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

1373840424361

Comments

  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    No more dry day squeeks. The hood used to flutter at highway speeds so a body shop adjusted the hood tighter. It has to be slamed down, but no more flutter or squeeks there either. Mileage = 105,000 plus since '94 on a Towncar.
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    1) Hood is a culprit but so are the front sway bar bushings - a known problem on these cars. Usually they can be lubed w/ silicone spray and provide some relief. New bushings made with different rubber compound solved this on newer models. 2) Almost certainly is dry ball joints. They are sealed but a last resort (replacment preferable) is to carefully puncture the rubber seals with a grease needle and partially fill the boots with multipurpose moly greese. Mine went dry a little over 100K and I've now got nearly 150K on them with no noticable wear using this procedure. 3) 30K mile fluid changes will usually allow the AOD-E trans to live to over 200K with normal use. 4)several causes for excessive spark knock in high mile 4.6's. MAS wire dirty (clean with electric contact cleaner) EGR ports in manifold clogged (remove EGR valve and scrape out the passages) Valve stem seal failure allows oil in combustion chamber and increases pinging (replace seals)
  • goldrangergoldranger Member Posts: 54
    Any late model CV/GM drivers, check recent items on Blueovalnews.com for possible engine, suspension, and exhaust issues.
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    These folks have a huge grudge against ford and constantly overdramatize ford service issues. Items mentioned in the above post are probably affecting only a very small number of Ford vehicles.
  • ronray1ronray1 Member Posts: 1
    I recently purchased a 03 CV Sport. Rides like a dream love the solid feel. Formerly drove a 94 t-bird 4.6,great car. hope the gas mileage improves somewhat with miles(about12-13mpg). My big problem is the paint and wonder if anyone has experienced any similar problems. I have the dark blue pearl metallic. Recently I have noticed spotting on the surface almost as though the clearcoat was blistering or the paint underneath didnot cure. Dealer is checking it out thinks its an external problem but nothing on this finish that hasn't been on any other metallic clearcoat I've had. Any idea's ? Otherwise great car.
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    Even my old Vic gets 15 in the city and 25 on the hwy.

