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

18182848687102

Comments

  • iusecadiusecad Posts: 287
    your experience with GM / Ford gas gauges is the opposite of mine. My '95 Chevy pickup (with its 28 gallon tank) had maybe 2 gallons when the needle touched "E". My '98 Vic though seems to have 4 or 5 left at "E" when the light comes on. And my '90 was even more pessimistic. It would have 6 to 7 gallons at "E". My brother hates riding with me because he's always afraid I'm going to run out of gas...

    As for mileage, the first summer I had the '98 (2003), I got 25 hwy constantly. Now I average 22. I did just change the air filter so I'm hoping that'll help. But I've got the Focus for good mileage anyway...
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,673
    I have suspected the rear for some time, as I do have the higher ratio...but then how does the vehicle get the 17/25 rating, when it is obvious that certain factors have changed, which may directly affect mileage???
  • gmctruckgmctruck Posts: 186
    Running the gas tank down to almost empty is not a good thing to do for several reasons. Dirt and debris on the bottom of the tank has a greater chance of getting sucked up into your fuel system causing poor performance and clogged fuel passages. Second, your fuel pumps have to work harder to get and move the fuel. Some in-tank fuel pumps use the fuel to help keep them cool. So not only do you risk clogging up the fuel system, but the fuel pumps are more susceptible to early life failure from being more stressed and over heated. I usually don't go much below a half tank before filling up. You also don't feel as much pain at the pump if you fill up from a half tank versus filling up from empty. I know it's a psychological thing, but it does help ease the pain at the pump a bit. :cry:
  • turbo301turbo301 Posts: 73
    Yup, those are all good points, especially the one about the fuel pump relying on the gas in the tank as a heat sink. Especially in stop-and-go city driving, they can get pretty warm!
  • iusecadiusecad Posts: 287
    well I don't personally run it empty; there always seems to be at least 2 gallons left when I do fill up. (I hate stopping at the gas station.)

    I've never bought into the theory about the pump sucking crap off the bottom of the tank just because I've always felt that stuff gets stirred up into the mix every time you fill up. (JMHO)

    And I live in NE MN and so far haven't had to deal with stop & go traffic. But I understand what y'all are sayin'...
  • isseyvooisseyvoo Posts: 121
    A friend of mine's grandfather's estate is being settled, and on the block is a (always garaged) 1990 GM, cream colored with the half vinyl roof and opera light. I remember coveting this car when I was in college back when it was new. Anyway, I don't need the car. In fact, it would be a total indulgence. But the family is threatening to sell it to a cab company if I don't step in to save it, and it's too beautiful to suffer that fate. Anything I should be forewarned about before taking the plunge? (Obviously, since it hasn't been driven in quite some time it will need a change-out of belts, hoses, fluids, plugs, etc.)
  • frasierdogfrasierdog Posts: 128
    https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/2006fleetshowroom/2006-grmarquis.asp

    - New grille and front fascia
    - New headlamps and available fog lamps
    - New tail lamps
    - Wooptifreakingdo
    - Prettydamnpitiful

    Color me disinterested in 2006.
  • turbo301turbo301 Posts: 73
    I saw a 2006 Grand Marquis driving around about two weeks ago. They look okay - nothing that we haven't really seen before - but I fully agree that Ford is just wasting this design by not livening up a bit; the public couldn't be any less interested, and it's all Ford's fault for stagnating. Foglights are AVAILABLE? Foglights are like the new power steering - you can't imagine a new car of any stature NOT coming with them. It's shamefully that it took Ford this long to put them on, let alone not even STANDARD?

    BTW the two-tone paint treatment is gross :sick: Talk about a lack of imagination. No longer is two-toning the graceful (or outrageous, depending) styling touch it was in the '50s. Simply painting the lower half of a car a different colour (and slapping on the bumpers from the corresponding colour parts bin) barely counts as two-toning: it's more like a really distinctive gravel guard treatment!

