- 3,052
Does anyone have any information on the following vehicle:
Lincoln Mark VIII LSC...
Lincoln Mark VIII LSC...
Lincoln Mark VIII LSC information request.
- Thread starter MrktMkr1986
- 56 comments
- 6,774 views
Joey D
Premium
- 47,650
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
My mom had a 97 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC back in the day, it was black and all I remember it was pretty fast.
I know they came with a 290hp 4.6L V8 that got about 17mpg. It also had a really funky suspension system in it. But other then that I don't really remember a lot about it.
I know they came with a 290hp 4.6L V8 that got about 17mpg. It also had a really funky suspension system in it. But other then that I don't really remember a lot about it.
- 3,052
BlazinXtreme
Cool!
Hopefully I can find a 97 for a decent price. Most likely, though, I'll be getting a 90-92 Mark 7 or 93-96 Mark 8.It's an air suspension if I remember correctly that automatically lowers at speed and adjusts itself based on load, weight etc. Cool stuff.
Doug
Seville STS I thought was rear-wheel drive, no? I know the Continental is front-wheel drive.
- 1,264
Nope. The CTS was the first rear drive Caddy in some time. Well, besides the Escalade, but we all know thats not FWD. They were all FWD for a while there, the DeVille, Seville, Eldo, Allante, they're all FWD. But now they are getting back to RWD with the CTS, the STS, and the XLR.MrktMkr1986
Hilg
- 3,052
Sniffs
They don't belong in there!
They're appreciating!!! 
- 2,336
- Los Angeles, CA
- WRBWRXMAX
- Max Archer
My friend's dad has a Mark VIII. Not a bad car, nice power, but, as could be expected, it's a boat.
- 3,052
Takumi Fujiwara
Cool, thanks.
I'm used to driving boats anyway so that is not an issue with me. My current car is 202.1 inches long and the I think the Mark 8 is about 207 inches long. The Mark 7 is about as long as my car, I think.
JNasty4G63
In this period, one was rear-drive, my man - everyone always forgets it:
The ol' 1993-1996 Fleetwood sedan. My neighbors have one (and an '05 CTS - and an original Accord V6). 1993 models used a 185-horsepower 5.7L V8 but the one to get is the 1994-1996, which used the Corvette's 5.7L V8, making 260 horses. Size was absurd - 225 inches is longer than every single SUV except the Ford Excursion, and the Excursion's only an inch and a half longer. Weight was just as absurd - it weighed in at 4477; for reference that's 500lb heavier than the Lexus LS430 and nearly double the Chevrolet Aveo 5-door's weight. Still rear-drive though.
By the way, the Escalade actually debuted after the Catera. Escalade came out in 1999 but Catera debuted all the way back in 1997 to some acclaim.
- 3,052
M5Power
Short-lived, though...
260 horsepower, but more importantly 330 lb./ft of torque.
That's too big, even for me.
... and I drive a 202-inch long car. 
Despite it's size my car weighs less than or close to 3,600lbs even with me in the car.
Cadillac Catera = Vauxhall/Opel Omega 💡 I can't believe I remembered that!
I'm not about to actually recommend the Fleetwood!
The Fleetwood had several twins throughout GM:
- 1991-1996 Buick Roadmaster
- 1993-1996 Cadillac Fleetwood
- 1991-1996 Chevrolet Caprice
- 1994-1996 Chevrolet Impala SS
- 1991-1992 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
Pontiac was fortunately spared from this hell. Of those models, called "B-bodies" by "insiders" because their fourth VIN digit is "B", I've only every recommended the 1994-1996 Impala SS, and then only once or twice. The Oldsmobile and some of the Buicks and Chevys were actually station wagons and were absolute behemoths - big does not begin to describe these things. A guy two blocks over has a Custom Cruiser - it's absurd. When I see it I run and hide. It and possibly the Buick have the distinction of having a huge sunroof for rear passengers; today at least 60% of the Oldsmobiles (that's 60% of all models ever sold) serve taxi duty in and around Washington DC (many with the sunroof!). These models were the last rear-drive GM sedans (the last big effort anyway) and the last rear-drive wagon 'till the Magnum.
