Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis

1323335373861

Comments

  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    I would have purchased a Ramber 6, 4 door instead of the Mustang GT.
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    Due to the mild winters the last 4 or 5 years, it's been more like 5 days. The 3 days a year the snow or freezing rain catches me on my commute, my car goes 15 MPH along with the Sports Utility Vehicles that are also stuck in traffic just fine.

    There are plenty of places in the country where the terrain and weather are different and I can understand "needing" an SUV. But in flat suburbia, it's all about image .... spoon fed from the auto manufacturors.

    Now they seem to be telling people that they need a SUV that has more of a "car-like" ride, so rather than sitting on a tall truck chassie, or even a Minivan chassie, we will build the new SUV on a car chassie. That will really produce a smooth "car-like" ride.
    Well, here is a novel idea to get a "car-like" ride. How about buying a car ?
    You have extra groceries ? Then buy a car with a big f'ing trunk !
    You want to bring a 4'x8' piece of plywood home every Saturday ? Come on, who really does that ?
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    with the engine that's in the Aviator.
  • 99_gm_owner99_gm_owner Member Posts: 1
    Just bought '99 GM. The steering wheel contols for the "cruise control" do not light up. Should they eluminate when the headlights are on? All other interior lighting seams to work as expected. When I inspected the car I did not notice a bad fuse, but I guess it is possible a fuse blew after I inspected the car. I did the inspection in daylight so I could not tell if the controls lit up or not at the time.
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
  • mercmaraudermercmarauder Member Posts: 22
    Consumer Reports is just the "2 cents" of some people who are not "car people" if you know what I mean. And that's about what CR is worth to me: 2 cents.

    Years ago I bought my wife her dream car at the time: a '90 MK VII. Beautiful, wonderful, powerful, reliable, comfortable car. My brother-in-law asked me if I had read the CR evaluation of it. I hadn't, so he promptly produced it.

    They trashed the MK. But on closer inspection the fine print stated that they hadn't actually tested a '90 MK, their opinion was based on info they had on the '87 model or some such nonsense. Totally useless information.

    I personally had never driven a GM until I bought my '03 Marauder. The ride isn't stiff, or harsh, or nervous - and I understand that it's firmer than the standard GM.

    If you drove a GM or a Marauder and the ride was rough then something was wrong with the car.

    Ford L/M took a great platform and made it even better IMHO.
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    mercmarauder: we probably have different definitions of what "stiff" is. But, for a big car to be able to handle and corner as the Marauder does, it has to have a very firm ride. There's no free lunch.

    I've always purchased the "heavy duty" suspension with every new car that I bought, fully realizing that many times "heavy duty" meant nothing more than different shocks.

    At the risk of being harpooned, the way the Marauder took sewer plate dips and road irregularities reminded me of only one other car that I've ever owned-my 1965 Corvette.

    Hard to explain, but as I watched the Marauder fender reaction when taking a bump. it brought back those happy Stingray days.

    I liked the Marauder ride, but, I didn't hit any real monster potholes or frost heaves at 60 mph, and, as I said, I wonder if I would still like it after the car had 70,000 miles on it and started to loosen up. (Never got to 70,000 on my Corvette; sold it with 18,000 miles in 1966 and got married. Sometimes I wonder............................)
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    You would never trade your wife back for that Corvette with 18,000 miles on it !

    My criteria for a recent car purchase was:

    Comfort & Fit (I'm very tall)
    Reliability
    Safety
    Value
    Decent MPG

    I would of liked 20 MPG + in the city, but you can't have them all at my size.

    Liked the new Corvette, but it took me 3 minutes to get my second leg out of it.
  • mercmaraudermercmarauder Member Posts: 22
    Yeah, it's all subjective, and my knee probably jerked a little.

    I'd characterize the Marauder's ride as firm. After all, it's a performance car.

    My car purchases lean toward performance. Mustang GTs, Thunderbirds, etc. Though I had limited experience with Mercs until the Marauder. But I have owned Lincolns and Crown Vics previously.

    My Marauder doesn't seem to ride any firmer than the Thunderbirds, and is much softer than the Mustangs. About on a par with my Dad's '98 Crown Vic with handling pkg.

    So I'm just assuming that a regular Grand Marquis would be softer and more comfortable.