    sorry I can't help with the paint.
  • pkwdenapkwdena Member Posts: 3
    Does anyone know if the cast metal manifold of a 94' CV fits the resin one in a 97' GM? I haven't had any problems with the resin manifold with 130,000 miles on the GM, but was wondering if it will fail over the next 100,000 miles that I expect to get from it.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    I began considering the possibility of buying a 2003 CV or GM, and read the Edmunds description...as a fan of floor shifters, I did not consider these because they only have column shifters (not really interested in a Marauder)...anyway, I am reading and lo and behold, the GM has a model LSE with front buckets and a floor shifter and performance package, possibly the perfect car...after eading about 100 posts, I find that the LSE is discontinued...how many did they make, when did they stop production, and doe the CV also have a version with buckets and a floor shifter...were enough LSEs made that I might find a used one in a year or so that was traded in, or did they only make 3 of them for the entire country (half sarcastic question)...anyway, the thought that Mercury would install a floor shifter and buckets really got me going, but have my dreams been dashed before even getting off the ground???...(you realize that if the CV had the package the problem is solved)...one reason for the GM over CV in any case, at least according to Edmunds list of standard equipment, is that the CV has manual lumbar supports while the GM has motorized lumbra supports, both driver and passenger, making the GM the better car, in my mind, as it did not seem that CV offered motorized lumbar supports...if anyone can correct me, feel free to do so...thanks for any help offered...
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    I happen to believe that the Mountaineer looks much sharper and better equipped than Explorer, but both are offered with column shift only (to buy an Aviator for the floor shifter is too much $$$)...if the Mountaineer offered a floor shifter I would probably buy one tomorrow, but they seem stuck in the same rut (FYI...Taurus and Sable offer both a bench seat/column or a bucket seat/floor shifter option, why can't the other larger Ford vehicle do the same???...plus, if they can put one in an Aviator, then the cost is truly minimal for Expl/Mountaineer...just my random thoughts)...
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
  • harmarharmar Member Posts: 94
    Marsha7: A buddy, now retired from Ford, tells me the "interactions" between various design departments is very intense. Trade-offs and concessions are made to come up with a final product that (they believe) will sell. Economics (and bean counters)plays a large part in that process. GM (CV to a lesser extent) has been seen as an older driver's choice of auto. The Marauder was an attempt to win over some other drivers, as was the stiffened ride in the '03 GM/CV. (Then, they goofed by overpricing, and not giving it the "oomph" speedsters wanted, the Marauder, and ticked off some of us -- see previous posts here -- with the GM/CV ride change!) Center consoles apparently do not sell all that well with the driver who typically buys GM. ----- As for consumers' desires, predicting them is serious business and highly prone to error. Every manufacturer has produced models that just don't sell well. That's one reason they stick with a design, making minor changes, as long as it sells. (Tooling cost savings are another.) Buyers can customize as much as they want from a manufacturer's "available options." Costs would go too high if every option were made available to every model produced. ----- Used LSEs are available (use one of the online car look-ups), though you may have to be willing to drive a-ways to get one. The drive can be worth the savings, too. I saved ~$13,000 (off new retail price) on a year-old GM program car, with 16K miles on it, by driving 120 miles. Good luck.
  • jjgittesjjgittes Member Posts: 54
    I just drove a Marauder. Pretty cool, but way overpriced. The dealer wanted $29k plus (after rebates applied). The CV sport looks good too, and can be had for about $23.5k, but they have about 60 less HP, or in other words, the same HP as an Accord 6 cyl, but they obviously weigh much more, and depreciate much faster. The CV sport for $20 or 21k out the door might be a decent deal for someone who really favors big rwd cars, but for anyone on the fence, its hard to fall over to the Ford side.
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    A state of the art overhead cam V8 engine, hydroformed frame with machined cast aluminum front crossmember and front suspension, speed sensitive rack and pinion steering, the largest interior, largest front seats, largest trunk not to mention the quietest, best isolated ride - all this for about $3000 more than an econobox 4 cyl, front drive, unit body Accord or Camry. I propose it's hard to "fall over" to these far lesser cars for the small price difference. They represent an incredible value!!
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    marsha7 - a couple of local dealers (central florida) still have a few new LSE's - they were discontinued around the first of the year. The CV LX Sport is essentially the same car as the LSE except that it gets larger 17 inch wheels and tires. Both the CV LX and Sport get power lumbar seats left and right.
  • jjgittesjjgittes Member Posts: 54
    A "state of the art" engine that produces no more horsepower than a Honda v6 (which can be bought for less money, and will not depreciate thru the floor the day you buy it)?? Don't get me wrong, I like the crown vics, but unless you can get an very exceptional deal to offset the ridiculous depriciation, or you simply must have a trunk that can fit something unusually large that may need to be buried quickly, the (civilian) market speaks every day about the "value" these cars represent at the price they are offered.
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    Hondas and Crown Vics are totally different vehicles. The drive and ride of the V8 rear wheel drive car is completely different from the feel of being pulled along by a small displacment V6 in a unit body car. If you are satisified with the low torque high revving engine, the tighter seats and interior, and the noiser ride, then by all means buy the Honda and be happy with it's lower depreciation. My point is that you cannot get a car with similar design without paying nearly twice as much. Most of the highly regarded "world class" cars are V8 rear drive. Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, top line Infiniti and Lexus are ALL configured like the Crown Vic. These manufacturers do not use front drive in their best cars because it cannot provide the driving feel associated with top line cars. Cadillac's failure to break into the ranks of these cars is largely due to the limitations of front wheel drive. A problem they are finally correcting. Chrysler's new LX cars are rear wheel drive. Also, depriciation may measure the worth of a car, but hardly it's value. The depriciation rate on a BMW 7 series is much greater that that on a Toyota Echo.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    harmar: used LSE...what online car lookups do you mean???...I know edmunds lists prices for used cars, but where does one find online car lookups where the used cars are???...email is <jd6@bellsouth.net>...thanks...I could certainly drive 100 miles for 13K off new price for a 1 year old car...:):):)

    dbc123: according to edmunds list of std equipment, the CV LX and LX Sport have a manual lumbar as opposed to the LSE motorized...did I misread it???...obviously if the LX Sport is motorized, than my universe of possible purchases has more than doubled...:):):)
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    Marsha7 - All lumbar on CV/GM/TC are air inflatable bladders that are powered by a small air pump. They are all "power lumbar". I didn't check Edumnds list but if it states manual - that's wrong.
  • this_is_nascarthis_is_nascar Member Posts: 199
    Any reason to get one over the other? I'm leaning more with the CV.
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    score higher on the customer satisfaction surveys.