(note hellish sunroof, the car's only redeeming quality)
The width on that thing is what most people notice - it was 79.4 inches. Put it this way: if it were on sale today, it would be the second-widest consumer-market vehicle, behind the Excursion, which the EPA doesn't classify as consumer-market. So technically it would be, according to the government, the widest vehicle on sale. Yum
The Fleetwood had several twins throughout GM:
- 1991-1996 Buick Roadmaster
- 1993-1996 Cadillac Fleetwood
- 1991-1996 Chevrolet Caprice
- 1994-1996 Chevrolet Impala SS
- 1991-1992 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
Pontiac was fortunately spared from this hell. Of those models, called "B-bodies" by "insiders" because their fourth VIN digit is "B", I've only every recommended the 1994-1996 Impala SS, and then only once or twice. The Oldsmobile and some of the Buicks and Chevys were actually station wagons and were absolute behemoths - big does not begin to describe these things. A guy two blocks over has a Custom Cruiser - it's absurd. When I see it I run and hide. It and possibly the Buick have the distinction of having a huge sunroof for rear passengers; today at least 60% of the Oldsmobiles (that's 60% of all models ever sold) serve taxi duty in and around Washington DC (many with the sunroof!). These models were the last rear-drive GM sedans (the last big effort anyway) and the last rear-drive wagon 'till the Magnum.
(note hellish sunroof, the car's only redeeming quality)
The width on that thing is what most people notice - it was 79.4 inches. Put it this way: if it were on sale today, it would be the second-widest consumer-market vehicle, behind the Excursion, which the EPA doesn't classify as consumer-market. So technically it would be, according to the government, the widest vehicle on sale. Yum
- 1,264
You got me there. I wasn't thinking. I didn't think the Fleetwood lasted that long, and spaced on it. And, I totally blanked on the Catera. I forgot about it, as most other people didM5Power
Hilg
- 3,052
M5Power
That's just excessive. Who would want a car that long and wide? Again, even for me that's just too much. Except maybe for the Impala SS.
Alas, it has 4 doors... and even though it's rear-wheel drive (a definite plus), there's no super/turbocharger.
- 3,052
M5Power
Rear wheel drive? check.
200-horsepower? check.
Auto transmission? check.
Cadillac brand name? check.
Reliability? ...
Price? ...
Performance? ...
4-doors?
If it's reliable, relatively inexpensive, and about as quick as an LSC, I would consider.
Catera's problem was ... I don't know. I guess brand. It was an unbelievable car. OnStar in '98, first LEV Cadillac in '99, side airbags available in '99 and standard in '00, Xenon's in '00. I'd say a '97 goes for $5200, a '98 for $6200, and a '99 for $7500. That probably prices it out of your range.
Got another, better one though - Oldsmobile Aurora?
Got another, better one though - Oldsmobile Aurora?
- 3,052
M5Power
Nice styling? check
4.0-liter 250 horsepower V8 same as Shelby Series 1!!!? check
4-doors...
260 lb./ft. of torque? check
Weight?
Reliability?
Prices?
Performance?
Size of fuel tank (because now we're dealing w/V8s)?
GM transmission? check
Okay, here ya go:
1995-1999 Oldsmobile Aurora
Weight: 3960 (ouch!)
Reliability: no major trouble areas; four recalls:
- 95 rear shoulder belts do not retract
- 96 failure of key in ignition and seatbelt unbuckled warnings
- 99 brake-booster to pedal-assembly nuts may loosen
- 99 incorrect brake caliper assembly and brake pads may be installed
Prices:
- 95 $3500; 96 $4200; 97 $5000; 98 $5900; 99 $6700
Performance: unfortunately due to the weight I have 0-60 in 7.9 from a less reliable and 8.3 from a fairly reliable source, yielding a quarter of around 16.1 ... 8.2 from another reliable source with a 16.3 quarter
- Fuel tank: 20gal
1995-1999 Oldsmobile Aurora
Weight: 3960 (ouch!)
Reliability: no major trouble areas; four recalls:
- 95 rear shoulder belts do not retract
- 96 failure of key in ignition and seatbelt unbuckled warnings
- 99 brake-booster to pedal-assembly nuts may loosen
- 99 incorrect brake caliper assembly and brake pads may be installed
Prices:
- 95 $3500; 96 $4200; 97 $5000; 98 $5900; 99 $6700
Performance: unfortunately due to the weight I have 0-60 in 7.9 from a less reliable and 8.3 from a fairly reliable source, yielding a quarter of around 16.1 ... 8.2 from another reliable source with a 16.3 quarter
- Fuel tank: 20gal
- 3,052
M5Power
Mark 7 and Mark 8 are at least 150 to 100 pounds lighter (respectively). Mark 7 has about 5-10 less horsepower yet has 40 more lb./ft of torque. The Mark 8 has 30-40 more horsepower depending on whether or not it's the LSC and the same in torque. So far, not good.
