Cadillac CTS-V
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,452
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Tsaven Nava
We all remember what a smashing success the Marauder was . . .
I have driven a V8 LS and surprised at the performance of the motor. Plus it had a pretty good suspension ( Jag chassis ) and the tranny performed quite well when hammering on it. Lastly, the LS looked pretty good for a Lincoln.
If Lincoln ( Ford ) would have offered a factory supercharger on the V8 as an option, maybe it would have stayed around longer.
Posting Legend
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 32,025
Likes: 0
From: Where Critters Are Free
Originally Posted by SMIGGS
Caddy = car
Shelby = car
In the future, please understand what you type BEFORE you post. This is getting waaaayyyy to easy and albiet the both of us to actually keep the thread on topic.
Shelby = car
In the future, please understand what you type BEFORE you post. This is getting waaaayyyy to easy and albiet the both of us to actually keep the thread on topic.
Before you get smart with me Pal...Shelby= Sports car
Caddy= Family car
Different class of cars there.. Please educate your self before making stupid remarks to me in the future..
Nice try Smigg's but I do not buy into your claim
Senior User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by SMIGGS
I guess the intent was there......( good engine in lackluster car )
I have driven a V8 LS and surprised at the performance of the motor. Plus it had a pretty good suspension ( Jag chassis ) and the tranny performed quite well when hammering on it. Lastly, the LS looked pretty good for a Lincoln.
If Lincoln ( Ford ) would have offered a factory supercharger on the V8 as an option, maybe it would have stayed around longer.
I have driven a V8 LS and surprised at the performance of the motor. Plus it had a pretty good suspension ( Jag chassis ) and the tranny performed quite well when hammering on it. Lastly, the LS looked pretty good for a Lincoln.
If Lincoln ( Ford ) would have offered a factory supercharger on the V8 as an option, maybe it would have stayed around longer.
Unfortunetly, the 300hp 4.6 just isn't a good match for that car. It doesn't develope much power until you get above 3000rpm, it only has 300 ft/lbs of torque, and that doesn't come in around 4000rpm. And you NEED lots of low-end torque to really motivate a 4500lb+ luxotank car. So the car just felt sluggish and unresponsive as a result, untill you started REALLY getting the revs up.
Hell, the infamous Impala SS, which was ten years old (at the time), and had 40 LESS horsepower would still beat the Marauder in the 1/4 (15.4 vs 15.7 stock) and 0-60. And that was mostly a function of the LT1 engine that developed all of it's torque below 3000rpm (330 ft/lbs @ 2400rpm), which is what really gave that car the feeling of having real ***** behind it.
That, and the Marauder was just priced too high.
Posting Legend
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 32,025
Likes: 0
From: Where Critters Are Free
Originally Posted by Tsaven Nava
I actually liked the Marauder, and I don't think it's a bad chassie, or a bad engine, they just wern't well matched. From what I know, the origonal idea for the Marauder was to have the 5.3L V-8 truck engine in there, but try as they might, there was no way they could squeeze that engine into the engine bay, so they just threw in a higher-powerd 4.6.
Unfortunetly, the 300hp 4.6 just isn't a good match for that car. It doesn't develope much power until you get above 3000rpm, it only has 300 ft/lbs of torque, and that doesn't come in around 4000rpm. And you NEED lots of low-end torque to really motivate a 4500lb+ luxotank car. So the car just felt sluggish and unresponsive as a result, untill you started REALLY getting the revs up.
Hell, the infamous Impala SS, which was ten years old (at the time), and had 40 LESS horsepower would still beat the Marauder in the 1/4 (15.4 vs 15.7 stock) and 0-60. And that was mostly a function of the LT1 engine that developed all of it's torque below 3000rpm (330 ft/lbs @ 2400rpm), which is what really gave that car the feeling of having real ***** behind it.
That, and the Marauder was just priced too high.
Unfortunetly, the 300hp 4.6 just isn't a good match for that car. It doesn't develope much power until you get above 3000rpm, it only has 300 ft/lbs of torque, and that doesn't come in around 4000rpm. And you NEED lots of low-end torque to really motivate a 4500lb+ luxotank car. So the car just felt sluggish and unresponsive as a result, untill you started REALLY getting the revs up.
Hell, the infamous Impala SS, which was ten years old (at the time), and had 40 LESS horsepower would still beat the Marauder in the 1/4 (15.4 vs 15.7 stock) and 0-60. And that was mostly a function of the LT1 engine that developed all of it's torque below 3000rpm (330 ft/lbs @ 2400rpm), which is what really gave that car the feeling of having real ***** behind it.
That, and the Marauder was just priced too high.
Have you ever read where they were thinking of putting the V-10 in a Crown Vic Police Package....That would have been Kick***...
decadent and depraved
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,703
Likes: 6
From: Right Behind You
Originally Posted by sglaine
Before you get smart with me Pal...Shelby= Sports car
Caddy= Family car
Caddy= Family car
Originally Posted by sglaine
Please educate your self before making stupid remarks to me in the future..
Tim
Last edited by thorseshoeing; Jan 10, 2008 at 02:07 PM.
Posting Legend
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 32,025
Likes: 0
From: Where Critters Are Free
Originally Posted by thorseshoeing
All you said was car, that leaves someone to assume you ment all cars...
Tim
Tim
Different class of cars period and end of story..
That is like comparing a Mack truck to a Ranger...
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
From: Black Hills, South Dakota
Originally Posted by sglaine
Before you get smart with me Pal...Shelby= Sports car
Caddy= Family car
Different class of cars there.. Please educate your self before making stupid remarks to me in the future..
Nice try Smigg's but I do not buy into your claim
Caddy= Family car
Different class of cars there.. Please educate your self before making stupid remarks to me in the future..
Nice try Smigg's but I do not buy into your claim
Being a sports car no longer has anyhting to do with how many doors a vehicle has. So if a four door sedan is faster than your supposed sports car (which the Shelby GT500 is not), is the sports car really a sports car at all?
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,157
Likes: 0
From: Stanton DE
Originally Posted by Red Star
This is impressive. 6.2L supercharged V8, 550 hp. Same engine (but with 620 hp) will be used in 2009 Corvette ZR-1.
That thing looks like poo poo...hahahaha
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Posting Legend
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 32,025
Likes: 0
From: Where Critters Are Free
Originally Posted by Hobo
I will bet you $500.00 that the new CTS-V will be faster around a track, stock for stock, than a Shelby GT500. I will even go so far as to bet you it will be faster in a strait line too.
?
?
Yeahh Right ...LAMO....
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,157
Likes: 0
From: Stanton DE
Originally Posted by Hobo
I will bet you $500.00 that the new CTS-V will be faster around a track, stock for stock, than a Shelby GT500. I will even go so far as to bet you it will be faster in a strait line too.
Being a sports car no longer has anyhting to do with how many doors a vehicle has. So if a four door sedan is faster than your supposed sports car (which the Shelby GT500 is not), is the sports car really a sports car at all?
Being a sports car no longer has anyhting to do with how many doors a vehicle has. So if a four door sedan is faster than your supposed sports car (which the Shelby GT500 is not), is the sports car really a sports car at all?
What planet do you come from?
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
From: Black Hills, South Dakota
Originally Posted by sglaine
Yeahh Right ...LAMO....
The CTS-V was pretty much designed on the toughest race track in world, the Nordshlieffe of the Nurburgring. The Shelby GT500 was designed to go fast in a strait line.
According to most tests though it doesn't even do that all that well. Automobile Magazine was able to get a 4.9 second 0-60 and a 13.1@115mph quater mile out of one. Really not all that impressive considering the previous generation CTS-V with only 400hp and 395lb-ft of torque managed 0-60 in 4.7 seconds (hmm faster than a GT500), and did the Quarter in 13.1@110mph (tied with a GT500). So what in the world (other than your pathetic delusions of Ford superiority) would make you think that another CTS-V with another 150hp on tap will not be even quicker?
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...teristics.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...300c_srt8.html
Senior User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
From: Black Hills, South Dakota
Originally Posted by phil6608
So a GT-500 is not a sports car??
What planet do you come from?
What planet do you come from?
Considering a C6 Corvette (non Z06) is a faster car in all regards than a GT500, and costs less.... well in my book that makes the GT500 a fat pig of a muscle car.