Lincoln or Caddy?

Reply

  #1  
Old 02-16-03, 02:58 PM
GlassesRx
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Question Lincoln or Caddy?

Thanks again guys for all your help. I'm looking into purchasing a pre-owned vehicle. Which is better? A Continental or a Caddy? If so, why? and what are some of the major blunders? Ie: my 89 continental was known for its blown head gasket and suspension problems. Are they the same for the 95 models? All your knowledge will be greatly apppreciated.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 02-16-03, 07:12 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,538
whats wrong with the towncar i believe it is the better lincoln model and deffinately has a smoother ride versus a caddy, either way you go you will be far better off than with the older continental that you have now.
 
  #3  
Old 02-16-03, 08:07 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Towncars with 4.6 engines are smoking, puffing nightmares. An LT1 350 is far superior.

Every 4.6 TownCar I am behind in NYC is puffing oil, not so with the LT1 cabs .

What years/models are you considering?
 
  #4  
Old 02-16-03, 08:55 PM
GlassesRx
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm considering a 95-98 continental, or perhaps a Mark8. The town car is a bit too big. Any suggestions? Any known problems with these years?
 
  #5  
Old 02-17-03, 08:08 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, again, these are oil burning wrecks . The 4.6 has very poor oil control .

Among the problems with the Contintentals are still suspension woes as well as electrical gazorches galore.

My vote is for GM, but I've had their products all my driving life with no problems .
 
  #6  
Old 02-18-03, 06:07 AM
Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 247
I like some of the caddys and i too like the lincoln town car.As far as the 4.6 being an oil burner this i haven't seen.Most police cars and taxi's here use this engine with success.As with most any engine or machine if you keep it serviced it will last a lot longer.
 
  #7  
Old 02-18-03, 06:28 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Cough, cough, cough

Plenty of them here in NYC, Fordtech . The Crown Vic and various variants are used in many fleets around here.
 
  #8  
Old 02-18-03, 04:28 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
Joe, I can't stay quiet any longer, you always put down the 4.6L.

I own a 4.6 L 32 valve and it dosen't use any oil between changes. Also my buddies at the L&M dealer don't know of any oil burning issues.

This engine has some interesting technology, like the connecting rod big ends are "cracked" apart after the bore is machined.

Larry
 
  #9  
Old 02-18-03, 04:59 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,538
ive seen a few 4.6 l smoke and burn oil but only on high mileage vehicles and then it would be mostly only at startup, which could be a problem with any car that has alot of miles on it.
 
  #10  
Old 02-18-03, 10:11 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Larry:

The 4.6 is an oil burner---I'm behind at least 4 to 5 on the BQE every day. It gets so we can't get behind one that DOES NOT smoke. I have had numerous friends (not just cabbies alike) that own them---they all burned oil. My friend's 1992 Crown Vic grenaded the oil pump and was a knocking nightmare. He replaced it with a very high mileage 1994 LT1 cop car---no problems.

The 5.0 in the Towncars (1989 and down) that proceeded it were superior in every way in durability. The 5.7 LT1 Chevy will run circles around the 4.6 in power and oil control. Most cops I know prefer the 5.7 Caprices over the 4.6 Fords. A 350 cop car Caprice would wipe the floor with the average 4.6 and seat 6 people in the process. It's pretty embarrasing that a simple pushrod engine can wipe out a high tech engine like that.

My friend's 350 LT1 cop car saw constant beating (I mean tire busting frenzies) and it never burned a single drop of oil the whole time he had it. It was an absolute demon.

I know a few guys with 500k on their ORIGINAL 5.0 engines, I've yet to see a 4.6 that has that without the same trouble.

I just don't see the quality in the 4.6. Being high tech doesn't always win the prize. Simplicity often rules .
 
  #11  
Old 02-19-03, 06:34 AM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
Joe

The 4.6 is 280 cu in and 215 hp in the two valve version. How do you compare that to 350 cu in LT1?


Larry
 
  #12  
Old 02-19-03, 09:22 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
There is no comparison. That's my point, Larry There's a vin W and a vin V 4.6 to my knowledge.

The LT1 is based on tried and true technology. The Chevy small block is the most successful engine of all time. More 350 Chevy's are swapped than 4.6 Fords.

Your 4.6 is the way it is because you take excellent care of it, as we all do with our machines. But, the 4.6 is not a stellar engine in most regards, Larry. I do not even recall it making the Ward's top ten engine list. Talk to most fleet guys driving a 4.6 now and compare it to a 5.0 previous to that. Most had NO trouble with the 5.0 Ford.

However, the likes of the pushrod 3800 Buick (nearly 40 years old) CONSISTENTLY make the list! .

I've driven various 4.6 engines and worked on a host through fleet services. Not impressed in the least. The 5.0 is far superior.

Of course, the Chevy 350 beats 'em both in my book
 
  #13  
Old 02-20-03, 01:57 PM
redneck
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Caddy put a LT1 in their cars? Which model? I agree with your statements on the caprice cop cars--but they are long gone--only choice cops have now is the fords!
 
  #14  
Old 02-20-03, 03:26 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Sure.