    That might be about the only major difference.
  • tbear503tbear503 Member Posts: 70
    Thanks for the advice on lubricating the hood supports. I will try that as it is embarrassing to "squeak" thru the parking garage. (88,000 miles and has been a great car!)
  • sevilla1sevilla1 Member Posts: 1
    Hello, I need some advice...I'm considering purchasing a used car (1992 Ford Crown Victoria 4D LX) from a friend of the family. The good news: its only $1000 plus $550 for painting and repair which is great for my budget. The bad news: its a former cab so has 240,000 miles on it.
    I know it sounds crazy to buy a car with so many miles but it has been well maintained, new tires, and the engine and transmission were replaced fairly recently. It runs smoothly and I may only need a car for 1 year so I'm tempted...any thoughts? Thanks in advance.
  • jbazejbaze Member Posts: 3
    I'm having trouble finding aftermarket rims for my 2003 GM. I can find rims for 1998-2002 GM or 2003 Maurauder but not for 2003 GM. I find that the difference between these is the offset, the 2002 GM has ~20 mm offsets and the Maurauder has ~40mm offsets. On ebay, there had been 2003 GM OEM wheels which lists the offset as 50mm. Which is it? Thanks for your help.
  • pupin72pupin72 Member Posts: 1
    Hey Folks:

    I just traded in my baby bimmer on a 1998 Merc GM LS and I love it. However, only a week after I bought it, I discovered that the front passenger window doesn't open and close consistently. Specifically, sometimes the driver's side switch opens the window, and then ceases to work for no apparent reason whether the window is open or shut. At other times, the passenger door switch does the same thing. I can't figure out what is causing the problem.

    Have any of you had this problem before? Any idea how to repair it or what it would cost to repair?

    Any info is greatly appreciated.

    Have a great day!
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    I had a '90 Crown Vic that did that (driver's window) and the right rear window on my '98 quit working all together. I haven't had it checked but my gut tells me its the motor. If it is, I'm gonna guess $150-$200 at an independent shop...
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    The motor on these assemblys rarely fails: much more common is regulator failure. This is usually, but not always, accompanied by "crunching" sounds as the nylon gears, nylon drum and braided steel cables come apart while the motor runs. If the window works intermittently but smoothly, most likely electrical gremlin (short, open or switch) problem.
  • evolkevolk Member Posts: 9
    Problem 1:

    I am pretty frustrated right now. I own a 97 CVic and was having loud/embarrassing squeaking noises from my front end/hood. A couple cintributors to this board suggested silicon spray lubricant, and it worked wonders.

    Then, tonight happened.

    As I was coming out after dropping off a FedEx package at the FedEx office, with my 7 year old daughter and wife in the car, I was slowing to a stop before turning onto the street, and my front end literally gave way. When I got out (I was only doing about 5-10 mph at the time the collapse occurred), my driver's side front wheel was bent in/toed in and that side/end of the car was resting on the ground. Considering the fact I was about 90 seconds from getting on the Interstate, I thank my lucky stars that it happened where it did.

    There are 140,000 miles on the car, but this in inexcusable, in my opinion. The towing service guy said right away that it looked like my bottom ball joint gave way, and it shouldn't be too much to repair...he'd be surprised if its over about $200. Nonetheless, it scared the HELL out of me.and my family.

    I'm going to the Goodyear Tire Center (where I know one of the mechanics that I used to work with) that I had it towed to tonite and will arrive a few minutes before they open at 7a.m.

    Any guesses on what this will cost? Anyone else had this problem or heard of it? Is it likely I did a lot of collateral damage? There doesn't seem to be any body damage and there was no fluids leaking afterwards, and the tire remained inflated, just toed in and looking like it was supporting the cars weight on that end by way of the wheel well resting on top of the tire (my uneducated eyes maybe).

