEis bone stock, as delivered from Lincoln in 1995, it hasn't ever had a valve cover or OIL PAN off the car, all internal parts in this engine are BONE FREAKING STOCK.
I do have a few mods to the car, I have a pretty much useless larger MASS AIR meter, but.. that in itself didn't help my car in the least.
I have 2.5 inch flowmaster exhaust but that's no related to the STOCK ENGINE as I stated above it's a BONE STOCK 4.6
I never said the "car" was stock I only said QUOTE" BONE STOCK 265,000 Mile N/A 4.6 in my 4000LB car"
I have some mods TO THE CAR, but the engine is 100% Bone STOCK.
and... I'd have to guess that it'd beat the DOG SNOT out of your BIG BLOCK which has 170 some odd cubic inch advantage.

Stone Cold Wrote:I'm sorry, but with all due respect, either the car is NOT "BONE STOCK", or it does NOT run 0-60 in those times, and if he (Tom/XLRVIII) "has been posting time slips for a long time", then you can bet your sweet bottom dollar that his car is NOT "BONE STOCK".

Reply: THE ENGINE IN THE CAR IS BONE STOCK! 267,000 miles as of last night, that is one of the added benefits of having a ACTUAL RUNNING CAR! the mileage tends to GO UP

Stone cold Tx Wrote:That also means no aftermarket exhaust system, no headers, no Nitrous Oxide, no 3:73 rear differential replacement, no Higher Stall Speed Torque Converter, no "Chip", no Transmission "J-Mod", no replacement Air filter--NOTHING.

Reply: I never said BONE STOCK MARK VIII, I said "speaks really slowly"
A BONE STOCK N/A 4.6

N/A means.. NO NITROUS, NO POWER ADDER, NO FORCED INDUCTION.
N/A means Naturally ASPIRATED... and that is "ALL it means".

BONE STOCK means.. NO AFTERMARKET PARTS ARE INSIDE THE ENGINE,
Once again.. BONE STOCK N/A 4.6 {I hope you understood me THAT TIME}
if not..
BONE STOCK N/A 4.6!
{that should cover it}

NOw.. I do have exhaust, K&N, 373 gears...
But ONCE AGAIN...
READ BONE STOCK N/A 4.6
{as delivered by LINCOLN}
wait.. I did change the oil filter adapter gasket.. so, I guess I have 99.99999% of the original GASKETS in the engine as well. {shruggs}
I have no "higher speed torque convertor"
I have NO Nitrous
I have NO J-mod
NO tranny cooler
NO 1-2 upgrade

But I guess that ALMIGHT K&N FILTER takes me out of the 100% bonestock category.. I GUESS.

If you say it's so, then.. according to magazines and websites, I guess it MUST BE TRUE! {gotcha}

Now before you put your foot into Dave Sleepers posterior, why not try to put your foot in MINE instead.
I dont CARE what LINK you posted to someone elses webpage with whatever data, it's a INTERNET WEBSITE, that doesnt mean it's the GOSPEL.

I race my car, and I report MY car's performance numbers AS THEY ARE.
I dont need justification from some "magazine or website" to make my life complete.

I have a PILE of timeslips and a HUGE amount of TROPHIES that will justify my existance.

If you DOUBT any of this... feel free to come to the track, BRING YOUR CAR.. OH YEA.. it's NOT RUNNING!!!!

When you GET a running car together, feel free to come KNOCK OUT GRANDMA's car.

Until then, you are quoting Magazines, WEBSITES and your DANGED CAR DOESNT EVEN RUN.

YEt... you feel the need to stick your foot into my testicular area?
DUDE..
{yelling}GO WORK ON YOUR CAR. GET SOME NUMBERS OF YOUR "OWN" AND STOP QUOTING MAGAZINES AND WEBSITES {stop yelling}
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Out of curiosity, I went and looked at your beloved website with the 0-60 numbers.

Here is what it says {snickers}
1993 Lincoln Mark VIII 7.1 15.4
1995 Lincoln Mark VIII 7.6 15.8
1996 Lincoln Mark VIII 7.2 15.4
1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC 7.0 15.3

Now, anyone that has been around mark viii's for ANY length of time will plain straight up tell you that there's
NO WAY IN HELL that a 1998 "second gen" mark VIII will OUTRUN a 1993 Mark VIII in the 1/4 mile
0-60, OR 1/4 mile the second gens are a quite a bit slower.
THAT IS A FACT JACK!

Tiffany's 1993 Mark VIII went 14.6 before we added ANYTHING to the car.
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

gen 1 gen 2 they can both go fast does it matter.
Click to expand...

does it matter? No, I was only pointing out the inaccuracy of the data provided by the website and magazine articles.

I am not a second gen basher by any means.
but.. 93's have historically been much quicker than 98's.

Granted, a nimwit magazine guy that rolls thru the water box, thinking that the "almighty" traction control is going to "save the day" could easily "blow a run and make a 15.4 pass in an 93".
... I guess, I could imagine that occuring..*haha*
{shruggs)
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Wow Tommy. Quite an exhortation. My '98 runs similar numbers to what you posted. I have had 2 '93's. Every car is different to some extent. Not 1 second different, but maybe 1/2 second here and there.

Your claim to the performance of a stock 4.6 seems to hold water. From what I see, the 3.73's and exhaust gave you some boost. Forget the mass air. I personally don't think it adds much unless you are huffing. The fact that you have run that car down the lane soo many times, simply amazes me. Congrats. One of my '93's succumbed to the 4-2 shift at 150K, then died with the dreaded #7 cylinder head gasket that Dennis is now posting about.

I do agree that you should post at least a couple timeslips in this thread to validate the thread. If you have the weight included, a bonus.

