Most reliable old man car: Grand Marquis or Buick Lucerne?

[emmett442]

In my experience, they still leak with the same frequency. The only thing the aluminum crossover does is eliminates the catastrophic crack/explosion that was previously possible.

While the 4.6 intake isn't difficult, majority of engines made in the last 25 years cross the coolant over elsewhere and intake manifolds are dry. Not only do intakes not leak anymore, they are much less messy and much easier to R&R. Hell, the much maligned 4.6 Northstar is technically easier to R&R.

Nothing special about the 4.6 mod in this area.

 

[blueglide88]

In my experience, they still leak with the same frequency. The only thing the aluminum crossover does is eliminates the catastrophic crack/explosion that was previously possible.

While the 4.6 intake isn't difficult, majority of engines made in the last 25 years cross the coolant over elsewhere and intake manifolds are dry. Not only do intakes not leak anymore, they are much less messy and much easier to R&R. Hell, the much maligned 4.6 Northstar is technically easier to R&R.

Nothing special about the 4.6 mod in this area.

I replaced my intake twice in 80k on my GM. It's something that never happened on either mine or my dad's 3800's.
Ford did not have a brighter idea with that design, that's for sure.

 

[ESP9935]

In my experience, they still leak with the same frequency. The only thing the aluminum crossover does is eliminates the catastrophic crack/explosion that was previously possible.

While the 4.6 intake isn't difficult, majority of engines made in the last 25 years cross the coolant over elsewhere and intake manifolds are dry. Not only do intakes not leak anymore, they are much less messy and much easier to R&R. Hell, the much maligned 4.6 Northstar is technically easier to R&R.

Nothing special about the 4.6 mod in this area.

I strongly disagree with leak frequency. I remember the height of leak scandal and swapped many intakes for this reason, not to mention PI intake manifold swaps on NPI cars for the performance gain.
Once the revised intakes came out it became a comparatively rare occurrence.

I've personally put nearly a million miles on the 4.6 2V platform over 3 vehicles.
I've experienced 0 intake manifold leaks

Regarding ease of R&R it's more to do with access.
In the Mustang, CV, etc all intake manifold bolts and the intake itself are readily accessible.
The Northstar intake is packaged much more tightly in my experience.

I've had 4.6 2V intake manifolds swapped in less than 30 mins in the past, I can't think of too many others I can say the same for including MANY engines with non-integrated coolant crossovers. The crossover themselves often act as an obstacle.

 

[emmett442]

Our experiences differ.

Your Northstar experience is obviously limited: it IS faster/easier to remove, even to someone unfamiliar. Again, doesn't mean the 4.6 Ford is hard, just saying that it's no big deal on many engines.

I miss my panther platform vehicles in some ways, but they were far from perfection. The chassis is missed in the characteristic ride quality it provided, but the driveline did nothing for me. For the (weak) performance, the engine was oversized, overweight, thirsty, and not without it's flaws. It was outdone by pretty much everything in and below it's class. Frankly, I consider the mod motor to be a flatout mistake by Ford, who after a hefty investment in the late '80's, had no choice but to "ride it out" over the course of the following two decades while it got dominated by everything. The 2 valve couldn't compete, the 3V was a total ball drop, 4V was barely competitive to vehicles 5 years younger, and was rarely available.

I mean, this thread is an example. The 3800 Buick performs better, is more efficient, is smaller, is lighter, and runs miles, and sold more/higher profit passenger cars, all on relatively ancient architecture. Where does the 4.6 shine?

Staying on topic, the Buick wins my vote.

 

[ESP9935]

I miss my panther platform vehicles in some ways, but they were far from perfection. The chassis is missed in the characteristic ride quality it provided, but the driveline did nothing for me. For the (weak) performance, the engine was oversized, overweight, thirsty, and not without it's flaws. It was outdone by pretty much everything in and below it's class. Frankly, I consider the mod motor to be a flatout mistake by Ford, who after a hefty investment in the late '80's, had no choice but to "ride it out" over the course of the following two decades while it got dominated by everything. The 2 valve couldn't compete, the 3V was a total ball drop, 4V was barely competitive to vehicles 5 years younger, and was rarely available.