    I think the new rack and pinion steering and heavier sway bars account for the major improvements in the Marauder handling. One complaint I always had about Lincolns, Crown Vics, etc. was that "floating" feeling I'd get when cruising on the interstates. I didn't really feel connected to the car. I do with the Marauder.

    IMHO it's a great car. Originally over priced, yes, but now dealers are offering them for under $30K.

    Get one today!
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    I had hoped to hold off till the spring for a new car, but it looks like my 89 Towncar is starting to give me more headaches than it's worth.

    Now the fun begins-what to buy?

    Short list-2003 Marauder (28+K); 2002-2003 TBird (35-40K); 2003 Towncar (35-37K)(replaces Jaguar S on my list; Jag's too expensive; just can't trust the economy and I'm too near retirement to spend almost 50K on a car).

    Merc dealer called me last night; said I could order one in black, blue or silver. But, most likely, I would not get the $3,000 "take car from stock" rebate. Have to check on that.

    Does anyone know if the Marauder silver is Silver Birch or Silver Frost? Birch is a much richer color.

    I'm still hung up on the Marauder not being the musclecar that it was advertised to be, at least out of the showroom, and I'm not about to start fooling around with chips and 4:10 gears. (Replacing 3:55s with 4;10s means an RPM increase of about 15% which has to equate to shorter motor life, no matter now good the car is put together.)

    I, too, have trouble getting in/out of a car like the new TBird with the roof on/up, but 35K for a leftover 2002 (40K+ list) is a good deal.

    I like the new TC and the $3,500 cash back, but I keep reading too many rumors about the "possibility" that the 2004 TC may get more power (DOHC 4.6?). That would really tick me off. There's also a new option package which provides an argent colored grille and "wheel pockets". Haven't seen one, yet.

    One last choice: since the 89 TC is driven by my wife mostly, there still are a few leftover 2002 Continentals that are going dirt cheap (I get the Ford A-Z plan pricing.) Could be a good choice for her especially in the snow. I also hear that the 2002 Continental is pretty peppy. (I drove one last summer, and I thought it was a pretty nice car, especially with the adjustable ride rear shocks. Dash didn't seem up to luxury car standards, though. Didn't get the chance to nail it.)

    Oh, yeah, one more. Firesale on leftover 2002 Lincoln LS's.

    Tough choices, like back in 1966 when I sold the Corvette. It was either furniture or the 65 Corvette, so I chose furniture.

    The 89 TC is going into the shop Monday for an estimate; car wanders too much; maybe it's just an alignment, but it's got over 130,000 miles.
  • mercmaraudermercmarauder Member Posts: 22
    The Marauder silver is/will be silver frost.

    I consider the Marauder a "muscle car" and I truly believe it lives up to the "hype." It's an awesome performer stock. If you need stump-pulling power then it can easily be modded up with a 4.10 gear. IMHO it doesn't need it:

    Stock 0-60 times
    Car and Driver 7.5
    Motor Trend 6.89

    Really pulls from about 40-120.

    I briefly considered a new TBird as well. Very affordable right now compared to when they first came out. Nice little car, but under-powered. No room for my kids, either.

    Have you looked at a Crown Vic LX Sport? Resembles the Marauder, is available in lots of colors. I considered it - but ultimately decided to spend a few thousand more on the Mercury. Got a lot more horsepower, torque, and IMHO a lot more car for my money.
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    I actually like the front of the CV LX Sport slightly better than the Marauder. And, you can get a black exterior with a medium parchment interior, a combination I prefer over black/charcoal. (Saw a GM LSE with parchment buckets next to a Marauder. The parchment interior, to me, looked richer.)

    I also favor the regular GM rear end treatment, but without the horizontal chrome trim. As is, the Marauder looks too much like a police car from the rear until you get closer to see the pipes and MARAUDER treatment.

    Don't care for silver frost; silver birch is much more appealing, IMHO. A Silver Birch Marauder with blacked out Marauder rear lettering, B-pillar, and vertical grille blades could be real interesting; might even consider a very thin black pinstripe, front to rear.

    I guess I'm hung up on Mercury's boasting of 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. Some road tests were as "slow" as 8 flat. (I don't get the opportunity to exceed 75-80 mph in the crowded North Jersey area, but I do get the chance to push the 0-? range every now and then.) Just don't care for the idea of beating, or losing, to a Japanese sedan by a few tenths, and I wouldn't risk continuing a race to the 100 mph speed. Insurance in NJ is too expensive even without speeding tickets.