    I love that fleet page - "4 distinctive trim levels". Gotta love how automakers today think that juggling a bit of equipment leads to the creation of "distinctive" trim levels.
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    A 2006 GM? No way, must have been a 2005 model. The build on the car doesn't even start until this coming August. If you still insist it's an '06, let's see a photo or hear a detailed description of what's different....not just a subjective slamming of what a travesty a car without foglights is (who cares). And how is two-tone paint not imaginative? See any other major brand out there with it? I don't, and I think it takes guts to do it. And why would you say it "barely counts as two-toning"? Do you expect them to paint the car a different color right down the middle? Of course the bumpers are painted, what do you want, the old chrome style back? Besides, the target demographic that the GM is aimed at typically finds two-tone paint kind of nice. I actually like one combination myself.
    Yes, Ford could do more to improve the panther line, but right now just keeping themselves in business is "Job 1".
    I plan on getting an '06 in August before they possibly ruin the current look that I find very attractive. And when the GM actually shows itself to the public, I truly hope it looks even better, because I may just get one instead of a CV.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,673
    there is another reason not to allow the tank to go below 1/4...the concept of sucking up all the silt has validity, but when you allow the tank to run too low, moisture can collect in the tank and permit rust...when the tank is over 1/4 (and, actually, kept over 1/2) the odds of moisture condensation can run very high...

    I appreciate that we do not like to stop and fuel up...but your reason for doing it your way is strictly convenience, with no basis in automotive principles...the reasons given NOT to do it your way, given by multiple posters, has sound automotive reasoning behind it...good luck...
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Posts: 572
    I have driving lights on my Intrepid R/T, and I use them maybe 3-4 times a year - I don't see where it improves visibility unless you are in the mountains. Technically speaking, most cars have driving lights, not fog lights, as fog lights are aimed lower, and are designed to shine under the fog, which typically hovers about 1 foot off the ground.

    What I miss in the newer Grand Marquis is the complete lack of chrome in the interior. Maybe it is just me, but comparing my 94 to a new one, and the newer interior looks more European, and much more boring.
  • turbo301turbo301 Posts: 73
    Dude, no need to get all bent out of shape. I love these cars too, don't forget, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. The basic body tooling of these cars has been paid off for, like, a decade, so Ford should be giving us more for our $30-$40k (Can).

    First off, I said that I thought it was an '06 because it didn't look like any '05 I'd seen. It was just in passing so it was hard to tell, but don't forget that I live only 20 minutes or so from the factory, so it could have been a prototype (no front plate, didn't see what kind of back plate it had). My best friend, then 16, got his hands on a '98 CV prototype - painted in black and white, even - before the body style even appeared on the street, so you'd be surprised at what you see around my town.

    And "who cares" about foglights? Well, I obviously do; they are very handy at illuminating the road surface, and after you drive a car with them, night driving is never the same without them. Find me another $40k (Can) car without them; the point is that Ford is cheaping out because they figure that their clientele won't notice, but that's no way to get new people into the fold.

    As for the two-toning, yeah, it's pig ugly, I don't care what anybody says. There is no imagination, it doesn't follow the contours of the car, etc. Yes, the chrome style metal bumpers would be most welcome, because they can take up to so much more damage. My '85's bumpers have taken bridge strikes, ripping other car's bumpers OFF, etc. and it still looks brand new. The soggy plastic on my '04 can barely take me washing it, let alone hitting anything (which hopefully won't happen for a while) LOL! When I said that they were painted on the two-tone models, what I meant was that they don't do anything special for the two toning package; they just grab, say, an arizona beige bumper set and slam it on a white car! Very lame. How much does that option cost? It costs nothing for Ford to make it, I'm sure.

