Howdy, Stranger!

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





Future Crown Vic and Grand Marquis

245678

Comments

  • bigunit67bigunit67 Posts: 62
    The TC, GM, and CV have been around a while and dont have a lot of development costs to recoup. An article I saw last year in the USA today stated that the ave profit, as of the end of 2003, on each car was approximately 10,000 dollars. Knowing that, what ford attempted to do with the sticker of a Marauder was nothing but an attempt to milk more profit out of one product line to cover holes in the rest of it's lineup...NOT offer a competitive car at a realistic price.

    Adding that to what Marsha7 says, taking an already high profit-margin car and attempting to milk several thousand more $$$ out of it is what turned the public off, not the concept of "more power". If you look around at the new 280 HP Avalon, the 265 HP Maxima, and many others, the public is addicted to ponies again, despite high gas prices.

    When you see the sticker for a Chrysler 300c and then compare it (last model year) to the Marauder, Ford has a hard time justifying what they offered vs what others produced from scratch. I do agree with you that they should raise the content value of the TC. It should not be the price it is with a 240 HP engine powering it. However, I would wager most TC owners wouldn't be swayed by what a Ford or Mercury can offer since there is more to a town car than just what's under the hood (extra size, status, amenities, etc).

    Whether we're 100% right or not, maybe SOMEONE at Ford is reading this and realizes what they're throwing out there is behind the times and they'll catch up soon.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Posts: 572
    As long as the redesign doesn't mess with the basics, which in the case of my 94 Grand Marquis, a car that feels solid even after 11 years and 115,000 miles.

    I'd settle for the same power, but I would like a 6 speed auto for better fuel efficiency. If they could add a couple of MPG to both the city and highway EPA rating, I'd be happy.

    I'd even settle for the same exterior if they would update the interior, especially the horrible cup holders in the newer ones. The one in my 94 falls short, but it feels Swiss-made compared to the one I saw in a 2005 at the auto show. Also, go back the the better leather, thicker carpeting, and some interior chrome they had before the decontenting began.
  • I agree with jsylvester, the basic car is great. I, too, have a 94 GM. Mine has almost 200,000 miles. It still looks and runs great, albeit with a few electrical issues that don't affect the performance. I'm about ready to scope out a new car and although I haven't yet looked closely at new GMs, I think I will get one, unless they have been seriously "decontented". I like mine so well I hate to have to go and reinvent the wheel, so to speak. I hope I am not disappointed when I do go look at new ones. If they have cheapened the leather, carpets, etc., maybe I will be. It doesn't appear as though Ford will be improving those items soon. Too bad.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    The only problems I have with the Crown Victoria / Grand Marquis / Town Car are the completely outdated interior (sliding around on the flat seats is no fun), and the solid rear axle. You just can not have a smooth ride with a solid rear axle. Ford apparently did not have a competitive push before the 300 & Charger came along.

    As for the engine, the 2006 Explorer has upgraded to the 292 HP / 300 Ft.-Lbs. three valve 4.6 V8 and the six speed automatic, and all of the other vehicles which used the two valve 4.6 apparently will also upgrade to that engine and transmission for improved power and better mileage.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Posts: 572
    You are correct, there are some compromises with the solid rear axle, but there are advantages. It is simple and durable, and usually requires only simple shock absorbers as any future maintenance.

    On the interior, I'm guessing part of the update will be to make better form-fitting seats for the bucket seat option. Myself personally, I prefer the bench seat, but you do slide around on the leather.
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    They should drop the Crown Victoria name and replace it with the Falcon when the Australian Ford Falcon comes here in 2008.

    check it out here.

    Australian Fords
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    Here is the Australian Ford FPV GT-P (FPV stands for Ford Performance Vehicles).

    You can get it without the stripes.

    image
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    Sorry, but the Falcon just looks way too dull for me. Reminds me of a cross between a '95 Mustang and a new Pontiac GTO. No real eye catching lines or distinct qualities about it. As for the Crown Vic....why change it so drastically? It's an original! Great ride...one of the best, very clean and simple lines, very reliable, smooth power delivery, rear wheel drive BENEFITS (yes, benefits), classy yet slightly retro in design, and not every "joe" on the block owns one. True, cops and taxis have them, but they aren't the same in appearance. The only thing that I would want them to do in 2006-2008, is maybe use a 3v 4.6, slightly upgrade the interior, offer all versions the same wide color choices, and maybe modernize the front fascia....but not too much, and leave the rear alone.
    Whatever they do I hope it looks great because I plan on getting a 2006 model....unless they butcher the design or turn it into a Falcon!
  • xkssxkss Posts: 722
    The Falcon has way more performance than the Crown Vic.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Posts: 572
    I prefer the Panther over the Austrailian Falcon, but I'm more into comfort and durability than blazing performance.