    Do you really feel the TBird is under powered? I thought that it was tested 0-60 in 7 flat, and the 2003 could even be a little quicker.

    Two seater would work for me. My kids are either married or too old to drive around with mom and dad, anyway. (My daughter has her own 99 Mustang; pretty quick, for a six.)

    For the few thousand difference, I'd still go for the Marauder over the CV LX. The CV LX seems like a car that would become "just a car" too soon. Nice package, though.

    Dealer told me that the 3K rebate would be applicable assuming that the vehicle was delivered in a month when the rebate is still valid(?).

    How's that for a crapshoot?
  • mercmaraudermercmarauder Member Posts: 22
    I didn't know that Mercury claimed 0-60 times of under 6.5 seconds. But it probably wouldn't take much to get there since the Marauder can do it in less than 7 stock.

    The Thunderbird "feels" under powered to me. Don't get me wrong. I love it! But I guess I feel about it the way you feel about the Marauder: it doesn't live up to the expectations created by its looks. But I think the 'Bird gets 30 or 50 more horsepower for '03. That should make a difference.
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    I went to an autoshow in the Jacob Javits arena in NY City. The Marauder (a total disaster; different shades of black) was on display. On a Mercury provided podium was an informational description of the new Mercury muscle car, the Marauder. Along with motor size, horsepower, etc was the following statement "0-60 in 6.5 seconds".

    Couldn't be any plainer; it was there, bold as could be.

    I have yet to read/see/or listen to a Marauder road test or discussion that agrees with Mercury's claim; Motorweek TV called it, and I quote, "a pussycat off the line".

    But, everybody that owns one says they are so fast. Then why are so many buying 4:10 gears and Reinhart chips? I don't want to buy a 28K self proclaimed muscle car and drive to Reinhart motors in Florida to make it run; that's not what I bargained for.

    Am I p****d? You bet. I have always liked Mercurys, even when the "kids" of my age were jumping at 442's, GTO's, and Chevelle 396's. I flipped the first time I read a roadtest on the 1969 Cyclone CJ 428. Finally, a Merc that ran!

    Fast forward to the present. Here, so I thought, was an American car company bringing us (me) back to the good old days when America ruled the highways, and only strange and weird people bought Datsuns and Toyotas.

    (I worked for a Datsun dealer in Leonia, NJ, in the early 60's. While driving a Datsun to the dealership from the Port Elizabeth, NJ docks on a dark, rainy night, the electrical system just died; no lights or windshield wipers st 70 mph on the NJ Turnpike. Great car!! My co-worker bought a Datsun Fairlady, a Datsun sportscar. What a joke.)

    The USA used to rule when it came to the automobile market. But, we decided to forget about cars and build Explorers, Durangos, and whatever. So, we lost the car market to the Germans and Japanese. How long before we lose the SUV market?

    Yeah, Fords are built in Canada, and Japanese cars are built in the good old USA, but where are the profits going?

    Sorry folks, just had to vent. We lost the electronics market, we lost the car market, and we will soon lose the truck (excuse me-SUV) market.

    But, my kids can always get jobs as telemarketers.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Bordering on OT, but where are the profits going? To the suppliers of Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, to their employees, and to the communities where the plants are, in addition to the investors from Japan.

    You think "American" cars are built of "American" parts? Hardly. Why even that Marauder you were speaking of is built in Canada. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    And there is a Marauder board here at Edmunds which would be a good place to read and post about the Marauder. This here is the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis Board! :)
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    and they're brand new. Recently I found a very slightly used 03 Black Executive Towncar up in Maine for 27 and change in "autotrader.com". I have also heard the 04 TC will have the Aviator engine, but that's 18 months away from getting one for 30k so let's buy the 03 and enjoy now.
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    Marauder board went dead; very little posting. Even the once lively Lincoln LS board is very slow.

    Thought I'd try to liven this board up a bit with topics a bit off the beaten path, but if you folks feel that the Marauder's not a car to be discussed on a Gran Marquis board, ok with me.
  • harmarharmar Member Posts: 94
    Since some parts of the Marauder are likely to filter into "basic" GMs, I'm interested in owners' experiences; good or bad. Right now, I can't justify spending that much money on one, but maybe the lottery gods will shine upon me someday. (I'm not holding my breath.) Meanwhile, it's a Merc. Let 'er rip!
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    Anyone else buy a new CV or GM lately ? I was hoping to share and receive car experiences, tips , etc on this board, but maybe the GM market IS mostly the Grandparents Market, (non-internet users ? : )

    I am really enjoying the new Grand Marquis LS Ultimate a lot. The ride, electronic instramentation, leather, compass, outside temp, audio and fan buttons on the steering wheel, blah, blah, blah, etc !

