Lincoln LS vs. Cadillac Devill Performance

C

caddylincoln

New LVC Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Location
Omaha
I am stuck between the 2000 Cadillac Deville Base and the 2001 Lincoln LS V-8. I want to get the one with the most power. I know that the Cadillac stock will have the most power but what can you do to get more power out of the both of them. What is the most power I can get out of the both of them doing whatever I can to them?
 
caddylincoln said:
I am stuck between the 2000 Cadillac Deville Base and the 2001 Lincoln LS V-8. I want to get the one with the most power. I know that the Cadillac stock will have the most power but what can you do to get more power out of the both of them. What is the most power I can get out of the both of them doing whatever I can to them?
Click to expand...

I have an 01 LS8, My dad has a 96 Devill and my mom has an 04 Devill. Both cadillacs are faster off the line but the lincoln catches up and passes at about 30 mph, and passes at 45.

Personally i like RWD cars better. There is not really an aftermarket for the lincolns yet, but i saw a Lincoln LS commercial yesterday during the grammies and so i dunno if they are trying to actually get this car out and make some sales. Plus the popularity of the 05 mustang is helping a lot and is the sole reason the flasher is available. The LS is a bit more sport tunes stock then the Cads but the cads seem to have a bit more potential.
 
'Cept for burning Oil more, I vote the Caddy, God what I would do for a new Caddy...
 
I think you will find that these cars are very different in nature - hard to compare them. The LS was designed to go after the BMW 5-series of the day (2000) - so it has the pluses and minus of that thinking.
 
Which one?

So which one should I get. I have $10,000 to spend but I am still in between the two. The 2000 Cadillac Deville Base Model or the 2001 Lincoln LS V-8. Or is there another car that is better. I want POWER but a 4 door and some luxury.
 
The Cadillac has a 23 hp and 8 lb/ft power advantage, but also weighs over 300 pounds more. The LS has the added benefit of the 5-speed close ratio tranny. They should be really similar in performance; the LS may even be faster.

The DeVille is over a foot longer, and presumably has a bigger back seat. The LS back seat isn't bad, though, after you squeeze through the door.

The DeVille has a bigger trunk. I'm really happy with the trunk in my LS - I guess I can only fault it for being a little shallow (i.e., not tall).

Finally, the LS has rear wheel drive and a nearly perfect weight distribution. The Caddy has all its weight up front, and it just wouldn't handle like the Lincoln. You'll also feel the road more, but the LS suspension does a great job on the highway and is never overly harsh - though sometimes it can get close. I'm happy my LS only has 16" wheels.

I always fancied myself a luxo-barge guy more than a performance-car guy, and when I bought my LS I did have some concern about whether or not I'd like the ride. As it turns out, I love it. Yes, every now and then on a bad road it can seem firm, but the other 99.99% of the time I'm at the wheel it's damn near perfect.

I have ridden in one of those Caddies and I know they are nice cars, but I would recommend the LS. Big surprise, I know... :)
 
DO NOT kid yourself LS!

GM is total junk. Unless you want to look like your grandpa in the deville I would totally stick with the LS.

-Scott-

ps my grandpa sported a 75 lincoln mark 5
 
caddylincoln said:
I am stuck between the 2000 Cadillac Deville Base and the 2001 Lincoln LS V-8. I want to get the one with the most power. I know that the Cadillac stock will have the most power but what can you do to get more power out of the both of them. What is the most power I can get out of the both of them doing whatever I can to them?
Click to expand...

RWD vs FWD, need I say more?

LS has superior handling and balance. The Caddy may have more HP under the hood, but that doesn't make it faster. Even if the Caddy had a 70+HP advantage, what 'cha gonna do w/ it w/ FWD?? It might get the LS on a dragstrip (fighting torque steer all the way), but the LS will leave the Caddy in the weeds on the curves. SEE-YA!

Do I need to mention styling too?
:L
 
2003 Lincoln LS6 5 spd Manual w/Yaw control package
3.0L DOHC V6
220hp @ 6400 rpm
Max torque: 215 @ 4800 rpm
0-60: 7.8
¼ mile: 16.0 @ 88.6 mph
60-0 Braking: 135 ft.

2003 Lincoln LS8 5 spd Manu-matic
3.9L DOHC V8 w/VCT
280hp @ 6000 rpm
Max torque: 286 @ 4000 rpm
0-60: 6.8
1/4 mile: 15.02 @ 92.8 mph
60-0 Braking: 128 ft.