I disagree with some of the strategies Ford chose with the Mod Motor -- mainly making the 4Vs unavailable in the 10/11th gen F-Series/Expedition and releasing the 3V at all but the architecture itself was a success by virtually every metric.

There were hiccups as there are with virtually every engine family - Gen III-V GM, Hemi and Toyotas included.

But the Mod always achieved the performance criteria needed for the time (99 Cobra production-level issues notwithstanding), has proven to be a very robust and low-wearing architecture -- stock cylinder head/block casting 1/4 mile (John Mihovetz NMRA Comp Eliminator - 4.6 4V - 5.88 @ 255), 1/8 mile (Dom DiDonato X275 - 5.4 4V - 4.18 @ 174 on a 275 drag radial) and standing mile (M2K Motorsports Texas Mile - 5.4 4V - 300.4 mph in a true street car) records show this well -- in addition to the numerous million plus mile examples (mostly all 2V).
See millionmilevan.com for a 1.3 million mile example.

No engine family from any manufacturer has gone faster than the Ford Modular (4V) with regular production block and cylinder head castings.

The fact that the Mod was a success is also supported by the fact that it's architectural derivative -- the Coyote -- is still in production and has stayed in production for longer than newer engines like the Boss 6.2 while more than holding its own against GM/Mopar small block contemporaries.

On topic: The Crown Vic is a better car than a FWD Buick so it gets my vote

 

[emmett442]

I'm not sure I understand the point. Perhaps we are talking about different things.

Are you trying to justify an engine as a corporate decision by using select extreme examples, outside of the norm (which can be found for essentially anything produced)? Not sure how to link the argument to the question it was in response to.

 

[ESP9935]

I'm not sure I understand the point. Perhaps we are talking about different things.

Are you trying to justify an engine as a corporate decision by using select extreme examples, outside of the norm (which can be found for essentially anything produced)? Not sure how to link the argument to the question it was in response to.

Did you forget that you wrote this:

Frankly, I consider the mod motor to be a flatout mistake by Ford, who after a hefty investment in the late '80's, had no choice but to "ride it out" over the course of the following two decades while it got dominated by everything. The 2 valve couldn't compete, the 3V was a total ball drop, 4V was barely competitive to vehicles 5 years younger, and was rarely available.

 

[emmett442]

No, I didn't. I maintain that opinion. The cars equipped with the mod motor were down on performance, efficiency, and sales relative to the other big players. Also, the way it was shoehorned into a lot of the chassis suggests that it was a huge restriction in vehicle design. Unlike the 3800 being used to compare in this thread.

What do your extreme examples have to do with that?

 

[ESP9935]

No, I didn't. I maintain that opinion. The cars equipped with the mod motor were down on performance, efficiency, and sales relative to the other big players. Also, the way it was shoehorned into a lot of the chassis suggests that it was a huge restriction in vehicle design. Unlike the 3800 being used to compare in this thread.

What do your extreme examples have to do with that?

My “extreme examples” showcase the inherent strengths of the Modular architecture.

The Modular powered F-Series outsold the GM twins more often that not.

The Modular powered Mustang also outsold the F-Body/5th/6th Gen Camaro more often than not and survived 2 canceled Camaro runs as of this week.

The old school Modular provided 662 HP with a warranty and 200 mph top speeds back in 2013 which took the GM small block years several years to catch…and when they did it took a newer/larger supercharger.

Yes, the 2V Modular with its horrid intake valve angles had intake side air flow limitations and limited performance potential…but as of the PI years handily still handily outperformed the final revision 5.0 in all respects.

Just keep in mind it wasn’t me that took the conversation in this direction but I’m more than happy to engage if desired.

 

[buck91]

Definitely the panthers- Towncar, Grand Marquis or Crown Vic. Good stuff.