    One noticible noise after start up, sounds like an electronic motor running for about 20 seconds. I'm guessing it's the air suspension making load adjustments ? Anyone else have a guess ?

    James130 & Genex1, I just went back and read your reviews and I could not agree more, the GM has many pluses. I took it out for some hwy miles to break it in and even at 90 mph, I felt secure about the steering, engine power, and overall saftey of the cargo. Even though I prefer flying to driving, we will be taking our next family trip in the GM and I am actually looking forward to it.

    Best of luck .....
    Back to the football game.
  • harmarharmar Member Posts: 94
    I haven't bought one in months, either, Kinley. Michigan's odds are usually around 14 million - 1. When the jackpot gets to $30 or $40 million, though, I delude myself and waste a buck.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    I don't believe the CV LX Sport nor the GM LSE are being built anymore - I think the order guide for the LX Sport model code is now only available with a front bench.

    I can only assume slow sales.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Or too close to the Marauder at less money...
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    Did a little dealership tire kicking yesterday. (Wife's really getting on me to sell the 89 Towncar; needs about $600 in work, but, damn, that car (except for a bit of wandering) runs/rides like brand new. When I hear that the TC's are 200-300,000 mile cars, I can believe it.)

    First, I stopped at an L&M dealer in Clifton, NJ. Every GM (5) in the showroom was decked out with an add-on vinyl top, chrome wheel lip moldings, stainless decorative trim between front/rear wheel wells, and leather interior added to the base 24K GM.

    I hate to admit it, but the half roof didn't look bad on the regular GM. Work quality looked pretty good. (Moldings were overkill.)

    Then I saw an abomination; a black Marauder with a black half roof and all the moldings mentioned above! Too stunned to even ask the dealer what the hell he was thinking. The only good thing I can say about the modification is that the top shop designed a very attractive circular chrome Mercury god's head emblem that was installed on each sail panel (same place where Lincoln puts the Signature or Cartier emblem). Not as large as the Mercury decklid. ornament, but nice, nevertheless.

    Then I went to a Ford dealer that had a sharp LX Sport black/charcoal on his lot with minimal options. Car listed for 28 plus; my price, A plan and $2,500 rebate, $23,500. Very appealing.

    Dealer also had one 2003 powder blue TBird; no Ford discount (or rebate) available. Car had the black/white option interior. I noticed that the interior was, design/color-wise, almost identical to my 1958 Thunderbird; black seats/white inserts (even the shape of the seats was similar); black upper doorpanel/white lower trim; only design difference is that my 58's dash is solid black with a lot of chrome.

    Are the LX Sport and GM LSE both really dead, except for what's on the dealer lot?

    All together, the Merc dealer had seven Marauders in stock including the (ugh) "modified" one. The Merc's about 5K more than the CV LX Sport, but seems to have a lot more options in addition to the drivetrain. For 5K difference, I'd rather have the Marauder, but I don't know if my wife could get used to the stiffer ride.
  • 99windstar99windstar Member Posts: 30
    Wow. You do sound pretty angry. I didn't see the exhibit that you did, but I'll take your word for it.

    And not to beat a dead horse: but the car is fast. I don't want to make excuses for Mercury, but I can see how that 6.5 time COULD have come about.

    If a car mag can get a stock, "green" Marauder to 60 MPH in 6.89 seconds, it might be possible for a professional driver to get a properly prepared Marauder to 60 in 6.5. After all, we're talking about advertising or marketing here. It's not unusual for car companies to do things like ice down intakes, use racing octane gas, etc. Do their advertised performance numbers ever match up to the real world?

    But even if the time you saw posted is a lie, the car is still fast. Stock Marauders are running high 14's at 95 plus in the 1/4 mile. With a top speed of between 119-125 (depending on who you ask) limited - and over 140 unlimited.

    I don't see how you can complain. It is what it is. It's much faster than either my 97 4.6 'Bird, or '94 'Stang GT. In fact, the only thing that comes close is the 429 Ford XL I drove as a teen ager.