2003 Cadillac DeVille DTS
4.6L DOHC Northstar V8
300hp @ 5600 rpm
Max torque: 290 @ 4400 rpm
0-60: 7.2
1/4 mile: 15.8 @ 92.8 mph
60-0 Braking: 132 ft.

The two really aren't comparable. The LS was built as a Luxury Sport Sedan while the DeVille is a luxurious boulevard cruiser. In that price range you may want to look at the Cadillac SeVille STS if you want something a bit more performance oriented.

1998 Cadillac SeVille STS
300hp DOHC Northstar V8
0-60: 6.8
1/4 mile: 15.3 @ 91.8 mph
60-0: 128ft.
SkidPad: 0.78
Slalom: 62.8mph

2003 Lincoln LS8 5 spd Manu-matic
280hp DOHC V8 w/VCT
0-60: 6.8
1/4 mile: 15.02 @ 92.8 mph
60-0 Braking: 128ft.
Slalom: 60.9mph
 
Oh, I just remembered. ;)
In 2001 the Lincoln LS had significantly less performance than the numbers above:

2001 Lincoln LS8
252hp DOHC V8
0-60: 8.8
1/4 mile: 16.6 @ 82.0mph
60-0: 142ft.
Slalom: 59.1mph

If you're looking for cars in that year and price range you would do better with a Caddy.
 
Gothicaleigh said:
Oh, I just remembered. ;)
In 2001 the Lincoln LS had significantly less performance than the numbers above:

2001 Lincoln LS8
252hp DOHC V8
0-60: 8.8
1/4 mile: 16.6 @ 82.0mph
60-0: 142ft.
Slalom: 59.1mph

If you're looking for cars in that year and price range you would do better with a Caddy.
Click to expand...

Uh....... whoever tested that LS was dogging it or left the parking brake on. My '00 ran a 15.5 bone stock, and the 3.31 rear put in the 7/99+ DOB cars didn't slow it nearly that much. See sig and timeslips for what a CAI did for me.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Uh....... whoever tested that LS was dogging it or left the parking brake on. My '00 ran a 15.5 bone stock, and the 3.31 rear put in the 7/99+ DOB cars didn't slow it nearly that much. See sig and timeslips for what a CAI did for me.
Click to expand...
:I
 
3.31? I thought they were 3.58 in the first run cars... and also, how did they get from 142 ft to 128 ft when the brakes, tires, and suspension didn't change? Not to mention the weight...
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Uh....... whoever tested that LS was dogging it or left the parking brake on. My '00 ran a 15.5 bone stock, and the 3.31 rear put in the 7/99+ DOB cars didn't slow it nearly that much. See sig and timeslips for what a CAI did for me.
Click to expand...

Yeah mine has the 3.31 gears and ran 15.4 stock. Those numbers are wrong.
 
kleetus said:
3.31? I thought they were 3.58 in the first run cars... and also, how did they get from 142 ft to 128 ft when the brakes, tires, and suspension didn't change? Not to mention the weight...
Click to expand...

Correct, 3.58 ratio was installed in V8s up to about 7/99, then it was switched to 3.31, reportedly for MPG reasons. Mine was built in 4/99 so it got the 3.58. They played w/ trans ratios once or twice since then, and I think the '03+s get the 3.58 again. So it's kind of a mixed bag.

I don't think the 3.58 cars are necessisarily faster in the 1/4, as mine shifts just before the traps, where a 3.31 car can carry the lower gear thru the traps.

I suppose its possible that 16.6 time was measured w/ traction control left ON. ANY tire slippage off the line w/ kill engine power for a second or two and kill the ET. 16.6 certainly isn't reflective of the '01's potential if properly driven. I've also seen published times for '03+s of 14.8s. So the poster of those times is being selective in their reporting.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
I suppose its possible that 16.6 time was measured w/ traction control left ON. ANY tire slippage off the line w/ kill engine power for a second or two and kill the ET. 16.6 certainly isn't reflective of the '01's potential if properly driven. I've also seen published times for '03+s of 14.8s. So the poster of those times is being selective in their reporting.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is it, because I always run with traction control on. The computer only cuts fuel if you get alot of wheelspin. If you do a good launch, traction control will just apply a touch if brake if necessary. On my 15.4 run, I cut a 2.2 60' time with the traction control on.
 
Hmmm I have a build date, at least the sticker of 9/99... just for curiosity, what does your tach read at 70 mph in 5th? My sticker also says under the axle column, "29 UBC" any clue what that means? I know this car is geared lower than the others I've ran, when you go really slow, and it doesn't shift out of first, it has that slightly gearbound feeling. Personally, I like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 64 (members: 0, guests: 64)
Back
Top