 

[silversport]

I guess a study of 30 million cars isn't enough of a sample?
How can a Big Mac be better than a plain old cheeseburger?? They are built on the same assembly line

of course the analogy would be more like the quality of ingredients in the Double Cheeseburger are better than the regular Cheeseburger at McDonalds...'cuz they are the same ingredients just with something extra on one over the other...

Bill

 

[silversport]

sorry...missed your response...

Not sure that's the correct analogy to use......These SUV's use the exact same components for the most part, The Suburban's longer wheelbase does require different rear doors, A few pieces of interior trim, Front carpet section, Headliner....Longer fuel & Brake line assemblies, & Driveshaft.

I didn't notice until now that it has the GMC Yukon XL below the the Chevy Tahoe which IS a Suburban with different emblems, Grille & Headlights.

Putting a Big Mac in a different packaging doesn't make it a better burger.....See, I can make food references as well

Bill

 

[emmett442]

My “extreme examples” showcase the inherent strengths of the Modular architecture.


Just keep in mind it wasn’t me that took the conversation in this direction but I’m more than happy to engage if desired.

The thread is about comparing "old man cars".

You are the only one rattling off statistics about one-off performance builds and trying to link them to a comparison with a 3800 Buick LeSabre...

Fact is, in this passenger car application, the Mod motor is runner up to the 3800 by every metric. That's frequently the story in any comparison with the Mod motor. It always falls a hair short.

Also, linking the Mod motor to the Coyote is about the same as linking the SBC to the LS/LT engines: not even close.

 

[OVERKILL]

No, I didn't. I maintain that opinion. The cars equipped with the mod motor were down on performance, efficiency, and sales relative to the other big players. Also, the way it was shoehorned into a lot of the chassis suggests that it was a huge restriction in vehicle design. Unlike the 3800 being used to compare in this thread.

What do your extreme examples have to do with that?

So we are just going to ignore the 32V versions and the Lightning and Cobra? You recall why the '03/04 Cobra was called the "Terminator" right? And it wasn't because the car was down on performance, or the Mustang down on sales. I think you've been peddling a fair bit of revisionist history and opinion as fact in this thread and @ESP9935 has been doing a pretty good job of calling you on it in my opinion.

Also, I don't see his examples of Modular-based performance builds as extreme in any way, considering they were in response to this gem:

Frankly, I consider the mod motor to be a flatout mistake by Ford, who after a hefty investment in the late '80's, had no choice but to "ride it out" over the course of the following two decades while it got dominated by everything. The 2 valve couldn't compete, the 3V was a total ball drop, 4V was barely competitive to vehicles 5 years younger, and was rarely available.

The Intec 32V 5.4L in the Navigator (99-04) was 300HP, while the 5.3L from the same period in the Escalade was 285HP and the 5.9 Magnum was 250HP.

It smells like a barnyard in here.

 

[emmett442]

1999-04?

4.6 4v was restricted to premium vehicles. In that realm, Northstar V8 and Toyota UZ were doing 300hp many years earlier.

And then there is that size, weight, packaging side of things previously mentioned. Why did a 300 hp mod motor car always underperform the 300hp (or less) competition??? Using your example, the 5.3 Escalade performed the 4.6 Navigator despite its lower rating.

Getting even more specific to the thread, the 4v in a panther? The Marauder couldn't hardly eek out the performance of the 260hp Impala SS from years earlier. Sad. Need to wander out of the big 4 doors to help the argument? When the Mustang received the 4.6, it was always second to the the competitively priced pushrod powered LT1 f-body. The dawn of the LS made the gap even larger.

Mod motor was an underperformer. It was a mistake Ford had to live with .

And on that note, it turns out that years later, these mod motor cars are all underdogs to their competition in collectible value.

Back on topic. Wanna quote performance? Hell, in 1995, you could spend nearly 30k on a brand new decked out Grand Marquis LS, and at a stop light probably lose to grandma in her vanilla 3.8 LeSabre and get flat out dusted by grandpa in his supercharged Park Ave Ultra that has more of the creature comforts and would go the distance, for just a few dollars more. Just an old man fwd Buick.

