Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis

15354565859102

Comments

  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    But this design really should be scrapped.
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    yesterday in the Houston fog. Texans still do things in a big way.
  • rea98drea98d Posts: 982
    Well, I've got two Grand Marquis's with gas tanks behind the differential. I'm not worried, because they are still inside the frame and (on my 2 cars) the heavy steel bumpers of the cars. I also have a 95 Thunderbird, which is RWD. The rear diff is aft of teh fuel tank, but the trnk is much much shallower, and rear seat legroom is non existant. And when you consider it costs more to make a tank that can go around the driveshaft, it's easier to say "Move the tank" than it is to move the tank. First, you have to have someplace else to put it, and this would involve eating up trunk space, rear seat room, or both. Jaguar got around this problem with the Series I-III XJ's by putting a tank in each rear fender, but this adds inconvenience, complexity, and leaves the tank even more vunerable in side impacts. Then you have to consider the Crown Victoria is built like no other passenger car in the country. Most cars are unibody designs where the floor and roof provide most of the strength, and if you hang the tank out behind the rear axel, you're hanging it behind all the big structural pieces of the car, and it's wide open for a hit. Crown Victorias have a full steel frame that provides a backbone for the car, and protects the tank. This is why it takes hits ant extremely high speeds to damage the tanks. Ford does rear end crash tests at 50mph on these cars, and the pass. The design is safe. The Crown Victoria is probably the safest passenger car on sale today when it comes to protecting passengers in a crash. All this hype about gas tank explosions is just the news media stirring up hype for ratings. Nothing more.
  • iusecadiusecad Posts: 287
    and why do they pick 82mph? why not make it fire proof up to 110?

    or maybe we could teach people not to drive their oh so fast cars into parked cars that have bright flashing lights. Although those people never seem to be at fault, or so the lawyers would have you believe.

    But pluto5, I'm not against a safer Vic. Let Ford incorporate the bladder & FIRE pannel into new Interceptors (civilian models don't need all that IMHO) and call it a day.
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    I agree, the police should have these improvements.
  • Since 1983, a grand total of 13 police officers have died in fires as a result of rear end collisions where the police vehicle was a crown vic. *13*. All of these impacts have been at highway speeds or above(70+mph). As far as the gas tank being behind the axle being a safety issue, that is ludicrous. Ford and Chevy have put the gas tank behind the rear axle of every live axle full frame passenger car that has been produced since at least the 70s. My 1975 Impala wagon had that design, my 1970 plymouth valiant had that design, and my 1995 crown victoria has that design. If the design was as unsafe as the media has alleged it to be, then it would have been scrapped 30 years ago.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    and it was. By everyone but Ford.
  • Nice try, but wrong. The Dodge Diplomat was produced until 1989. The Roadmaster/Caprice/Impala/Fleetwood were produced until 1994.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    The Dodge Diplomat WAS decades ago. We ALL know about when the Chevy Caprice ended production. The concept remains...only Ford still makes cars this way. Whether or not that is reasonable is for the legislatures, courts and the public to decide.
  • No. It is for engineers to decide. And just about every single SUV and pickup ever made uses the exact same design as the Crown Vic. Full frame vehicles have many drawbacks. They don't have the stiffness of unibody, they tend to rattle as they age, etc. Two drawbacks they don't have are crashworthiness and durability. No passenger car at the CV's price is as safe as the CV.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    Maybe in an ideal world it is for the engineers to decide. In the one we live in, the legislatures, courts, public and one I left out before, bureaucrats decide such things. If you truly believe that engineers decide such things you are neither an engineer nor in the political process.

    I am in one of those two positions, and I can tell you flat out that not only do those groups get to decide, but they get to decide after the fact, and without all the facts. The Pinto is a perfectly good example. It had nothing UNIQUE about its set-up either, for its time. But you know what happened there.

    Look at emission controls, safety standards, CAFE. In ALL those instances, engineers had precious little input. What happens next to the Crown Vic is as much in doubt as what happened next to Trent Lott was in mid-December...
  • With respect to the police officers who have perished in fires of their Crown Vics, I must say that any death is one too many. However, that said, if the number is 13 over the past 15 years or so, then I believe that the cars are inherantly safe and that there are probably many other situations where police officers are dying that could use our attention and resources. As a Crown Vic owner, I wouldn't drive anything else, but I agree that it would behoove Ford to find a fix for this problem quickly and retrofit all police vehicles ASAP.
    BTW, how much has been discussed about additions to these vehicles screwed into the trunk? Could this be a factor?
    And, finally, I also agree with an earlier post that some responsibility should be publicly placed on those who are slamming into the rear of police vehicles stopped on the side of the road with their flashing lights and strobes on! Driver Ed sucks in this country.
  • usps52usps52 Posts: 1
    I am looking real hard at buying a new 2003 Mercury GM LS Premium and adding a conventional spare tire as the only option. I would really like to hear from new 2003 owners with this car and what they think, what would they order differently and approx how much they paid. Also, any 2000-2002 owners who traded up to 2003 and what they think, and how much to pay. Don't hold back with comments good or bad...25-30k is alot of money and I would appreicate honest comments! Pls adx to: usps52@yahoo.com
  • As the owner of many past & present CV/GM models, I read this board every few weeks. It is very interesting.