    Problem 2:

    Four months ago, the resin intake manifold blew while we were on a road trip, and I had to spend about $400 for the replacement part and another hundo to have my guy install it. It seems there's been talk on this board about Ford paying for the part AFTER the fact. Is this true? Should I approach Ford about this. ? If so, what is the procedure?

    Thanks!

    Eric Volk
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    I'm not sure I could agree with you that lower ball joint separation on a 7 year old car with 140K that had been making loud squeaking noises is inexcusable. The warning signs were there. I've seen these front ends badly worn but only once or twice heard of ball joint separation. It can and does happen to any car if the joint is sufficiently worn. Repair expense is reasonable assuming no other damage. I'd sure check the other lower also.
    Ford has reimbursed some for manifold replacment but usually not with the time and milage on your car. Still, it's worth a try.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    As far as the inatke minifold, Ford offered an extended warranty on 96-97 T-Birds & cougars with the V-8 option, and 96 & up Mustangs with the V-8. However, the only 96 & up Crown Vics that are covered by the extended warranty are the police & fleet cars. The logic behind it, at least according to Ford, is that the Mustang & T-Bird are sportscars (I use that term loosly. Don't have a fit, Mr. Shiftright), and are likely to see harder driving conditions than a Crown Vic, whose most grueling task is probably going to be carrying a pot of beans to the Church potluck. The exception, of course, are police cars and cabs, which get the snot beat out of them by cops and taxi drivers, so they were covered as well.

    At least, that's the official Ford line. Personally, I think it's just an excuse on Ford's part to exempt the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis and save the company a little bit of money. That being said, Ford knows about the problem, and if you call customer service and raise a big enough stink, you're likely to get some or all of your money back out of repairs.

    Finally, this isn't just a Ford problem. GM's 3.8 V-6 has a reputation for being a tough, dependable powerplant, like Ford's 4.6, but about the same time Ford adopted resin intakes for the 4.6, GM did the same for the 3.8, and has been having the same issues with intake manifolds failing. Appearantly, plastics technology just hasn't advanced to the point where it can replace metal in conditions like you find in an internal combustion engine.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    True, but GM has done two things. The newer engines returned to metal. And the plastic ones have been recalled for a fix. ALL of them. Not just cop cars and taxis and sports cars.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    I was unaware GM went so far in fixing the problem, but it's good they're doing it. Ford has tried at least twice to redesign the plastic manifold, this last time by replacing the section that failed 99.9% of the time with an aluminum tube. It remains to be seen whether this will make the new manifolds as reliable as the '95 and earlier, or if some section of the manifold only marginally stronger will start rupturing. All I know is when manifolds were made of metal, it was almost unheard of for one to fail of its own volition. That one should expect an imminent intake failure on post-'95 model year cars says Ford needs to follow GM's example. It's time for the plastic manifold designers to admit defeat, draw up plans for a metal manifold, and move on.
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    Several engines have used resin intake manifolds successfully (Jaguar AJ V8 and Chrysler 4.7 OHC V8 come immediately to mind). Ford's problem stems from the fact that a coolant crossover pipe is intergrated into the manifold. The other mentioned engines do not have coolant flowing thru the intake manifold and they've had no problems. Fords latest (aluminum crossover) versions seem to have cured the problem. They are used on all 02 forward CV/TC/GM,s. Ford has lost a lot of consumer confidence on this issue. What is particularly gauling is the fact that these things have been failing since late 96 and it took them 6 years to come up with a solution; all the while building more engines that were destined to strand their owners.
  • melmomelmo Member Posts: 11
    I have a 2000 GM/HPP. I have engine braking (seems like all the time). And, no I'm not driving with the OD locked out. I also have lousy gas mileage even with an egg between me and the accelerator! Question, Does the transmission on this car really allow the car to coast i.e., same as running in neutral. If not why not? Who needs engine braking? Any kind of braking reduces gas mileage. As someone pointed out earlier brake repair is less expensive than transmission fixes. So OK, if I'm stuck with the factory set up re. this tyranny, is it possible to get a chip that would at least reduce the speed at which the gears are told to change???
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Torque convertors have what is called a lockup speed. Below a certain RPM, the Torque converter does not engage, and it is like sitting on the clutch on a manual. Once you hit that RPM, your TC engages, and your car moves.
    That being said, what, exactly are we calling bad gas mileage? Remember it's a big, heavy, unaerodynamic V-8 powered barge. If you've bought this car after having gotten used to something like a Corolla, there will be a big drop in gas mileage. Finally, are you sure it's engine braking? When my car felt like it was braking all the time, it wasn't the engine doing it, it was a seized calpier on the front of the car.
    As far as engine braking goes, there's always going to be a little bit of it under any condition. Where it really comes in handy though, is coming down mountains. My physics teacher told me energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted to one form or another. Your brakes don't magically make all your car's kinetic energy into nothing, they convert it to heat through friction. Your brake disks are, in effect, heat sinks that absorb all that heat and radiate it off into the air. The problem is that when they absorb too much heat, they have trouble absorbing much more, and all that kenetic energy has just lost its escape path, your brakes "fade" and your car doesn't stop until the rotors cool down. By downshifting the engine, the engine revs to a higher speed, and all of the moving parts create friction dragging the engine speed, and with it the car's speed, back down. Thus the engine and the radiator absorb a lot of heat that would otherwise go into the brakes, keeping your brakes cooler longer, delaying the onset of brake fade.
  • melmomelmo Member Posts: 11
    Thanks for the reply. Poor gas mileage defined as 15/19, and I don't horse my car. Is something sticking? I doubt it. Example: At the top of a specific grade, I'm doing 40 mph, in top gear, no-touch on the accelerator while going down the hill. Speed at bottom 45 mph. Now, duplicating that experiment except placing the transmission in neutral at the top of that same grade yields a speed at the bottom of 55 mph. That's a increase of 22%. Now, I don't know if the increase is linear relative to mpg, but I'm sure the speed reduction is costing me money. And, I believe gasoline will not be getting any less expensive any time soon. Re. braking, coming down hills etc. There is always the gear selecter on the column.