    Obviously, the Marauder is not for you.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    "When the jackpot gets to $30 or $40 million, though, I delude myself and waste a buck."

    Just buy all 14 million possible combinations, hit the 30 or 40 mil on one of them, and more than double your money!
  • 99windstar99windstar Member Posts: 30
    Technically the Marauder is a Grand Marquis with option code 300A or 300B (depending on when it was built.) So I guess it's appropriate.

    I read somewhere that the GM LSE was being discontinued. I haven't priced them, but I also heard they were pretty close to the Marauder in price and may have been seen as "internal competition."

    Speaking of which, I haven't heard or read that the CV LX Sport is dead. Seems to be pretty popular around these parts. But ALL GM/CV sales are down.

    My take on the CV LX Sport was this: very nice car. But at the time it was only $3,000 - $4,000 less than a Marauder.

    That is, I could have bought the CV for about $26,000 - 27,000 locally. The Marauder was $30,000. The Marauder seemed like a better buy. This was back in November when the Marauder rebate was $2,000.

    With Marauders going for $29,000 now (or less) - $25,000 sounds about right for a CV LX Sport.
  • harmarharmar Member Posts: 94
    Some years back, A PA couple sold their home, furniture, etc., & spent all the profits trying to cover every possible combination of numbers. Need I say what they won? A few tickets hit to the tune of several hundred dollars.

    A college prof once calculated what it would take to buy every possible combination. It would take a wealthy person who had a lot of $$$ of his own or a lot of wealthy friends. If you're already wealthy, there are surer methods of making more money. Probably, tax free methods.

    Anyone waiting to win a lottery to pay for a Maurader will need an awful lot of luck as well as a long lifespan.

    "Ugggly," like "beauty," is in the eye of the beholder. My CO in the Army had a pink '57 Olds 98. He thought it was "ugggly," but his wife loved it. After he'd had a few beers, though, the car looked a lot prettier to him.
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Member Posts: 854
    "CV's go boom".

    Sounds like another media fanatic who likes to take a small sound bite and run with it.

    Any car goes boom if hit by a drunk at 80. And it's not the same sitiation as the Pinto. Those would possibly burn if the gas cap was missing, but it was never proven to be faulty. Look it up and I dare anyone to rear end a similar vintage Vega or Gremlin and see if it is safe.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    My understanding of the lottery (the topic, Rob, the Topic!) is that if the odds are, say, 1 in 15 million, there are 15 million combinations of numbers, and only one that will win. So to buy all 15 million at a dollar a pop, you'd need 15 million dollars. And if the jackpot was 8 or 10 million, you'd be going in the hole. So you let the jackpot climb above the odds, say to 30 million, buy all 15 million dollars in tickets, and you've doubled your money on just the 30 million jackpot, not to mention all the smaller prizes you'd get for matching 3, 4, or 5 numbers. Of course, just the act of physically buying 15 million lottery tickets could take a while, so....

    What this has to do with the Grand Marquis, I'm still trying to figure out....
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    if there's a 2nd or 3rd person with winning numbers... (I too have thought of this when the Powerball gets up to $200m)
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    A few years back someone did buy every chance in a $100 million drawing.

    It was an extremely well planned project involving many people that would purchase their designated series of numbers. The main trick was having all these people get all their tickets before the drawing. The article said to get their tickets, it would take hours at the "7-11" and many had to go back to the end of the line (they were holding up other people interested in the "big" pot), to complete their series of numbers.
    The second risk was how many winnners there would be as iusecad said. The break even point for this lottery was maybe 5 to 6 people. Of course if there was only the 1 winner, they did Great !
    Well, there turned out to be ~ 4 winners, if I remember right, and the group made some money.
    However, when asked if they would do it again, they said no, because the risk & thought of not covering every ticket in the process did not warrant what they made.

    BTW, I can't believe the Host monitoring this thread has not stopped these Off-The-Subject posts ?! Edmunds seems to be so tight on other threads.

    "He says after discussing the lottery"
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Well, you ARE right, this lottery conversation is way off topic!

    So I'll take the hint and ask folks to get back to the subject, or at the very least keep the conversation to cars, preferably at least related to the subject vehicles.

    :-)
  • randpall3863randpall3863 Member Posts: 28
    The last model year I saw a true Crown Victoria or Grand Marquis made was the 1991 model year. Starting the following model year, they were shrunk. It is in body length and passenger room.