Current car has 2 major recall -- RESOLVED thank goodness.
No major trouble areas for the Lincolns except transmission, but I'm used that anyway! 95-97 reasonably priced. Cheaper the better, though these cars are still depreciating. The Mark 7 is appreciating (2-5%/year).
Mark 8 still determined by market prices. 98-99 not worth the money being if performance was the only consideration.Stock LSC can match. Minor 5-10 minute DIY job will make LSC Mark 7 faster. Mark 8 already fast.
Current vehicle = 22.1 gal, so may/may not be a problem.
I appreciate this very much, Doug.
- 2,568
- we're waiting for the PS4
- fishtailrook1 (?)
i meant the mark sevens...i think they're fox platform anyhow. i've never seen an eight.
if you find the likes of a b body Olds Custom Cruiser wagon, BUY IT! it's a major collectors peice. ditto with the old Roadmaster wagons. they may be a perfect example of the "american land yaght", but they're worth a fortune in the right hands. besides, I think they went out pretty
if you find the likes of a b body Olds Custom Cruiser wagon, BUY IT! it's a major collectors peice. ditto with the old Roadmaster wagons. they may be a perfect example of the "american land yaght", but they're worth a fortune in the right hands. besides, I think they went out pretty
I have a new rec: 1995-1999 Buick Rivera with the supercharger. Also, given what you're currently checking out, the 1993-1995 Ford Taurus SHO. It's just the best buy - and this time around, reliability's no issue - the vehicles were robust and good performers, plus Yamaha built the engine so except no major problems.
- 347
What are you looking to do with the car?
For a daily driver the Mark VIII is perfect. It's worth the extra money over the 7 and they share the same aftermarket with the '89-'97 Cougars and Thunderbirds. The Mark VIII is on the FN10 chassis which is nearly exactly the same as MN12 (Cougar/T-Bird). I actually like the look '98 Mark VIII LSCs best but the '93-'96 are a smidge quicker. What's really great about the 8s is they have DOHC, unlike T-Birds/Cougars. LSCs are definitely worth the extra money over base models also.
The Mark VII is a much better choice if you're looking for a drag car though. It is in fact on the fox platform meaning the aftermarket is HUGE. It's a 5.0L HO V8 and in general it's like a fox Mustang except with some added luxury and its wheelbase is a bit longer. If the 5.0 isn't your cup of tea you can put any engine in there no joke. Be it a 2.3L 4 banger or a 514ci big block Ford V8. And there's nothing easier to work on than a fox.
Either car is a really great choice and really both cars have a very large aftermarket so if you want some added performance be it a daily driver or project car it's definitely the way to go, none of that General Motors rubbish. =P Of course I'm biased, but still right!
For a daily driver the Mark VIII is perfect. It's worth the extra money over the 7 and they share the same aftermarket with the '89-'97 Cougars and Thunderbirds. The Mark VIII is on the FN10 chassis which is nearly exactly the same as MN12 (Cougar/T-Bird). I actually like the look '98 Mark VIII LSCs best but the '93-'96 are a smidge quicker. What's really great about the 8s is they have DOHC, unlike T-Birds/Cougars. LSCs are definitely worth the extra money over base models also.
The Mark VII is a much better choice if you're looking for a drag car though. It is in fact on the fox platform meaning the aftermarket is HUGE. It's a 5.0L HO V8 and in general it's like a fox Mustang except with some added luxury and its wheelbase is a bit longer. If the 5.0 isn't your cup of tea you can put any engine in there no joke. Be it a 2.3L 4 banger or a 514ci big block Ford V8. And there's nothing easier to work on than a fox.
Either car is a really great choice and really both cars have a very large aftermarket so if you want some added performance be it a daily driver or project car it's definitely the way to go, none of that General Motors rubbish. =P Of course I'm biased, but still right!
- 3,052
Drifting Thunda
Definitely a daily driver, but a car that is still a faster than your average import (i.e. minor modifications for 15-35 extra horsepower).
Oh yes. Without a doubt I will be looking for an LSC. In my area at least, there are plenty of Mark 7s that acutally cost more than earlier versions of the Mark 8 (I think the 7 LSC is appreciating at about 2%/year). If the '93-'96 versions are a little bit faster than the newer models, then that model period is preferable.
