0-60 '93 Mark 8 vs 97 v6 tbird - TCCoA Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 11:29 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 18
0-60 '93 Mark 8 vs 97 v6 tbird

Hey just some hope for the guys thinking their v6 is a slow pos. My friend's 93 Mark VIII kills me in a 1/4 mile--but I gotta tell ya, being a car length ahead at 55 mph (and him closing FAST) shows our v6 N/A birds can still put up a fight with just a few mods. He is having some problems with what we think is his cat-convs. Still bragging rights are there


+180* Thermo
+New plugs/wires
+K & N Cone & heat shield
+delete res, 2.25" dual from catalytic converter back magnaflow mufflers
+B&M electric shift kit (i know, i know..)
+2 piece U/D ASP pulleys
ThunderExcite is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 11:50 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,180
Aside from it having issues is his Mark modded or still stock?
Southpaw is offline  
post #3 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 02:25 PM
4th Gear Poster
 
Stevo1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Connecticut
Age: 32
Posts: 319
Send a message via AIM to Stevo1111
I had a 93 Mark. With 4.11 gears and flowmasters it would kill, and I mean destroy, stock Mustang Gt's. If it's not running right its a nightmare. At points my car would be running on 7 cylinders and would be a toad, kept fowling plugs. Stock it was pretty quick, I don't doubt it would lay the smack down on my highly moded Tbird right now. He's got somthing big time wrong, realistic 0-60 times on a stock mark with good traction running properly should be around 6.4-6.5 seconds. Our Tbirds, v6 or v8, are terribly slow in stock or near stock form. All things considered your car is perhaps 8 seconds to 60. Maybe you're just a better driver man.

Keep laying the smack down and keep the T bird pride.
Steve

1991 Thunderbird 5.0:
Cobra upper and lower intake, 65mm Ford Racing TB, E303 cam, opened up E7 heads, Mac headers, Magnaflow true Duals, Tragnsgo shift kit, 3.73's in an auburn posi, hardly spins the tires! I NEED MORE SPEED! Anyone have anything quicker they want to trade for? PM ME!

http://s141.photobucket.com/albums/r...1165080039.pbw


Stevo1111 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 03:22 PM
Who is John Galt?

Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West of the Atlantic
Posts: 6,476
According to albeedigital the stock 0-60 times are:
1993 Lincoln Mark VIII 7.1
1994 Ford Thunderbird LX V6 8.8

I know that 97 got an extra 5hp at the crank, but that's still a heck of a difference. Not to rain on your parade, but I think there's something wrong with the Mark.

"Won't work, can't be done"
cougar_guy04 is offline  
post #5 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 04:08 PM
5th Gear Poster
 
mechman1984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 476
Send a message via AIM to mechman1984
What does a mark viii weight. I though they were pretty much on par with the thunderbird.

Will

Will

08 Ford Ranger
95 Thunderbird V8-Sold!
mechman1984 is offline  
post #6 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-27-2006, 05:23 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 709
thats marks TQ modifiers in the intake manifold are probaby broken. lol I drive an NA 3.8 and I don't see how I could take any Mark VIII off the line to 60.
MN12BIRD is offline  
post #7 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-29-2006, 04:17 PM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 18
Its a stock 93 and yeah, the thing will move but right now he's having a bit of difficulty with it (might sell it for an STi)-- but I think one main advantage we have in our birds is that it is near impossible to lose crucial traction at launch 0-60. I can take her up to about 2100 rpms and launch, whereas if he tried the same thing (and I've been in the car when it happend) the rear end slides out wide to the left before gripping the road.
ThunderExcite is offline  
post #8 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-29-2006, 04:27 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 709
he also has LSD and gets torque at BOTH rear tires. he can get more traction than you! if the car was in perfect running order with a good driver it would take you.
MN12BIRD is offline  
post #9 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-29-2006, 04:49 PM
Stroked and Blown
 
BlakTbird96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dundalk, MD
Posts: 2,395
Send a message via AIM to BlakTbird96
Quote:
Originally Posted by cougar_guy04
According to albeedigital the stock 0-60 times are:
1993 Lincoln Mark VIII 7.1
1994 Ford Thunderbird LX V6 8.8

I know that 97 got an extra 5hp at the crank, but that's still a heck of a difference. Not to rain on your parade, but I think there's something wrong with the Mark.
1994 Ford Thunderbird LX V6 0-60 in 8.8? I think those statistics are wrong. That 8.8 0-60 MUST be a 4.6. A 0-60 for a stock 3.8 n/a should be 10-12 seconds. Trust me, I have one. Anybody else agree with me?

BTW-Thunderexcite, I don't want to ruin your enthusiasm, but being a n/a 3.8 MN12 owner, you have a right to know that they are SLUGS. Minivans can beat them. Your 1/4 mile is probably in the 17 second range. They are seriously, slow cars and they can not put up a good fight, unless they're going against farm equipment, as someone here once told me.