      I have parked my mid-size Marquis Brougham beside both that are still classified as full-size. The body lengths and passenger rooms are the same. But the Marquis Brougham is called mid-size. The current Grand Marquis and Crown Victorias are classified as full-size. The only thing bigger on those are their wheels and engine.

      It seems there is no longer a true full-size car. It includes these 2 models. I would like to see the true full-size brought back. I hope it is. It is these 2 models.
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    actually, it just may be on topic, as so many people in Town Hall think buying a Ford is a huge gamble... :)
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    "The current Grand Marquis and Crown Victorias are classified as full-size. The only thing bigger on those are their wheels and engine."

    Actually, the engines are smaller. The 4.6 Liter engine used in all Crown Vics, Grand Marquis, Marauders, and Town Cars (did I miss any variations?) all equal 280.3 cubic inches, which Ford gratuitously fudges up to 281 on the spec sheets. In previous years, the cars have used 302 and 351 cubic inch engines. A few 255 cubic inch V-8's were offered for a couple of years in the early 80's, but there are without a doubt the worst V-8's Ford ever made, are very rare, and nobody wants them. I pray every one of them got melted down to make rebar or something. Back in the 70's, 351, 400, 429, and even 460 cubis inch engines were offered. Engines in the "full size" cars, like the cars themselves, are shrinking.

    That being said, the 92-03 Crown Vics and Grand Marquiss are built on the same chassis and suspension (more or less. They make improvements over the years) as the '79-'91 models, and have comperable interior space. What they don't have is the square, formal styling that the older cars have, and the more contemporary, "rounded-off" look makes the cars seem smaller than their predecessors, when in reality they are the same size. If you wan the last of the "real" full size cars, you have to go all the way back to 1978, when the cars actually were considerably bigger, and could still be ordered with the massive 460 CID V-8. Just be sure you've paid up your gas card before you buy one!
  • randpall3863randpall3863 Member Posts: 28
    I own a Kelley Blue Book which lists the body lengths of both the 1991 and 1992 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis. The 1992's have a shorter body length. And they have no more passenger room than my 1985 Marquis Brougham with a fuel-injected 3.8L V6 which is classified as mid-size. The 1991's on the other hand had a longer body and more passenger and leg room. And they were equipped with a standard fuel-injected 5.0L V8 and were available with an optional 2-barrel carburetor 5.8L V8. And they were made more solid. 1991 was the last year they had steel bumpers. So, starting with the 1992's, they were made weaker. That is worse. It is why the 1992's required air bags and the 1991's did not.

      Not only has the national news tested cars with steel bumpers with full frames vs. those with plastic bumpers with box-style frames in head-on collisions, front-end collisions and rear-end collisions. But I have seen the difference between my 1985 Marquis Brougham with steel bumpers in a front-end collision due to a deer vs. a 2001 Crown Victoria that had been in a front-end collision. Both were repaired simultaneously at the same auto body shop. The 2001 Crown Victoria had sustained more damage. Its front plastic bumper was smashed, as was its grille. Neither was on my 1985 Marquis Brougham. The auto body mechanic does not call that with the 2001 Crown Victoria "better". He said the same thing the national news has. It is worse. It is weaker materials that cost more.

      The last true full-length full-size Ford product was the Lincoln Town Car, which was revised and shrunk down after the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was discontinued. It is down to the same length and passenger seating and leg room as the current Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis. It is except the longer Cartier version.

      Actually, I also drove a 1986 Crown Victoria with a fuel-injected 5.0L V8 that got as much as 30 MPG. I have not seen that yet with the "improved" 1992-2003 Crown Victorias. I do not call that "improvement".

      Made more solid and heavy, they had no need for features like traction or stability control. The newer ones made lighter and weaker do. I do not call it progress. I call it regress.

      Following the Crown Vics and Grand Marquis since they first came out, the boy lengths and seating and leg room remained the same through the 1991 model year. The only change made were smaller engines. The same goes with the Town Cars through the 1996 model year. I know. I drove a 1994. It was the same length and had the same seating and leg room as my 1976 LTD Brougham. The only thing smaller on the 1994 Town Car was its V8. The 1976 LTD had a 400 C.I.D. V8. It got 20 MPG. The 1994 Town Car had a smaller 4.6L V8. It got less than 20 MPG.