    Ps. My '93 town car showed hardly any change in speed duplicating the above.
  • hotrodlincoln1hotrodlincoln1 Member Posts: 62
    The 4r70w does not coast like having the car in neutral. Neither does any other mainstream automatic transmission that I know of. When the torque convertor is locked up, you will notice considerably more engine braking than if the convertor is unlocked, but if the car is in gear and decelerating, there is always some.

    The reason you notice the engine braking more on the HPP GM than on your Town Car is because you have a different rear end ratio in the HPP. Your TC is probably a 2.73, while HPP's get 3.27's. This means your engine will turn a bit faster at a given speed in the same gear than in the TC.

    The deeper gears are much better for acceleration, but they do cost a little on gas mileage. However, you bought a Grand Marquis; you shouldn't expect it to get 30 mpg.
  • jjgittesjjgittes Member Posts: 54
    A dealer near me has several 2003 Crown Vic LX sports on "sale" for $24,500, not including ttl. Good deal? The rapid depriciation of CVs make me hesitant. Also, I've seen some Merc Marauders with a few thousand miles on them advertised for $25-26k. The 300 hp would be nice. The new MMs I see at $29-33k seem to just sit on the lot. Ford's fetish for high sticker prices, big "rebates" and dealer mark downs just doesn't inspire confidence.
  • peeetepeeete Member Posts: 136
    where are these sports located? It looks like they are selling at invoive or below before the rebate, whcih is about the best I have found. Its true they depreciate like stones, but the dealer isnt going to cover that for you unfortunately. I feel the same way as you however. I may just wait and order an 04 once the rebate kicks in. Its only $500 now, way too low. They need to clear away old stock first.
  • melmomelmo Member Posts: 11
    Just as a quick background, I've been driving for over 55 years. Cars, trucks (inc. 10 ton tractor with a 40' lowboy behind, and D-8 Cat). Now, that doesn't say this makes one wise but there is something to be said for experience. Many of the cars I've driven had a standard transmission. I do not recall ever down shifting any of these cars in order to get them stopped. The only exception was my 100-6 Austin Healey, because it was "cool" to do that. Now it seems the automatic transmission designers think otherwise i.e., they design their products to downshift for you "automatically" and there is nothing you can do about it short of manually shifting to neutral every time you release the gas. Engine breaking costs gasoline. If for no other reason than to recover the speed lost from the downshift. Why? Are these people in league with the refiners? Do they own stock in Exxon/Mobile? I believe this is simply a holdover from the '80s who-cares-about gas-prices thinking. It would seem to me thatwith $2.00/gal gas that ain't going south any time soon, it's about time for that to change. Bring back the automatics that stayed in overdrive e.g., neutral, until overridden by either acceleration or the full stop. You want engine braking move the gear selector. I want mpg. I use the break pedal to stop.
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    What's the verdict on the best Car Wax to use ?