Otherwise, I am finally glad to see a spirited disagreement that was not immediately stepped on by the Mods. Wink, wink to you know who.

Keep it fairly civil and let the discussion continue.

Bryan
MonsterMark
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

"Out of curiosity, I went and looked at your beloved website with the 0-60 numbers.
Here is what it says {snickers}
1993 Lincoln Mark VIII 7.1 15.4
1995 Lincoln Mark VIII 7.6 15.8
1996 Lincoln Mark VIII 7.2 15.4
1998 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC 7.0 15.3"





haha Gen 2's rule! I knew it! Now we have proof! :p
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

Hi, XLRVIII--

I think I've proven my point, and thank you for helping me do so:

NOw.. I do have exhaust, K&N, 373 gears...
Click to expand...

Also, as I stated before, pay careful, close attention here

Mark VIII's have an empty weight of ~3800lbs, give or take 50lbs

In case I didn't mention it previously, the "empty weight" of the '74 Malibu was 4100lbs, it was COMPLETELY BONE STOCK, and had a 2.73:1-geared open rearend to boot! Add my fat ass, my girlfriend and a little bit of gas to the equation and it was about 4500lbs.

Now, unless all the data I have researched about Mark VIII's is inaccurate, Standard versions came with 3.08:1 gears, and LSC models came with 3.27:1's.

OK, let's recap:

BONE STOCK '74 Malibu, weighing ~4500lbs (with driver and passenger), give or take 50lbs., smog strangled stock 454;

0-60 times: 7.1 consistently

BONE STOCK '9X Mark VIII weighing ~3800lbs (give or take 50lbs) + Driver = ~4000lbs, STOCK 4.6L, STOCK 3.08:1 gears (giving the benefit of the doubt that the cars can do these times with the higher gears and the lower, 280HP rating of the standard version);

0-60 times: 7.1, AS REPORTED BY A VERIFIABLE SOURCE--the MAGAZINEs THAT TESTED THEM!

So, if your car can run 0-60 in 5.8 seconds with 3.73:1 gears, great! You seem to imply that it was able to do that with a driver AND a passenger, well that's great too.

HOWEVER--you're trying to compare you modified Mark VIII with a BONE STOCK car (read: NOT MODIFIED car that had NO MODIFICATIONS WHATSOEVER), that weighs more (by a good 300lbs, again as proven by VERIFIABLE SOURCES), has higher gears (i.e.: 2.73:1 open rearend vs. 3.73:1 traction lock) had stock exhaust (stock cast iron exhaust manifolds, stock dual 2-1/4" exhaust vs. your "exhaust" as you indicated) and has 30-year-old technology (i.e.: carbureted vs. computer controlled EFI and 4-valves per cylinder).

I would bet that if I were to take that engine, apply the latest technology to it (since there's no much possibility of installing 4-Valve heads on a 454, I'd be limited to just EFI and a good exhaust system), and use the 3.73:1 rear gears in the SAME car, with all the rest of the engine the SAME specs, I would be able to cut close to a 5.5 second 0-60 time--all in the SAME car that weighs 300lbs more than a Mark VIII.

Now what the HELL does any of THIS, or any of YOUR COMMENTS have to do with MY ORIGINAL POSTED QUESTIONS about my project?!?!?!

Oh, and in case you're tempted to post some smart ass remark about how I posted about the '74 in the FIRST place, if you bothered to READ the thread and the PREVIOUS posts in it, you would KNOW that my reference was a recount of a previous PROJECT, and what led to it--it was NOT an invitation for your OFF TOPIC COMMENTS!!

If you have constructive comments about my project (oh, by the way, the car *is* running, I drive it every day--it just doesn't have the 408 in it yet), then POST THOSE.

I've been working on cars for 29 years, and built them professionally for 18, so I think I know a little bit cars!

Up until now, I have been respectful, I have posted PROOF of how and why BONE STOCK Mark VIII's don't run 5.8 second 0-60 times (even though BOTH your posts AND my responses were OFF TOPIC), and I don't need crap from some smart ass who is just trying to cause trouble by posting BS like this!!

If YOU want to start your OWN POST about how GREAT YOUR CAR RUNS, be my guest, but DON'T CRAP IN MY THREAD!!
 
RE: A Switch to Windsor power . . .

My point is/was...
that your 454 with 235 HP is pretty animeic by any standards.

My 281 is making very close if not MORE than 1HP per cubic inch.
The 454 that "yes YOU BROUGHT IT UP" is only making .5 HP per cubic inch.

Now.. dont get me wrong, I Love the windsor motors, but you have to consider the way you posted your "project" was kinda "asking for it".

You make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims why the winsdor is BETTER BADDER AND MORE EFFICIENT than the 4.6.
I beg to differ...

Now if you want to FEEL that a K&N filter and some stupid 2.5 inch exhaust pipes are making "all this happen", then.. SO be it.

AS for crapping in your thread..
I guess if I "disagree" with your school of thought, then that could be CONTRUED as "Crapping in your thread" when really I was just crapping on your "holier than thou" attitude regarding windsors vs INTECH engines.

Then to support your "claims" you post numbers from a 74 454 malibu, as if that has ANY relevance to "your topic".

Then.. when I rebute your 454 Malibu, you then say..

"that's not the car I was talking about"..

when it was YOU yourself that brought the POS malibu up in the first place.


Like I said in my previous post, if you want to drag a running vehicle down here I'd be happy to "drag dat azz" for you.
Deal?

Otherwise all of this is just a big pissing contest on the internet and I'm going to bow out at this point.

WANNA RACE? BRING IT!
Wanna CRY?.. carry on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top