    As stated above, the Panther performs it's role very well; all it needs is some updating, especially in the interior and the drivetrain. My only concern is if Ford monkey's with the drivetrain, it will lose it's bulletproof reliability.
  • basilsbasils Posts: 25
    True, the Falcon out performs the CV in quickness and cornering, but Ford has the new Mustang GT for that. Why do we need to change the CV into some kind of teenager car? Leave it as is with just some improvements like a bit added horsepower and slight styling changes. For the money this car can't be touched. It's like a Lincoln for the budget minded. The level of comfort is superb and yes, the durablity is top notch......so why mess with it? I fear that once the Crown Vic gets changed into another platform, we'll never see it's kind again. No more retro styling, no more superb comfort (unless you pay 40k or more), no more large size ( a great alternative to a clunky SUV), and the end of an era of the big American rear wheel drive car.
    Let's keep it alive!
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Posts: 2,287
    I too love the Panther series, but know that large size, comfort and very conservative styling can also be found in the Montego/Five Hundred. No RWD or V-8 or body on frame though. Thank goodness Mr. Ford tossed Mr. Nasser out the door, or the Panther would be gone already, and those who CHOOSE a Vic/GM would no longer be able to.

    I own and drive a Five Hundred, but I want Panthers to be around for a very long time....
  • chris65amgchris65amg Posts: 372
    ""As stated above, the Panther performs it's role very well; all it needs is some updating, especially in the interior and the drivetrain. My only concern is if Ford monkey's with the drivetrain, it will lose it's bulletproof reliability.""

    One of my dad's friends has a Crown Vic from '93 or thereabouts. The car has 150k miles on it, and since he takes it in for regular oil changes and maitenance, the car is still running very well. Ford doesn't need great performance from this car. It is also as durable as any fom the Japanese, which is hard to say of a Ford. I do agree that they should tweak the drivetrain a bit.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    firm up the bucket seats, which would add $10 for firmer foam and better side hugging (if you want cushy, get the bench seat...bucket seats should have firmer support like an LS Lincoln...I sat in my buddy's new Yukon SLT and the seats were supportive)...besides, the old folks do not get buckets and floor shifters, so totally different seats can appeal to a totally different market...and modernize the sound system, it looks like a Lafayette system from the 70s...

    This car is the only one I have seen that does not have the option of heat or air going to dash vents and floor at same time...why???
  • 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
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,661
    on my 2004 CV LX Sport...I see so many CVs on the road, with the badge "Crown Victoria LX" on the trunk, and they have those combination taillights where the upper 80% is red, but there is a 1" x 4" band at the bottom which is the amber signal light...mine is all red...what years and exact models had the combo light (red/amber) and why did Ford change it after they created the red/amber, where the amber signal light is so much more visible in the dark, fog, mist, rain, and just off in the distance on a clear night???...so stupid to make it and then limit it to certain years or specific models... :confuse: :confuse:
  • surrfurtomsurrfurtom Posts: 124
    I believe that all the P71 police versions of the CV had the red tailights. The civilian versions up until 2004 had the red/amber lens. In 2004 Ford put the solid red in all CVs. Can't give you a good reason for the change other than consolidation of the tailight lens design. I agree the red/amber are more noticeable for civilian vehicles as they do not have auxiliary emergency strobe lights.
  • Why does Ford or any other car company for that matter seem to put to small an engine in cars the first year they are introduce? Don't they drive these cars first. Yeah I know the are trying to get good MPG. Don't the know we (consumers) would like a good mix of power and MPG.
  • Dropping the CV would really be the death of the CV. Olds did it to all their cars and look where they are now! Buick is next after getting rid of the Park Avenue/LeSabre, Regal, Century names. All of this is IMO, of course. Besides most folks associate the Falcon name with a compact. Look how everyone got so upset about a 4-door Charger!
  • How about a 5.4 in a LX sport and then call it interceptor? I'll take mine black on black please.
This discussion has been closed.