    Looking for something effective, but easy and affordable to get, ie Walmart.

    (Since I keep my cars 10 years, but only wax them the first 2 years, I haven't a clue which wax is good these days)
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    All automatic transmissions downshift as speed is reduced. Few soon enough to provide noticable engine braking. The Ford 4R70w and AOD-E used in these cars generally shifts 4-3 at 32-38 mph with closed throttle. They stay in "overdrive" as long as possible to improve EPA economy numbers. Overdrive is not "neutral".
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    Well, in the hour since my post above, I have found and been reading Waxing "info" on Edmunds. Kudos to Edmunds again !

    Apparently my gap in waxing knowledge is more considerable than imagined. Found out I now need to:

    Wash with Dawn
    Clay ...... Huh ?
    Wash
    Polish
    Wax

    Repeat process in 3 weeks

    Product Choices - way TOO many !

    Here is one link ......
    jcmoya "Store Bought Waxes Part II (No Zaino Posts)" Feb 23, 2000 12:26am
  • melmomelmo Member Posts: 11
    My point remains. Engine braking, who needs it?
  • hotrodlincoln1hotrodlincoln1 Member Posts: 62
    Truckers are really the only ones who still NEED engine braking. Now that almost all new cars have adequate brakes, use of the engine to slow the car isn't often needed. However, engine braking is a characteristic of the spark-ignition engine, so unless you completely de-couple the engine from the drivetrain when coasting, you are going to have some.

    You can do this by putting the transmission in neutral when coasting, but unless you feel like spending large money on a tranny rebuild, I would not recommend it, since the transmission needs to be in gear to have full lubrication.

    If you are that concerned about mileage, why did you by a full-size car, especially with HPP?!
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Not to mention that in almost every state coasting in neutral is illegal. How the heck they would ever catch you has always been one of my favorite riddles!
  • samnoesamnoe Member Posts: 731
    Any difference between '03 and '04 models?

    The only thing I see at my dealer. they replaced the yellow rear signal to red colored. No idea why. In my opinion, the yellow signals are more visible, and therefor safer on the road. No idea why Ford picked this change.

    Not a big deal, however.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    So the 04's will be different than the 03's?

    I hate it when change is only for change's sake!
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Didn't they just make some major suspension, frame, and steering changes in '03? What more should they be doing to the '04's? It's not like the Crown Vic hasn't been given a major upgrade since 1979 (despite what detractors would have you beleive. Put my '82 up against an '04 and the differences become staggering).

    As far as the tail-lights go, I prefer the solid-red myself. I don't have any trouble seeing them during the day, and at night (I do a lot of night driving), the red turn signals are easier on the eyes than the amber. If it were up to me, all taillights would be of the solid red variety.
  • jbazejbaze Member Posts: 3
    For Grand Marquis, essentially, it is the same car as the '03.5 (that is, no more separate digital clock, locking fuel door). There's now the option for coated safety glass for the windows, so that some idiot cannot take a crowbar to break into your car by shattering the windows. I was surprised that the '04 GM Ultimates are being offered with handling package. Unfortunately, there will be no longer a place to put your sunglasses, half the overhead console has been eliminated from all GM's, that middle dome light is also gone, ?maybe to accomodate moonroof option.
  • lotboylotboy Member Posts: 49
    03 Marked the year of a small cosmetic re-design and some under carriage changes,such as rack and pinion steering and a different process to make the frame in Dearborn.

    04 is virtually the same car,now with some different colour choices.
    In 05 will still be the same visually with some changes that you cannot see with the finished product.ie.the car will have 108 metres less wire in it,as well as different styled seatbelts.

    Cheers guys!

    DD
Sign In or Register to comment.