    The basic fuel tank location on these models dates back to the Galaxy's of the 60's. The tank is not located directly behind the bumper (like the Pinto was), but is between the trunk & rear axle. Fairly well protected from behind, and protected by the frame on the side. (Note that many small unibodies place the tank directly under the rear passenger seat.)

    The problem seems to happen only in extremely high speed rear end accidents, over 50-60 mph. If the car is hit so hard that the rear axle moves, bolts from the rear axle could possibly puncture the tank. (I doubt if most cars could take a hit like that without major problems.)

    There is a TSB (Technical Service Bulletin) that details a simple fix; typically cutting off the offending bolts. Ford should incorporate this design improvement for all new CV/GMs.

    Meanwhile, I still feel safer in this car than most others. Also, look at how the gas tank hangs right below the rear bumper on certain SUVs. Since cars are lower than SUVs, I wonder why we don't hear more reports of fires on these? Like someone said in an earlier posting, it is probably a small group of greedy lawyers and uninformed journalists that are pumping up this story.
  • Happy New Year!

    I have a problem with my 99GM Ls with 51k miles. The last couple of days the car is having problems starting. To make it start I have to pump the gas pedal before starting. I know this is not normal. Because I have not had a single problem since I got this car in 99.

    What do you think is wrong?

    Thanks
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    After inserting the key and turning it clockwise just a little, you enable the electrics to actuate. After hesitating two seconds, turn the key all the way to "Start" having given the electrics time to wake up and get set. Being of the feminine nature, Victoria needs a little foreplay.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    ahem... cough, cough.

    :)
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    I once called a hangover a cold with a sore throat and got away with it.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Hmmm...

    I can't remember a hangover I ever had that acted like a cold with a sore throat. The ones that I remember (ackkk!) behaved like a horrible case of the stomach flu.

    Ahem again.

    Moving right along....

    :-)
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    but I'm sincerely serious about the proceedure for starting the 4.6 engine. I've got two and when in a hurry, it takes longer to start and turns the starter motor more than when I wait for the electics to dispense fuel and air into the combustions chamber prior to cranking.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    not a problem -- just remember that we are family friendly site, that's all!! :-)
  • usaf52usaf52 Posts: 70
    My neighbor traded in his 2000 CV. He's not the little old lady from Pasadena, but close. He's an 80 year old gentleman who only put 15K on that car. Checked with the Ford dealer that now has it on the lot. They have it Ford certified and for sale at $12900. It is the STD model. I understand that the certification from Ford gives it a 6 year powertrain warranty, roadside assistance and stipulates that the vehicle must be in almost new condition when sold. True?? Comments??????
  • genex1genex1 Posts: 11
    Those of us who may have underestimated the problem by thinking that only 13 deaths in more than a decade is not catastrophic, might have our minds changed by looking at the link provided by Pluto5 in his Dec 31 posting. The link seems to document the fact that there were over 80 fatalities involving GM, CV and TCs between 1994 and 2002 which fatalities appear to have been associated with fire. Moreover, one would have to expect that there have been many more non fatal but serious injuries resulting from gas tank fires. Still, without comparatively knowing overall rates of fatalities and serious injuries, it is hard to judge how bad the problem is. I'm inclined to think that the risk factor is no greater than it is for all cars in general.
  • pluto5pluto5 Posts: 618
    No offense but that's what people said about the Pinto.
  • cfocfocfocfo Posts: 147
    For anyone that knows ...... what is the going price for a GM relative to the Invoice price posted by Edmunds ?

    I would expect below invoice, maybe $400 - $500 below ? Especially now that they have been compared to the Ford Pinto ;)
  • iusecadiusecad Posts: 287
    LOL!

    although I remember reading the NHTSA investigated the Vic and found no problems. But what do they know...

    here's the link: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/Current/CrownVic/CrownVic021003.html
  • Still having trouble starting my Gm 99 LS with over 51k miles. I wrote 2 days ago in regards to my car not starting. When I turn on the car the car dies when I put it into idle. Then it will die. I tried warming up the car far awhile peddling it then tried to let it go by itself. It would idle for about 30 seconds very low and it will die again.

    Any ideas...Help my car is parked at a shopping center..somewhere.

    Thanks!
  • houndoghoundog Posts: 21
    May have some water in the fuel tank - try some water remover additive. Also, have you ever changed the fuel filter. Try the cheap fixes first - if these don't work additional diagnosis may be required. Could be an ignition problem. May be low on fuel pressure. Good luck.
Sign In or Register to comment.