1994 to 1996 Fleetwood Brougham, rear drivers. They had the same LT1 350 vin P as the rest of 'em
 
  #15  
Old 02-20-03, 05:56 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
I have the "V" version. 280 cu in and 280 hp and I'll tell ya it's no slouch. I get 26 mpg with A/C on cruising on the hwy at 80 mph.

If I remember right the Mustang Cobra with this 4.6 with a little more cam than mine was faster than a LT1 Camaro. I think there were two versions 305 hp and 320 hp. Not bad for a little 4.6.

Larry

PS I sense the old Chevy vs Ford battle
 
  #16  
Old 02-21-03, 03:43 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Ummm, we'll all have our opinions, as you know Larry.

Mine will still be that Ford has yet to fix the 4.6 oil burning problem---and a problem it does have---among others.

As for HP, a Caddy Northstar (a 4.6 liter) is pushing 300 HP and would probably give the Mustang a run for its money as well. Not bad for a big luxoboat with a chrome hood ornament .

Even Redneck of this forum wiped the floor with a 4.6 Mustang with a '77 Pontiac Formula 400. All that technology embarrassed by a Q-jet. LOL.

Ford has always been behind the 8 ball with their powertrains in my belief and still is. Rolls Royce doesn't come to Ford for trannies---they come to GM . They also skip Ford on their A/C compressors and come to GM.

As does BMW for a tranny, Toyota for alternators, etc, etc, etc.
 
  #17  
Old 02-21-03, 09:44 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
One among many articles on oil burning on these 4.6 engines:

http://www.newgomemphis.com/newgo/dr...01/autodoc.htm
 
  #18  
Old 02-21-03, 04:50 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
Joe, that link you posted, the owner didn't state he uses oil?


I guess GM never had any EGR problems(ha ha)! Didn't you post a link for a problem solver filter gasket?

The only bad part of of NUMMI Corolla's was the Delco alt! Once we replaced them with a Nip the problem was gone

A few years ago if you walk into a Chevy service dept you would for sure see a few small block Chevys apart always(intake gaskets leaking coolant, destroying cams and blocks)

I know this is going to hurt but(I know you have that Poncho blood in your veins), The first GTO's in '64 came standard with a three speed, guess whos trans they used...top loader Ford! They needed something strong to handle the power and GM didn't have a 3 speed to do the job.

The prefered rear for most racing apps is not the GM 12 bolt but the Ford 9"(three pinion bearings)

Larry
 
  #19  
Old 02-21-03, 06:52 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Larry,

You are correct on the GTO, and I knew that. The tranny did say Ford, however, other variants of the same thing were used by other companies sans the Ford logo. Not so sure it's of their actual design--even when they put their name to it.

However, the carburetor on a 429 CJ in the early 70's was made by........Rochester . Yup, that's right. Also, Lincolns in the 70's used whose A/C parts? GM .

The 2100 Ford 2 barrel is a variant of the Holley which sucked from day one. The variable venturi was another Ford "exclusive" not worth bus fare. Yet it says Motorcraft on the carburetor.

The alternator in the Corolla is not true "Delco" design .

Every car company has their debacles, including Toyota. Toyota denied for years of oil sludging problems and got caught with their pants down and it's costing them a bundle. Ford is getting heat with the Crown Vic police car (no problems with the B body Chevy cars though).

It still baffles me if Ford were so great in ideas, execution and product, why GM is still the world's top automaker and sells the most vehicles

They "ain't" #1 for nothing. LOL
 
  #20  
Old 02-21-03, 07:33 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
I agree about the variable venturi, but the 2100 was a good carb. Rebuilt plenty and only thing in common with the holley is the base size. The 2100 eliminated the metering block which is the downfall of Holleys for passenger car use

The trans is a Ford design, it shares design with the 4 speed top loader

Remember the Chevette

Gm has 6 or 7 car lines depending how you look a it. Ford has 3

They should sell more cars


The Toyota "gelling" problem: The problem is with the owners manuels definition of"normal" driving conditions for oil change interval of 7500 miles. These owners figure that if they state 7500 miles I could properly go 10,000. We see them go anywhere from 15,000 to 35,000 with never changing the oil. They do gell under these condtions.

The repairs that are done is cleaning and replacing damaged parts. The new parts are the exact same as the old, no design changes. The only change is to redefine severe and normal driving conditions. Most people drive under severe standards.

We recommend 5000 mile intervals. If you use the 3000 mile interval you will never experience gelling on any Toyota

Larry
 
  #21  
Old 02-21-03, 09:31 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
You have Ford, Lincoln, Mercury and Ford Truck.

GM has GMC, Oldsmobile (soon to go), Buick, Pontiac, Chevrolet and Cadillac.

Division # has nothing to do with sales. GM is the world's largest car maker, bar none. In fact, they are among the world's largest industrial corporations as well.

The 2100 was far from a good good carburetor. Ford carburetion of the 70's made Chrysler look like they had it licked. EVERYONE bought GM's carburetors including Chrysler, Ford and AMC.

A Rochester Q-jet is superior to a 2100 in all aspects, including drivability and fuel economy. The trick is in the small primary bores of a Q-jet.