So, the question still stands: What did the 4.6 2v in the panther platform do better than the 3.8 did in the same time period, or even years prior?

Gonna quote some high performance builds to counter? Customers of these types of "old man" cars don't care.

Engines, platform, tech, the Buicks have an advantage in every. single. way. And they'll put on the trouble free miles to boot.

BTW, I'm a fan of the panther platform. For what it's worth. I drove a Crown Vic LX for 10 years from 35k miles to 105k miles. Nice car if you want an appliance, but offers nothing beyond that. Someone who isn't a DIY'wr wouldn't have appreciated the bills on a newer low mileage car to replace the intake manifold and to pull the dash to replace the HVAC plenum due to a broken mode door hinge.

The only possible advantage is that the ancient tech was offered longer. Between the 3.8 Buick and the 4.6 Ford, you have to go Ford if you want the most recent example. Admittedly, that's worth something if you live in the rust belt.

So, after all of that... Why should the OP base his decision on best old man car based on the performance of a one-off performance build? How is that relevant to this topic?

 

[OVERKILL]

1999-04?

4.6 4v was restricted to premium vehicles. In that realm, Northstar V8 and Toyota UZ were doing 300hp many years earlier.

So you are just going to ignore the SUV example I provided of the Navigator and Escalade then?

And then there is that size, weight, packaging side of things previously mentioned.

All OHC vee engines are larger than their pushrod counterparts big guy, why are you presenting it like this should be some revelation; like the rest of us haven't looked under the hood before? The 4.6L Ford wasn't any larger than the Chrysler 4.7L for example, or the aforementioned Northstar.

Why did a 300 hp mod motor car always underperform the 300hp competition???

What 300HP competition? The LS1 in the Camaro had 1.1L of displacement on the 32V 4.6L Mustang and while on paper, only 5 more HP, in reality the LS1 cars were >300HP to the tires, so more like a 25+HP advantage. Bone stock LS1 Camaro dyno sheet for reference:

Getting even more specific to the thread, the 4v in a panther? The Marauder couldn't hardly eek out the performance of the 260hp Impala SS from years earlier. Sad.

They should have offered the Termi engine as another tier, it's unfortunate that they didn't, it would have really woken the car up. The stock Marauder was a mid-14 to 15 second car with mid 90 traps.

According to this thread the stock LT1 260HP Impala SS was a mid 15 second car, so slower than the Marauder.

And on that note, it turns out that years later, these mod motor cars are all underdogs to their competition in collectible value.

Gee, who could possibly have predicted the platform that was the staple of taxi, limo and police fleets would have low collector value? JFC guy.

Back on topic. Wanna quote performance? Hell, in 1995, you could spend nearly 30k on a brand new decked out Grand Marquis LS, and at a stop light while you get dusted by supercharged Park Ave Ultra that has more of the creature comforts and would go the distance, for just a few dollars more. Just an old man fwd Buick.

Do you remember Ford advertising the Grand Marquis as being fast? Do you recall them advertising it as being faster than the Park Avenue? I don't.

So, the question still stands: What did the 4.6 2v in the panther platform do better than the 3.8 did in the same time period, or even years prior?

Well, it didn't eat its LIMG I guess? And it wasn't FWD. It also didn't have GM electronics, which can be an adventure at times.

Gonna quote some high performance builds to counter? Customers of these types of "old man" cars don't care.

Yes, exactly, they don't care, which is why your Park Avenue comparison was pointless. You've gone and contradicted yourself.

Engines, platform, tech, the Buicks have an advantage in every. single. way. And they'll put on the trouble free miles to boot.

Unless you want a RWD sedan that you can pick up for a song and drive the living crap out of. But this is like comparing the Mossberg 500 to the Remington 870, they are both durable and going to get the job done. Neither of these cars are high luxury performance saloons, and that was never their selling point. They will both comfortably gobble up the miles with adequate power.

BTW, I'm a fan of the panther platform. For what it's worth. I drove a Crown Vic LX for 10 years from 35k miles to 105k miles. Nice car if you want an appliance, but offers nothing beyond that.

Sure, and I absolutely LOVE wind and solar

The only possible advantage is that the ancient tech was offered longer. Between the 3.8 Buick and the 4.6 Ford, you have to go Ford if you want the most recent example.

And there are plenty of examples in the wreckers, due to the massive amount of fleet use, which means a huge supply of used parts if needed, and they are cheap. The cars do have a cult-like following, and hey, if you were feeling adventurous you could do a termi swap into one relatively easily, which can't be said for the Buick, lol.

 

[emmett442]

Since it's low hanging fruit...Which years did the Navigator outperform the Escalade, even in the 5.3 vs 4.6 days? Seems to have slipped my mind.

Maybe there's a brief moment during the first gen when the Escalade was 5.7? Are those the straws you're grasping?

The 4.6 's 300 horses must have forgotten to eat their Wheaties since they couldn't keep with with 285.

Not enough substance in the rest of it for me
Sorry.

The Mod motor was a mistake.

 

[OVERKILL]

Since it's low hanging fruit...Which years did the Navigator outperform the Escalade, even in the 5.3 vs 4.6 days? Seems to have slipped my mind.

Maybe there's a brief moment during the first gen when the Escalade was 5.7? Are those the straws you're grasping?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I mean, it was pretty clear. But then I guess if you do, that might explain the rest of your posts in this thread

Not enough substance

Yeah, that about sums up my perception. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

[emmett442]

:


The Intec 32V 5.4L in the Navigator (99-04) was 300HP, while the 5.3L from the same period in the Escalade was 285HP and the 5.9 Magnum was 250HP.

.

I mean, I saw this.

But the Escalade was still the performer by every tested metric. Pretty unanimous results, too.

So I'm not sure how the big heavy Mod motor came out ahead, even in the SUV world where this topic doesn't go but you really want to include.

I can understand rooting for the underdog, as long as you are doing it for you and realize that it's not truth to everyone else.

Hence the poor value of nearly every Mod motor car ever.

And I get what you are doing, taking best-case time for the Marauder and comparing it to average time for the Impala. Truth is, with a standard baseline, they within half second of each other, real world. Peanuts, for the model year gap between them. 2000's vintage Mod motor car finally bests its '90s vintage competition that no longer exists?

See ya next time.

 

[OVERKILL]

I mean, I saw this.

But the Escalade was still the performer by every tested metric. Pretty unanimous results, too.

Based on what exactly? The 5.3L equipped Escalade had a 0-60 of 9.5 seconds:

Escalades deliver ample punch when accelerating, despite occasional transmission indecision in full-throttle downshifts. Cadillac said the 6.0-liter Escalade SUVs could accelerate to 60 mph in about 8.5 seconds. The rear-drive 5.3-liter version takes 9.5 seconds.

Vs the Navigator:

it took just 7.7 seconds to make the jump to 60 mph? And the quarter mile flashed by in 15.7 at 87.8 mph.

And that was a 4x4.

And I get what you are doing, taking best-case time for the Marauder and comparing it to average time for the Impala. And I get what you are doing, taking best-case time for the Marauder and comparing it to average time for the Impala. Truth is, with a standard baseline, they within half second of each other, real world. Peanuts, for the model year gap between them. 2000's vintage Mod motor car finally bests its '90s vintage competition that no longer exists?

Nice Ninja Edit. Uhhh, no, I linked to two forums, one for each vehicle, where members posted their times and mentioned the averages. 1/2 a second in drag racing is considerable, so I'm guessing you haven't done much of it.

Point being, you claimed:

The Marauder couldn't hardly eek out the performance of the 260hp Impala SS from years earlier. Sad.

When in reality, it was roughly 1/2 second faster in the 1/4 mile, which is decent.