It's basically my car, but with more luxury, a different suspension system, and Mustang GTs 5.0. Am I right in saying that it was underrated when Ford quoted 225 horsepower? I heard that actual output was closer to 240-245 horsepower at the crank?
But it IS! Believe me it is! The turbo-4 is starting to lose its novelty. I still want one in the future, but I need something more reliable than what I have now, and I want something a bit different.
Most definitely. However, a 514ci in a daily driver seems a bit excessive. Lightly modded 281s and 302s are plenty -- for me anyway.
I was open to GM...but you've convinced me otherwise.
However!Ford and good transmissions cannot be used in the same sentence. My dad had a '94 Mustang GT with an automatic and that AOD went crazy.
Then my A4LD decided to, um, quit. $700 rebuild later, and still more problems. That is my ONLY concern with buying an LSC. Can the transmission (aod in the 7 and whatever transmission is in the 8) withstand even the slighest extra boost in torque without going 
and making me go , 
, and ?Doug
After what year did the supercharged Rivieras have 240 horsepower as opposed to 225 horsepower? The 1993-95 Taurus SHO looks nice. Can the transmission survive? What are some of the performance figures for both the s/c Buick and Taurus SHO?
MrktMkr1986
The rundown on the Riviera: came out in 1995 with a standard 205-horsepower 3.8L V6 and optional 225-horsepower 3.8. In 1996 it received the power boost to 240 horses, and by 1998 the base engine was gone because no-one wanted it. Canada never even got it, because Canadians crave supercharged power (actually Canada did get it, just beginning in 1996). The only Riviera on my rare list is the 1999 Silver Arrow; I think I've seen pictures of them. As far as performance, I've got a reliable source listing 0-60 in 7.4 (15.6 @ 90.9) for '95, with the 225hp engine and the same source at 7.0 the following year, when power was boosted. For '97 I have a conservative source (which I'm beginning to think used a stopwatch) listed at 8.6. I have another mostly reliable source quoting 7.8 (15.9 quarter) for '95 as well. So assuming you get a 240hp model, you're looking at a 7-sec 0-60 and a low-15 quarter.
The rundown on the Taurus: SHO came out in '89 but was manual-only until 1993, which works out perfectly, because they were **** until 1992. Actually that isn't true - I believe, from an American viewpoint, that the 1986 Ford Taurus was the greatest product of the last fifty years save perhaps the personal computer. I said perhaps. And I'm serious. Anyway, automatic debuted in the SHO in 1993 a year after Tauruses were slightly redesigned. 1993-1995 SHOs are actually quicker in automatic guise because Yamaha increased the automatic's engine size to compensate for the switch of transmission; manuals used a 3-liter while automatics got a 3.2. Both produced 220 horsepower, but the automatic had fifteen more lb-ft of torque. I have a reliable source quoting 0-60 of 7 and a quarter of 15.4 @ 93.1, which seems accurate to me. Reliability should be unquestioned given the engine's source and the Taurus's generally good reputation at the time.
- 3,052
M5Power
Thank you!
I'll add them to my list of cars to test drive. Nice to hear, though, that the automatic SHO is faster than the 5-speed version. The Riviera S/C sounds like a very quick car. Not quite as fast as a 93-96 Mark 8 LSC, but faster and mostly likely more reliable than a 90-92 Mark 7 LSC. The SHO sounds like a decent alternative -- if I can get past the fact that it has 4 doors.There are two SHOs in my area. A 1997 SHO for 4,995 with 111k miles and a 1994 SHO for 3,500 with 127k miles.
The 1996-1999 Taurus SHO is a whole different story - I'd not drive one but merely look at one before deciding. If you like the look, then drive one - most people can't get past the styling. I personally don't mind it but I understand the point - huge overhangs and droopy styling for a "performance" sedan. At least it had chrome wheels (and a 3.4L V8 - yes, that's not in error). 1996-1999 models had 240 horsepower from than unusually compact V8 and did 0-60 in around 7.3 - curb weight was 3499 on 96-99s vs. 3104 on 1993-1995 models.
- 3,052
M5Power
I have seen the car up close plenty of times and I have no problems with the styling.
Yamaha engineered still. I wonder what something like that SOUNDS like.
So the 96-99 SHOs are more powerful but considerably heavier. 93-95 it is then.
- 3,052
M5Power
True. The same can be said about the weight difference between the Mark 7 and Mark 8 as well.