The VV is just another iteration of the same disaster.

Yes, I recall the Chevette---in fact that had a Holley carburetor

Regarding Toyota: It was Toyota's handling of the problem that created the debacle. It was horridly handled. There was an article about a woman with a year old Sienna in pieces in her driveway as she refused to pay to fix what she felt was a Toyota problem--she had oil change receipts to bolster her case.

She was the one that made Toyota start to make good on this whole thing.
 
  #22  
Old 02-22-03, 05:23 AM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
Joe

Any one with "real" oil change receipts dosen't have the problem.
I have seen so many phoney ones when a customer is asked to produce receipts. Their always hand written and you can tell their made all at the same time.

Then 2100 is a two barrel, I've rebuilt many carbs in the '70's and 2100, 4100 and 4360 were good carbs as far servicability and performance. BTW I worked for Chrysler back the also and they used 4 barrel Holleys(nightmare for everyday use).

Larry
 
  #23  
Old 02-22-03, 09:53 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Larry,

Yes, sorry if it seemed like I lumped them together. The Ford is very much based on the Holley design. If Ford didn't use their carburetor, Holley usually supplied it. Notable exceptions are the Carter YF/YFA on the 300 4.9L engine for one. The first digit (2,4), etc, usually meant the # of barrels, excepting the VV which was 7200 series as I recall.

I'm sure there are many folks that doctor up receipts for oil changes. I always do my own oil changes---but usually keep receipts for what I buy.
 
  #24  
Old 02-22-03, 11:27 AM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
Joe,

Those two carbs have nothing in common. Have you ever rebuilt both of these, if you have you would agree with what I'm saying.

The Fords have a top cover air horn assy with a one piece body-throttle plate assy. Thats the two main parts.

The Holley has a body air horn assy, metering block, bowl assy, and a seperate throttle plate housing. For a total of 4 major parts.

(referring to 2 barrels versions of both)

The Carter YF...what a piece of work that was. After you lock-tighted the base to body screws it wasn't half bad

Larry
 
  #25  
Old 02-22-03, 11:48 AM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Larry,

Yes, I am not stating that they use the same parts . I am stating that I do not think Ford actually designed that carburetor--it is based, at least minimally, on the Holley design, and has some of the same troubles. Chances are Ford did not design it, although their name is on it. They likely consulted with Holley who helped engineer a version of it.

The Q-jet has small primary bores and delivers better fuel economy and performance.

Another thing to consider: The Ford carburetor was usually not the only carburetion option in a given year. Usually there was a Holley available depending on the option/year/combination. No telling what you could get. LOL

However, most GM used Q-jets exclusively. You cannot control what you farm out to outside vendors . Even Carter for a while was making Q-jets because the demand for Rochester Q-jets was so high, GM couldn't make them fast enough.

The YF series were pretty funky, Ford pitched it for fuel injection in the 80's.
 
  #26  
Old 02-22-03, 12:09 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
Joe,

I also worked in Ford and L&M dealers in the '70's and they were very consistent with the carbs they came with. Holleys only came on HP engines and your rare Q-Jet on the 429.

BTW Holleys also came on your HP GM's, they didn't rely on your Q-Jet for the big hitters(427 L88 Vette, 396/375 '69 Chevelle, '68 z-28 302's etc). The lower versions of these engines came with the Q-Jet (396/325)

The only thing Ford and Holley carbs have incommon is that their both carburetors

Larry
 
  #27  
Old 02-22-03, 12:54 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Larry:

You are correct that Holleys were used on the high po models you mentioned. I believe you mean a 1969 Z-28 though, not a 1968.

However, those models are all out racing and track models and are VERY tempermental. Every day street driving of those models is rare, and they fare worse than a Q-jet equipped one.

The same is the case with any Average Joe performer which has been switched to a Holley. They never fare as well as a Quadrajet does in over all streetability. A Q-jet is a far superior carburetor to any Holley or Ford carburetor all things taken together.

H-O Racing and Nunzi said it well years ago, "Rochester doesn't have to advertise. They sell 5 million carburetors a year" (in the heyday).

They weren't really all that consistent, Larry. 1974 Lincoln models with a 460 had a Carter Thermoquad as I recall. Only year I recall seeing it in the books. That is a troublesome carburetor.

Ford was on the major skids in the 70's, many, many troubles and lost marketshare .

We could go on here for a while ---I suggest that the original poster just buy what suits him best, whatever that model is. Talk to people who own the vehicles in question (there are numerous car review boards out there on the Internet) and decide what those present owners have to say .
 
  #28  
Old 02-22-03, 02:48 PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,531
Your right Joe we could go on forever

BTW I worked for L&M Dealer until '75 and only carb I seen was the 4360 Motorcraft

Larry

http://www.1968z28.com/document.html
 
  #29  
Old 02-22-03, 04:00 PM
Joe_F
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Larry:

1974 460 Engine, carburetor #6568 (Carter), Ford ID #D4AE-BB and BC. They are ThermoQuads used on 1974 Lincolns according to the manual I have.

I show the 4160 being used or the 4300 Ford being used in 1974.
 
Reply

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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes