Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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"!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0507/03/A01-235800.htm
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.
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.
The handling package adds:
- Rear air springs - not firmer, allows load leveling in rear, big people or towing.
- Duel exhaust - more power.
- Larger sway bar - better handling - not a firmer ride.
- Upgraded front bushings - better handling
- Lace wheels - looks only
- Different shocks - reduces the floaty ride.
This only makes the car more driveable.
For that true isolation from the road feeling, try the sofa.
If a person really wants a car that handles like a Vette.....get a Vette.
On the water leak, is it only when the A/C is running, or is it from the rain? If when the A/C is running, and it is not antifreeze from the heater core, it sounds like the drain is plugged and backing up.
That being said, if you are getting an inch of water, it sounds like a water leak from rain or a carwash. There are a few places where the leaks are more common. One is the air intake behind the front passenger wheelwell liner. Over time, the seal around it can deteriorate.
I own a 2004 CV LX Sport...the owner's manual that came with my car is a 2004 Grand Marquis...while they are 90% the same car, they will often have minor differences which may not have common instructions in their respective owner's manuals...
The F150 truck, when you hit the remote key fob to unlock the doors, the headlights come on for 60 seconds to light up the general area...great idea from Ford...
My CV, the interior lights come on, but not the headlamps, when the open is pressed on the key fob...the parking lights flash and the horn blows when I press "lock", but having the headlights on for "unlock" is a great idea...
Can my car do that???...does anyone have a CV manual that they can check, which may be somewhat different from the CV manual???
I spoke to my sales rep 3 times about this when I bought the car, he said he would take care of it, but never did...I guess customer service is not Job 1 after the sales commission is safely in his pocket... :confuse: :confuse:
I'm not surprised that your dealer wouldn't know how to operate the various features. Things like making the car not lock the doors when you shift it into gear (I HATE that auto-locking feature) can be deactivated, but the process is crazy! You can tell that computers run these things.
As far as auto lock feature, I do like it, but Chrysler/Dodge does it better...they set it so it locks the doors when you reach 14 mph, which means the doors will not lock in a car wash...my Ford, as soon as it is placed out of Park (obviously placed in Neutral in a car wash) the doors lock...someone at Ford never had to take their car to a wash, IMO...you can disable it, but them it is completely manual...
Only Fords seem to do this...
As for the autolock feature, I really don't get why it's useful at any speed, from park OR 14 mph. Sometimes, if driving through a rough neighbourhood, I can see why one might want to be locked in his/her car, but otherwise I've never understood the point. I've heard that women like it because it makes them feel more secure. Fair enough, as long as it can be disabled, everyone's happy!
I realize that the 2004 CV is old technology, while the 2004 F150 is Ford's billion dollar baby, but you would think that the remote systems would all offer the same features, rather than each model offering different features...just from a manufacturing viewpoint, use the same system on all vehicles, but does Ford listen to me???...not quite kemosabe... :shades: :shades:
Indeed, Ford should standardize its features... of course, then someone paying $40k for a loaded F-150 might wonder how his truck is any different from a $20k Crown Vic LOL!
You can get a copy of almost any service manual on CD from eBay for about $10 shipped.
Search: 1994 ford crown manual cd
You can sometimes find them on eDonkey.
Click me to see the best ride in town
Thanks, again!
But, if your headlamps were set to automatic, usually one click counterclockwise on the headlamp switch, your lights may stay on for 90 seconds after engine shut-off for simple security lighting...naturally unneeded in a drive-in...
I am certainly subject to correction on this...
Where in creation do drive-in theaters still exist...Dukes of Hazzard County???
There is a drive-in down Highbury Rd. South in London (Ontario, that is). It's cheap enough, but sitting in a car to watch a movie isn't my idea of a good time. Of course, I guess most people don't go there for the movies, eh? :surprise:
Buy a high quality air gauge and put in 110 lbs pressure when towing or if mother in law riding back seat and 40 lbs pressure for normal driving. A 10,000 lb transmission cooler is highly recommended as keeping 35 psi in each GM tire.
Be sure the trailer has boat trailer tires, not passenger car tires. Have fun.