They can be made faster but it will take alot of work. I have a CAI, dual exhaust, underdrive pulleys, transgo shift kit, high stall torque converter, and my best is only 16.9 (That was in early March weather upper 30's) and about 1,000 feet above sea level.) My other times were all 17.0-17.2. Our 3.8 n/a Thunderbirds can probably beat some stock Cavaliers, Civics, Focuses and other rice, but just barely. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just giving you a heads up. Most people here will agree with me. Come on Thomas, where are you?

My other home:
Mid-AtlanticMN12's

'96 Ford Tbird 3.8 SC
'06 Chrysler Sebring "Vert 2.7

Last edited by BlakTbird96; 11-29-2006 at 05:02 PM.
BlakTbird96 is offline  
post #10 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-30-2006, 09:47 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,921
Stock mine ran a best of [email protected] 2.36 60ft (2.36 60ft is around a 8.8 0-60 )
rancherlee is offline  
post #11 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-30-2006, 10:18 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderExcite
Hey just some hope for the guys thinking their v6 is a slow pos. My friend's 93 Mark VIII kills me in a 1/4 mile--but I gotta tell ya, being a car length ahead at 55 mph (and him closing FAST) shows our v6 N/A birds can still put up a fight with just a few mods. He is having some problems with what we think is his cat-convs. Still bragging rights are there


+180* Thermo
+New plugs/wires
+K & N Cone & heat shield
+delete res, 2.25" dual from catalytic converter back magnaflow mufflers
+B&M electric shift kit (i know, i know..)
+2 piece U/D ASP pulleys
Sorry, but when your racing a car that's stock and not even running right and you've got underdrive pulleys, shift kit, exhaust work etc. done there's not much bragging rights in beating him to 55 mph and still getting stomped on in the 1/4 mile.

In stock form and running right his Mark should leave you behind right off the line...
Southpaw is offline  
post #12 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-30-2006, 11:04 AM
4th Gear Poster
 
Stevo1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Connecticut
Age: 32
Posts: 319
Send a message via AIM to Stevo1111
I've seen Stock Mark's on slicks with good air hit 15 flat, I've even seen one time slip of a 14.9. The 4.6 in those cars is a sophisticated powerhouse. Consider how broken his car must be. Same gear ratio, same trans ratio and double the power in a car of the same weight. Birds make me sad

1991 Thunderbird 5.0:
Cobra upper and lower intake, 65mm Ford Racing TB, E303 cam, opened up E7 heads, Mac headers, Magnaflow true Duals, Tragnsgo shift kit, 3.73's in an auburn posi, hardly spins the tires! I NEED MORE SPEED! Anyone have anything quicker they want to trade for? PM ME!

http://s141.photobucket.com/albums/r...1165080039.pbw


Stevo1111 is offline  
post #13 of 16 (permalink) Old 11-30-2006, 03:37 PM
Stroked and Blown
 
BlakTbird96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dundalk, MD
Posts: 2,395
Send a message via AIM to BlakTbird96
Quote:
Originally Posted by rancherlee
Stock mine ran a best of [email protected] 2.36 60ft (2.36 60ft is around a 8.8 0-60 )

Yu're car must be a factory freak then. How the hell did you get it to do 16.9 stock? Mine does 16.9 now and I have some mods. Did you race it like it was a manual, or did you put it in drive and go? Any other tips?

My other home:
Mid-AtlanticMN12's

'96 Ford Tbird 3.8 SC
'06 Chrysler Sebring "Vert 2.7
BlakTbird96 is offline  
post #14 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-02-2006, 06:35 PM
Moderator
Iowa Chapter Director
Uber Luber
TCCoAAC Member
Moderator
 
Thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ames, Iowa
Age: 35
Posts: 8,978
Rancher's car has always been considered somewhat of a factory freak. I have even heard of some stock 3.8's. I mean completely stock 3.8 tbirds going low 16's.

A guy in my area on here, PCD, has a 97 3.8 with a shift kit and underdrives and went 16.9 last summer.

-Thomas

1988 Notch Mustang: - 438W, direct port n2o, t56
2003 SVT Focus: - SCT X3 tuner
Thomas is offline  
post #15 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-02-2006, 10:40 PM
Stroked and Blown
 
BlakTbird96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dundalk, MD
Posts: 2,395
Send a message via AIM to BlakTbird96
Did he race it like it was a manual, or just put in in drive and take off? I've always raced my car leaving it in drive and stomping it. Maybe I should try shifting it manually? Tips?

My other home:
Mid-AtlanticMN12's

'96 Ford Tbird 3.8 SC
'06 Chrysler Sebring "Vert 2.7
BlakTbird96 is offline  
post #16 of 16 (permalink) Old 12-03-2006, 10:03 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,921
I shifted manually but I also had a pair of DR's on the back since I had trouble with spinning one wheel off the line.
rancherlee is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TCCoA Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome