1976 Lincoln Mark IV - Can it be improved?

[101Volts]

I've not done it myself, but remember the Fan Swap idea. Changing the engine cooling fan from a belt-driven fan to an electric fan is supposed to be a pretty significant mod, around 1 - 2 MPG. When you're talking in the 10 - 15 MPG range, that's pretty significant.

Another large one (regardless if you're keeping the stock engine in it or not) is Water-Methanol Injection. If you can get it set up right to cool the cylinders considerably (and don't mind the extra expense of the Water-Methanol mix,) you can then advance the engine tuning by a significant amount. Doing all of this increases engine power, reduces fuel use, and keeps the pistons much cleaner.

As for if the car exhaust stinks, perhaps I'm not the best to ask, but I get the general feeling that it's just how these old cars are in stock form. Unless you install a much newer catalytic converter that's going to be much more efficient (and do you want to put that money into it?) Pre-1990s Cars might just stink up the neighborhood. My 1990 Grand Marquis Wagon is the same way, and so was the 1984 Caprice that I had. They're from a time before air pollution was cared about to as significant of a degree.

Whatever you do, I'd suggest you upgrade the brakes (and brake fluid) first if they're not already done. The car's going to have drum brakes in the rear. While that's all well and good in many braking scenarios, you also don't have any way to cushion your head if someone were to do the unthinkable and (stupidly) hit you. You don't have automatically deploying air bags in this Lincoln, and I don't in my Grand Marquis, either.

I'd suggest you switch over to Amsoil Brake Fluid, at least, for the much higher boiling point.

[Piotrsko]

Back in the early days of Cat converters the smell was considered to be some sort of byproduct of a malfunctioning Cat caused by cheap adulterated fuel. Most cats in the era didn't smell, and there were a couple companies selling an additive perfume just in case.

I don't remember how the issue was resolved because all my vehicles were generally over 20 years old and cat-less.

My new stuff doesn't stink other than the diesel smell.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by 101Volts

Changing the engine cooling fan from a belt-driven fan to an electric fan is supposed to be a pretty significant mod, around 1 - 2 MPG. When you're talking in the 10 - 15 MPG range, that's pretty significant

Easy and cost-effective.

Another large one (regardless if you're keeping the stock engine in it or not) is Water-Methanol Injection. If you can get it set up right to cool the cylinders considerably (and don't mind the extra expense of the Water-Methanol mix,) you can then advance the engine tuning by a significant amount. Doing all of this increases engine power, reduces fuel use, and keeps the pistons much cleaner.

Usually I see water injection being recommended more for turbocharged engines. Well, adding some shots of Everclear or even blending some regular E85 directly to the fuel tank may lead to a similar result to what you're expecting...

As for if the car exhaust stinks, perhaps I'm not the best to ask, but I get the general feeling that it's just how these old cars are in stock form. Unless you install a much newer catalytic converter that's going to be much more efficient (and do you want to put that money into it?) Pre-1990s Cars might just stink up the neighborhood.

Once EFI became more widespread, such smell faded away mostly. When the Fiat Tempra was released in Brazil, initially with a carburettor, it was pointed out the exhaust would stink due to the sulphur amount on the gasoline as the exhaust reacted with the catalytic converter. EFI decreased this issue noticeably. EFI also tended to lead to a longer life of the catalytic converter.

[wax87]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Slow, I located some original road test data for the 1981 year model of your car, from Popular Science, and Road & Track:
* Cd 0.48
* Af approx. 24.3379-square-feet ( 2.26106 meters-sq .)
* CdA approx. 11.6822- sq-ft ( 1.08531 meters-sq. )
* Curb weight 4,052-lb ( 1,833.48-kg )
* 302 CID V8, with throttle body fuel injection
* 4-spd automatic transmission, with lockup torque converter
* 3.08:1 rear axle ratio
* Fineness ratio- 3.648639
* Tires- P205/75R15 Uniroyal Royal Seal steel-belted radials
* Length- 216-inches ( 5486.4mm )
* Width- 78.1-inches ( 1,983.74mm )
* Height- 55.4-inches ( 1,407mm )
* Ground clearance- 6.5-inches ( 165.1mm )
* 18-gallons
* 23.5-mpg @ 35-mph ( 56.3 km/h ) observed
* 17.8-mpg @ 55-mph ( 88.56 km/h )
* This 1981 model is physically identical to the 1976 year model and remained unchanged until 1984.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1984 Mark VII was shorter, narrower, lighter, and lower drag:
* Cd 0.38
* Af approx. 21.894-sq-ft ( 2.03409 m-sq )
* CdA approx. 8.32-sq-ft ( 0.7729 m-sq )
* EBLA = 15.5-degrees
* Tires- Goodyear Eagle GT P215 / 65R-15
* Fineness ratio approx. 3.84682
* 60-degree windshield
* 63-degree backlight
* Curb Weight 3,735-lb ( 1,690.04 kg )
* 302 CID V8 w/ TBI, and 3-way catalyst
* BMW 6-cyl diesel
* 4-speed automatic with lockup torque converter
* 34.0-mph/ 1,000 rpm gearing
* piston speed = 885- surface feet/minute
* 1,765-rpm @ 60-mph ( 96.6 km/h )
* 22.1-gallons tank
* 16-mpg 'normal' driving ( I have no idea what they mean ! )[ Road & Track ]
* 340-miles range, with 1-gallon reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 Lincoln Mark VIII
* 17.0-mpg ave. ( Motor Trend )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Lincoln Town Car: ( from Popular Science )
* 23.5-mpg 'best'
* 17.3-mpg 'worst'
* 21.1-mpg 'average'

Why does the the 1981 get 17.8 MPG and the 1984 get 16 mpg? I presume it is combined mileage, but if it is lighter and everything else it would get more MPG not less. Just wondering.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Malaise era and an excessively restrictive state of tune of the engines?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by wax87

Why does the the 1981 get 17.8 MPG and the 1984 get 16 mpg? I presume it is combined mileage, but if it is lighter and everything else it would get more MPG not less. Just wondering.

My guess is that, that 16-mpg 'IS' an average, while the 17.8 was for steady-state 55-mph cruise.
The magazine folks believed that the BMW diesel variant would see upper 20s, but that's speculative, and I have no later road test data which included the diesel, so it remains an unknown quantity.

[Paulbstockton6@hotmail.co]

The original block/transmission is worth some money to the right person...possibly enough to fund an engine/trans swap.
If you wanted to keep it 460 and go EFI, you'll need the engine/transmission from a truck with EFI...that might get you 15-18 mpg. My Torino got 16 mpg with a three speed.
You could swap in almost any Ford set-up, including the Mustang 4 cylinder turbo, 6 cylinder Turbo Coupe, or super coupe engine/transmissions fairly easy.
It is also possible, with a little work to install a VW 1.9 diesel, with a Toyota Truck transmission and possibly get 30 mpg...but the front end will be a little light...need springs.
Another diesel engine you might consider is the "bread truck" Dodge 4 cylinder diesel 4BT...it's like the 6 cylinder diesel minus two cylinders. People put those in the big Broncos and report 30-35 mpg... You'll want to get an over drive transmission with that, too. But I think the 4BT has an SAE bellhousing that matches Ford transmissions. Possible oil pan modification needed...might hang too low. That engine probably weighs closer to the 460, so springs shouldn't be a problem.
Your stock 460 was rated about 200 hp and a lot of torque. (Torque would be more of a factor than HP)
For MPG, diesel would be the way to go. Now I'm wondering if an older/newer Ford truck 6.9/7.3 would fit in there. My friends 6.9 diesel truck gets 18mpg...
Good luck...

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Not only due to an absence of front-end weight, but the Cummins 4BT would be less stressed than a Volkswagen 1.9 TDI in such a large car.