New Owner

[Sleeper 281]

I have finnaly got my mark viii. Its a 93 with 76,000 on it. The interior is perfect and the body is beutifull.When I step on the gas I cant believe im in a luxury car.Around town i am a well Known racer and dont want to get embaressed or loose money.Could you guys tell me some race scenarios you have been in,and some mods to beat people. Thanks

[Mad]

Keep the car bone stock and simply add Nitrous. No, your car won't explode.
Mad`

[Lscman]

If you don't want to be embarrassed, be careful. The Mark VIII was a great performance luxury ride for early '90's and will run high 15's in the quarter mile. These days, that is only average. In a straight line, stay away from newer stock Neons, Subaru's, Grand Cherokees and other "average" 4 door SUV and commuter vehicles. They all run mid 15's to low 14's and will suck your headlights out.

[JC]

The 1st generation Mark VIII's (93-96) are quicker than the 2nd gens (97-98). This has to do with the computer program. The stock 1st gens run the 1/4 in the 15.0 to 15.3 range. The stock 2nd gens run the 1/4 in the 15.2 to 15.4 range. The fastest, that I know of, naturally asperated with only bolt on mods (lots of them) ran a best of 13.44.

[Lscman]

JC,

I think you're being a little optimistic. The Mark VIII is widely recognized as being significantly slower in acceleration than the Impala SS LT1. Impala's run 15.3-15.6 sec stock. Most reputable magazines like Motor Trend, Road & Track and Car & Driver put the Mark VIII at 15.5-15.8 sec. I have seen 15.7s several times. Impala's can only run consistently low 15's with hi-flo aftermarket exhaust and air cleaner assy's. It takes lots of mods to get an SS to 15.1, and at that point...the SS will crush ANY stock Mark VIII.

[JC]

I'm not optimistic, I'm a member of a Mark VIII club with over 300 members. We have track tested many Mark VIII's and the numbers listed in my previous posts are the real world results of these owners taking their cars to the track. The car mags don't have the time to get to know the cars they test so they don't get the best times the cars are capable of.

[JC]

One of our members took his 95 Mark VIII to the track for the first time this weekend (in NY). The only modification is a K&N pannel filter. He made 6 passes and all were in the 14.7's. When he posted the results three others reported similar results.

[Lscman]

JC,
I'm not doubting your examples, but they are useless for comparison. I was comparing cars, not quoting fluke times. Many cars run faster than average because many "used" cars are unknowingly tweaked by former owners & many owners lie about their track times and many tracks are sloped downhill and many racers don't mention their special tires or gearing etc. There are countless reasons for a Mark VIII running faster than normal...or slower. Fact is, they are almost a second slower than a Northstar Seville and about 0.3 to 0.5 seconds slower than an SS in most "carefully controlled" side-by-side comparisons conducted by reputable magazines, not "Mark VIII Club" or "Mark VIII Monthly". If some Mark VIII's ran high 14's at some track on a particular day I say "GREAT", but the typical Seville would have run in the 13's and the typical SS in the mid/low 14's that day. I've seen such variations in all stand-alone tests. The fact that a Mark VIII ran fast on some optimistic drag track somewhere in the country is no concellation in a side-by-side drag. I would not want to line up one of those high 14 second Mark VIII cars against a LT1 Vette that ran high 14's on a "slow" track. I've seen owners of "stock" '93 ZO7 6 speed cars claim high 14's thru high 12's, depending upon the track and driver.

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Lscman ]

[JC]

I didn't realise that you were talking about Mark VII's. I know little about them but I stand by my comments about Mark VIII's.

[Lscman]

I was offering some comparison data. Road & Track, Motor Trend and Car & Driver are not bench racers so I do not understand these comments about ignoring such data. People can learn from reading reputable information and nobody here has better comparison data. Track times at some "fast track" without comparison data are worthless & that was my only point. I've seen '85 Mustangs run documented 13's in stock trim & plenty of 14 second SS's, although comparison tests by reputable mags on good tracks were always slower. You can not compare results on one track to another or deduce which car is faster when performance was with different drivers and different atmospheric conditions. Stand-alone "best times" are useless for comparison. You can go to the Neon & Cherokee & Subaru Forum and see 13 & 14 second claims too.