      Improvements? The only improvements I have seen are the back seat end shoulder straps and 4-wheel ABS. But I see no other. It is yet.

      If you want to claim the 1992-2003 ones have been improved, tell someone who is not as knowledgable about them as I am. It is all I have.
  • randpall3863randpall3863 Member Posts: 28
    Yes. The 1992-2003 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis have a bigger engine and bigger tires than my 1985 Marquis Brougham. But the bodies and seating and leg room are no bigger. It means they are smaller than the 1991 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis.

      I like how you try to twist my words, rea98d. It sounds like you will lie and try to say anything to dishonestly sell a 1992-2003 Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis. Remind me not to buy one off you! It is if I buy one.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...the '83-86 Marquis/LTD are on the Fox platform, which originated with the compact Fairmont/Zephyr from 1978. In 1981, a guzzied up, formalized version came out, sporting the Granada and Cougar nameplates. While it served as Ford's midsized car in '81-82, it had the exact same dimensions inside as the Fairmont/Zephyr. In 1983, the LTD/Marquis took over, basically just a swoopier Granada, but the same amount of room inside. One difference though, was that the sloped-off rear end did cut into trunk room a bit, so an '83 LTD/Marquis would actually have a bit less trunk space than an '82 Granada or an '83 Fairmont.

    The '91 and the '92 Crown Vic are the same car underneath. The '92 just has a more aerodynamic body. They're both still classified as full-sized cars.

    According to http://www.fueleconomy.org, the '85 LTD/Marquis has 97 cubic feet of interior room, and 15 cubic feet of trunk space. The '91 and '92 full-sized Crown Vic/Grand Marquis are both rated at 111 cubic feet interior, 21 cubic feet of trunk space. It is all I know. I hope this helps.
  • blh7068blh7068 Member Posts: 375
    "The only change made were smaller engines. The same goes with the Town Cars through the 1996 model year. I know. I drove a 1994"

    The 97's were the same as well, in fact those town cars were pretty much all the same from 90-97. 91 was the first year for the 4.6 in the town car.
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    Didn't the government, about 20 or 30 years ago, require car manufactuors to increase their gas milage ?

    Why is it then after all these years, we are still looking at 14 - 21 MPG in the city ?

    Cynical/Honest opinions welcomed.

    BTW, very happy about my new 2003 Grand Marquis whether "Full" catagory or "Medium sized" catagory and Andre , thanks for the fuel economy link.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    As for the solidity and steel bumpers, in a severe collision SOMETHING is going to crush and give. Given the choice of sacrificing a car bumper and body or sacrificing my and my passengers' heads and torsos, I will pick crushing the car every time.

    And airbags were required by the public pressure for safety, not because of weaker bumpers. If you feel your old car is superior and want to keep it, more power to you. But there is no need to bash (bad pun intended) the new ones!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...that the government first forced the automakers to comply to their CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) requirements. I forget what the mpg number was that year, but basically, the average economy of the entire fleet of cars a manufacturer built that year had to be at or above a certain amount, or else they'd get fined $5.00 for every 1/10 of an mpg their average was below that figure, multiplied by the number of cars sold that year. To offset the cars that got bad mileage, often they'd just build more smaller cars to get the numbers higher.

    One the 4-speed overdrive automatic became pretty much standard on big cars in the early '80's, your typical full-sized RWD V-8 like a Caprice, Grand Marquis, etc (Chrysler was out of the full-size market after 1981) was EPA-rated around 17/24 or so. Interestingly, that's about what the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic are still rated, nearly 20 years later!

    There are several reasons for this. First, weight. These cars have put on a few hundred pounds over that span, mainly because of stricter safety standards, more standard equipment, etc. Second, while their engines are more efficient and technologically advanced, Ford used that advancement for improved performance instead of economy. They can afford to keep selling these cars however, because cars like the Taurus and Focus have gas mileage that's enough to offset the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis in the corporate average.

    As for steel bumpers versus plastic, styrofoam, etc, well, don't most cars still have a steel beam there, behind the plastic fascia? One thing I do kinda miss, is how cars in the '70's and a good part of the '80's had their bumpers mounted on shock absorbers, so they'd bounce back out. That way, you'd be good for multiple low-impact hits! With new cars, one hit and it's off to the body shop! Still, I guess at higher speeds the newer bumpers are better. With something like a Grand Marquis though, that already had plenty of crush space up front, and a seating position fairly far back from the front of the car, I don't think an exposed steel bumper would compromise safety too much. They'd look out of place on modern cars, though!
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    instead of just chroming them, they might not look so bad. Kinda like the "Sport Appearance" packages on full size trucks.