    Anyway, keep your cool, we're all friends here and we all like the same cars. However, I'm obviously not the only one who is not impressed with Ford's stagnation with regards to Panther development since frasierdog was the one who posted "prettydamnpitiful"!
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    First of all I'm not upset, mad, hot, or even "bent out of shape". I apologize for not knowing that you live next to a Ford plant, but how would I know that? I don't study everybodies profile you know. That being said, if you claim you saw an '06, give us some details, ok? I mean you must know that this is a board where a fair amount of us would like to know what differences you saw....even if you weren't impressed.
    And where I live, foglights are either for guys that drive jacked up "meathead" 4x4 pickups, or show-offs. They really aren't needed in my neck of the woods, even though we do indeed have fog. In my opinion they are highly over rated. Besides, the new xenon (or whatever they are called) lights work very well at illumination and Ford should put them on the Vic. Foglights just muck up the lines of the front end anyway.
    And, as a Canadian, the nation that prides itself on being "accepting and well behaved on the national scene", you should know that your opinion about two-tone paint is merely subjective. It's like art, everybody has an interpretation. (Even if it can be summed up as "pig ugly"). And since you've brought it up as an area of discourse, I reviewed the Mercury site and still disagree with your rabid negativity. And chrome bumpers? Please....I was only joking about that.
    Yes, we all like the panther. But if you like it so much, why be so harshly critical because Ford is pretty much leaving it as is for '06? I mean it's a fantastic car just as it sits. Why slam Ford, during such tough economic times for them, when the Vic is nearly perfect? Like others have said, if you want a sports car....go buy one. If you want foglights (not needed anyway), either go find a more expensive euro-mobile with them, or get them installed aftermarket. I just don't see the point in being so upset verbally (yes, you, a Canadian) about a car that is nearly at the top of it's game, just because of some truly minor things. You don't like the GM two-tone paint? Ok, so don't buy one. Not enough horsepower? (I would submit this as being in need of some improvement) So put in a few reletively inexpensive mods to improve it by at least 50 to 75 hp.
    It seems to me that you're demanding a lot from a car that is a great deal for the money....and one that you say you like anyway. If you wait till next year, or the year after, Ford will be changing the Vic. I just hope it's not in the Euro or Japanese style.....it's got to stay American in style......big, roomy, rear wheel drive, V-8, and ride like a Town car.
  • turbo301turbo301 Posts: 73
    The only reason I'm being overly critical about my favorite modern car (I just bought a 2004 CV with about every penny I had in the bank, so rest assured that I DO like these cars!) is because Ford is letting it slip through the cracks. It is because of Ford's inattention to the design - indeed, to many of their designs - that they are doing so poorly financially (that, and the unions are demanding way too much). In the auto industry, "it takes money to make money", and putting money into products is how a company generates business. Letting a once-great seller like the GM/CV twins slowly die off is very depressing. And I fully agree that its replacement should be "American-style"; this SHOULD be a sure-thing, given how well the decidedly-brash Chrysler 300 is doing, but Ford may just as well decide to go down the BMW route. Let's hope not, though...

    Now, let me address a few of your points:

    a.) Foglights (or driving lights, whatever you want to call them) may "mess up" the front end styling, but they are a symbol: they immediately add an air of expense to a car. Even if you never use them, think of them as a hood ornament for the modern age. Adding this kind of luxury "flair" would make the panther design look a whole lot more modern - "relevant", if you will. I personally like the look of a car with big foglights (my dad bought a Protege5 - HUGE fogs on that puppy!). Those little dinky ones like on the Marauder, Mazda3, etc. aren't worth having, visually or functionally.

    b.) Your view of Canadians is funny :) . I guess that is the reputation we have, but rest assured that the vast majority of us are just like Americans. Despite what both Americans and Canadians like to think of themselves or each other, we're all the same. I am fully tolerant of people's opinions on the two-tone paint treatment; I never said that everyone must accept that it is gross. However, I expect that my opinion will also be tolerated. If you want to spend however many hundreds of dollars on this option, be my guest. It reminds me of the extra-padded vinyl roofs available on the '91 and down GMs; $700 for that? Anyway, as I say, people can spend their money any way they want to.

    c.) No doubt, the Panther cars are great deals; I couldn't turn my '04 down for the money! It handles great, I think the power is very respectable, etc. My only real complaint is the interior, which is quite spartan; however, it is comfortable enough. I didn't think that I was being as negative as you seem to think I was, sorry about that. In some ways I wish that Ford would never change the design, that way my car would never look old! However, for the sake of the breed (that is, big American V8 rear-drivers), this can't be allowed to happen.

    d.) The chrome I-beam bumpers were the greatest things since sliced bread. They looked great and were tough as heck.

    e.) I do indeed already have a sports car - but my CV is faster LOL!

    Now, if only more 24 year olds liked these cars as much as I do, Ford wouldn't be in this pickle and they could afford to change them up a bit :).

    Anyway, I will appologize again for coming across as overly-negative. I have a great passion for these cars, and I guess I just let it boil over out of frustration. These cars don't get nearly as much good (or at least neutral) press as they should, and that is mostly due to the lack of substantial visual change. Certainly improvements have been made under the skin, but that won't be enough to catch most people's attention.
  • iusecadiusecad Posts: 287
    Both my cars are parked in the garage when I, of course, am not driving them.

    And, I had my Chevy pickup from 12/96 to 4/04 so that's what, over 7 years, and I never had any fuel system troubles of any kind. And that thing had a large tank (28 or 32, I don't remember for sure...) So I'll save my luck for something important, like the lottery. :)

    Besides, aren't fuel tanks plastic or plastic lined now days?
  • languillelanguille Posts: 1
    How do I lift "Resume/Set-Accl/Coast" panel on steering wheel to check elec connections? Is there a catch that must be released?
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    Turbo, you seem like a decent guy and you made your points very well for a 24 year old. No apology is needed, but perhaps I became more pointed than I needed to...sorry. The Canadian attitude that we get down here can sometimes get very annoying, but you seem more resonable and less self rightous than most.
    I still don't need foglights though! But some people really do like them and I suppose I can understand that. I just don't have any need for them.
    I respect your opinion about the two-tone design. I just don't agree 100% with it. True, one of the combinations does look pretty cheap and dated, but like I said, the GM attracts many folks that think golf carts are "cool", stuffed animals in the back window are "cute", and think Frank Sinatra is still in the top 40.
    The chrome? What about all the salt on those Canadian roads and eastern rust belt states? They wouldn't last three seasons. But yes, I had them when I was younger and you could crush a sherman tank with them.
    Now for my critical look at the CV/GM.

    a.) Offer the Mustang engine as an option....but not too expensive.
    b.) Better color choices......more darker greys, browns, tans, and reds.
    c.) Update the front and rear fascia....ever so gently though.
    d.) Update the interior and dash......keep it retro though.
    e.) Start advertising this car instead of acting like it doesn't exist!!

    Take care.
  • turbo301turbo301 Posts: 73
    Thanks for your reply. I think that Canada's self-righteousness comes from our politicians, who try too hard to distance themselves from their American counterparts. Our current Liberal government can do no wrong (at least, in its mind, and somehow it keeps getting re-elected!), which has lead the whole government to have a very swelled opinion of itself. The media also perpetrates this "gotta be anything but American" attitude; it's our version of national pride, for some reason. However, most, or at least many, Canadians are normal people who have the same values as you guys.

    Our roads are salted to death, and even though my '85 is pretty darn rusty (even with only 107,000 km on it!), the bumpers are like new. Ford's chrome is 100x better than General Motors' in this regard, since the latter's bumpers seem to rust and peel a lot worse and in shorter time. I'm sure that modern chrome is not as good a quality as that old Ford stuff, unfortunately.

    My take on your points:

    a.) You said it!
    b.) I think we need more interesting colours - too much tan out there these days. How about some nice greens?
    c.) Sure
    d.) The current dash IS retro - but what's the fine line between retro and outdated LOL?! Some sort of '60s luxury car homage might be nice, though... Certainly more chrome would be nice, since chrome has come back "in" lately.
    e.) Amen!
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    Most Americans, me included, tend to be more interested in just being able to do what we want to do....you know, freedom. We want the government to butt out and shut up so that we can enjoy our cowboy spirit in peace. In the media that I hear, and on various message boards I frequent, many Canadians really have this peculiar need to distance themselves from anything American (just as you noted). I can understand that to a certain extent, but sometimes it really comes off as arrogant and snobish. (Just like our liberals here). From the war in Iraq, to the gay marriage issue, religion, politics, history, government assistance, healthcare etc, I'm getting a rather strong impression that Canadians despise the U.S. I really don't see how this will be beneficial to a nation so dependant upon another, do you?
    Glad you agree about the CV/GM points I made. Yes, the current dash is sort of retro....but more like early eightees retro, not the '60's or '70's that I was trying to convey. A bit more chrome (like you said), maybe some added colored lighting (like that slight green hue from the late sixties), perhaps even a touch of REAL wood? (That may be going too far).
    I didn't know that Ford bumpers would last in all that salt...I'm surprised. When I was a little kid I used to like to rub the palm of my hand on the rust bumps of chrome bumpers. I can even remember trying to clean off those bumpers with rust remover. Always left pits in the chrome.
    The colors? Yeah, tan and silver is everywhere! Even white is over represented these days. Same with a common red...ala Dodge...yeck! Yeah, I love green. Some interesting greens would be cool, just not the blue-green crap from the early nineties.....reminds me of a swimming pool bottom.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    and I'm glad to see you folks working things out.