    But yeah, my dad wants to get out of his Impala already because of the plastic bumper covers: a couple of months ago he backed into it with his work truck and cracked the cover. I think it was $400 fixed. His deductible is $500... didn't even scrape the dirt off the bumper on the truck.
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    "EPA-rated around 17/24 or so. Interestingly, that's about what the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic are still rated, nearly 20 years later!"

    That's exactly what I'm talking about ! I traded in a 94 Caprice for the current GM. Same weight, same engine (roughly, alittle more HP now) and the new GM gets the same 17/25 MPG.

    The Caprice should of done better in '94 and now in 2003, we're at the same MPG. It would appear the government had no real intention of enforcing fuel improvements.
    That is going to bite us in the butt someday !
  • randpall3863randpall3863 Member Posts: 28
    I knew it was either the 1997 or 1998 Town Car that was reduced in size. But I was not sure which. I thank you for helping with that.

      Actually, the 1984 and 1985 LTD Brougham and Marquis Brougham were both available with an optional 5.0L V8. I found this out from my Chilton's, the Ford Motor Company and the books at auto parts stores. It was available for both either with a 4-barrel carburetor or fuel-injected. The LTD's was made at Ford's U.S. plant. The Marquis' was made at their Canada plant. That was the biggest engine used in both.

      It was also the biggest size used in the Fairmonts, Zephyrs, mid-size 2-door Thunderbirds and 2- and 4-door Cougars, Granadas and Monarchs.

      They also referred to that engine as a 302 C.I.D. V8. The 1984-1991 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis came with a standard 5.0L V8 and were available with an optional 5.8L V8.

      I need to find my Kelley Blue Book. It lists the lengths of the 1991 and 1992 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis. The 1992's were shorter in body length than the 1991's and had less back seat passenger leg room than the 1991. When I find my Kelley, I will give the actual lengths.

      Also, the 1991's still had steel bumpers for more protection. The 1992's got plastic on the front and rear. It made the front and rear weaker. It is why air bags were added to the 1992's. They were standard. It is when back seat shoulder and lap straps were added. They were weaker in the front and rear. My cousin has a 1992. But the back seat straps were an improvement. And 4-wheel ABS became available for them. So was a fully shiftable 4-speed automatic added. So was a smaller 4.6L V8. It is since the body was shorter than the 1991. And it was lighter with plastic, rather than steel.

      I will be back after I find my kbb. It has the lengths of the 1991's and 1992's. It is a reliable source for that. It is not for car pricing. But it is for sizes. I will return.
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    :)
  • blh7068blh7068 Member Posts: 375
    "The 1992's got plastic on the front and rear. It made the front and rear weaker. It is why air bags were added to the 1992's"

    Am I reading correctly, the removal of steel bumpers prompted the move to airbags?

    The concept of airbags dates back to the 50s...maybe even earlier . Ford- yes Ford even experimented with airbags in vehicles that were not intended for sale in the early 70s. IIRC, GM used some airbags in some Caddys,Olds and Buicks in the mid 70's. Those did not last long.
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    only for police interceptor vehicles? Not for the general public is my understanding.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    ...in civilian LTD/Marquis models was 1981. It put out a whopping 145 hp that year. Standard though was a tiny 255 (which I think is about 4.2L) with around 115/120 hp, and the 302 was the next engine up with 130 hp. That year I think they all had 2-bbl carbs. This is according to Consumer Guide, at least. The 255 was dumped after 1982, and the 302 went to fuel injection for 1983. The 351 stayed a 2-bbl at least through 1989 (that's as far as my copcar book goes) and probably through the end in '91.

    I'm surprised Ford held onto an engine that size for civilian use for that long. The last year for the Chrysler 360 in cars was 1980; after that they only had the 318. Chevy quit putting 350's in their civvy Impala/Caprice after 1979, leaving only a 267 or 305 as the V-8 choices. Pontiac, Olds, and Buick held on a bit longer, offering 350's in 1980, but for '81, the Olds 307 was the biggest engine, unless you wanted to go Diesel (and in retrospect, you didn't!)
Sign In or Register to comment.