    However, we need to back off the political characterizations and the flat generalizations about any given ethnic group - neither subject belongs here.

    So carry on about the cars - and again, I'm glad to see a good conversation going on here. :)
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    I can understand why Canadians buy fewer large cars with the higher fuel prices and all.
    I'm kind of lucky in my situation. My job is only 10 miles away so it really doesn't matter about gas mileage. I could drive a CV, Civic, Echo, or Expedition. But for a V-8, the Vic does outstanding.
    Somebody on another board has now said they saw a 2006 GM. I just don't understand how this can be if Ford has posted, in company letterhead, that the build on these cars doesn't even start until August sometime. I just wish I could see a photo or other proof that an '06 is already out there. Like I've said before, the facelifted GM is something I really want to see. It may be a preview look at what the CV will look like next year......and if it's really nice, I'll get the GM instead of the CV. No way though that I'll wait all the way to 2008 for a 3v engine or MAYBE better styling. I like it the way it is well enough to not gripe if they vastly improve anything. Although if they pop in that Mustang V-8 in '07 - '08....I'll be ticked!! 300 horses in a CV would be really nice!
    P.S. I thought the CV was cleared of any flaws in regard to the fuel tank?
  • turbo301turbo301 Posts: 73
    The situation with the CV/GM reminds me of the 1981 Firebird. Sales lagged because it was the last of the 2nd generation, and everyone knew that the 3rd generation was coming in '82 - lighter, more "European", etc. Those few who did buy (and keep) '81s are laughing now, though, as 2nd generation cars are worth far more than 3rd gen cars. Who knows? Maybe if you get one of the last CVs/GMs it will end up appreciating if it is replaced with a smaller, more European car in 2008.

    300 horses in a CV is called a Marauder; given that sales disaster, Ford is probably disillusioned with the notion of a powerful full-size sedan. Just think, if they could have done a 300 hp CV in 1994, it might have gone somewhere. The big problem with the Marauder was its price and positioning. Everyone thinks that, because a car is V8 powered, it has to be ultra-fast. Instead, if people just saw the Marauder as an over-achieving cruiser (and if it was priced only a few grand more than a GM), which is what it really is, it would seem like a much better car.

    As for the CV Pinto-ing out, it might have been cleared - or Ford burried the cases. Regardless, I still think that they're plenty safe cars. The gas tank has been in the same basic place since 1979, as far as I know, so why did the complaints just start in the last few years? No matter how your gas tank is arranged, if you get rear ended hard enough, there will be the possibility of fire. Lawsuits like those against Ford tend to be more "get rich quick" than justice-oriented.

    I commute 120 km every day, so I am pleased to see my car getting 26 mpg :) . Paying for gas is one luxury (actually, a necessity) that I will gladly pay, 'cause I love driving so much.
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    I see what you are saying about the Camaro/Firebird. It would be real funny to end up with a situation like that. In reality I've already considered it. I just don't trust that Ford will make the right move on the remake. I hope I'm wrong.
    The Marauder was a nice car with poor marketing and a high dollars-to-horsepower price tag. If they just slip the Mustang engine into the Vic as an option for the younger or performance crowd, and give the whole car a minor facelift inside and out, then start a superb, yet simple advertising blitz about the reliability, toughness (cop car and taxi angle), comfort, power, and a "last of it's kind American icon" kind of campaign, I really believe they could easily revive the sales and add ten years to this car. Look how long the Yamaha V-max motorcycle stayed in production even though it's widely regarded as dated. Make the people what they don't know they want, and they will buy it like sheep.
    How far, in miles, is 120km? Please excuse my ignorance.
    Do you use synthetic or dino oil?
    Yeah, the gas tank thing was cleared a while back. Ford was found not at fault from what I recall. With Ford being so large, every "pro-consumer" and "Ralph Nader wanna be" is looking for anything to bring them down. They tried it with the Firestone tire thing too. And right now a recall has started about some switch or something that caused a fire in something like one car out of a million....but I wouldn't want to have been the one that owned that ONE car!
  • turbo301turbo301 Posts: 73
    Actually, I wouldn't mind being the owner of that one car - just think of the settlement you'd get LOL!

    Although Ford may have been cleared in the courts, the damage done in the court of public opinion will take a while to undo. One of the big selling points of the Panther cars is its safety, and even calling that into question, let alone there being something actually wrong with it, will probably hurt.

    I was talking to one of London's (Ontario, that is) police officers the other day about whether they were thinking of using Chargers or not (we currently exclusively use CVs). He said no because Chargers do not have enough room for rear seat passengers when the cage is installed (there's precious little there even in a CV!). Also, most of the aftermarket equipment is built specifically for the CV. While Dodge will do its darndest to change this, at least Ford has a bit of an advantage for the time being. This seems fair, since they're the only company that did not abandon the traditional police formula so many years ago.

    120 km is about 75 miles. I will just be using standard oil in my CV, at least for the time being. My turbo T/A gets $7 per liter synthetic, but I don't think I need to resort to this in the old 4.6 :). I've heard that there isn't much benefit to using synthetic in a "regular" motor, as long as you change the oil at the required intervals and the car is not used in severe-duty driving. My highway stints are about as light duty as you can get.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,673
    Can't argue your point except to say that there are folks who do not use seatbelts, even tho it is prudent to do so, yet some have wrecks and do not suffer injury...you go below 1/4 tank without bad effect...still, I believe it is prudent to not go below the 1/4 mark, simply because I have much better odds of preventing the condensation problem...will it be perfect???...no, but I do feel it is risky to take the chance of water condensation when a simple behavior has a great chance of prevention...and, you are still going to refuel anyway, so what the heck...YMMV
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    Although primarily about Fusion, there are some interesting hints about the future of Five Hundred here (and perhaps even more so about Crown Vic/Grand Marquis):

    http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0507/03/A01-235800.htm
  • turbo301turbo301 Posts: 73
    Well, the CV/GM are fairly "urban" already: they're not "tough" looking like the Fusion, but you get a GM with one of those fuzzy coach roofs, chrome wheels, whitewalls and that extra fender opening chrome, and you have yourself a fairly pimpin' ride. It's amazing how small the line is between a "geezer-mobile", which is often how CVs/GMs are termed, and a hip hop-esque pimpmobile!

    Besides that, the CV has built-in urban toughness by virtue of it being THE quintessential cop car. How much more urban does it get than that (wrong side of the law, I guess :).

    I imagine that Ford will restyle the CV/GM into something much squarer come 2008 or whenever, to be more in line with the Fusion/500. The excitement around the Focus' "new edge" styling died off pretty quickly, so I'm sure that Ford is desperate to find a winning formula that will not date itself in 5 years.
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    The easiest way to "toughen up" a car is the following....in no particular order.

    1. Front end more angular and aggressive.
    2. Same with rear.
    3. Beefier looking tires and more utilitarian/hotrod/sinister wheels.
    4. Add horsepower.
    5. Advertise the heck out of it.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Posts: 468
    The handling package may be a little too firm for tradtionalists, and it produces some jiggles. A no-no is a car like the Marquis. Too bad all the other good stuff in the package doesn't come with the standard suspension which is more liveable. Of course, the solid rear axle needs to be replaced with a modern independant set up.
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    I had a 2001 Crown Vic LX (lost in divorce). Recently I test drove an '05 LX Sport and didn't really notice any difference in quality of ride. I'm real picky too, so I was surprised. Does anybody else out there really notice a jittery or harsher ride with the sport package?
Sign In or Register to comment.