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

1484951535461

Comments

  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    I have driving lights on my Intrepid R/T, and I use them maybe 3-4 times a year - I don't see where it improves visibility unless you are in the mountains. Technically speaking, most cars have driving lights, not fog lights, as fog lights are aimed lower, and are designed to shine under the fog, which typically hovers about 1 foot off the ground.

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

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

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

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

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

    Now, let me address a few of your points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My take on your points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    120 km is about 75 miles. I will just be using standard oil in my CV, at least for the time being. My turbo T/A gets $7 per liter synthetic, but I don't think I need to resort to this in the old 4.6 :). I've heard that there isn't much benefit to using synthetic in a "regular" motor, as long as you change the oil at the required intervals and the car is not used in severe-duty driving. My highway stints are about as light duty as you can get.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    Can't argue your point except to say that there are folks who do not use seatbelts, even tho it is prudent to do so, yet some have wrecks and do not suffer injury...you go below 1/4 tank without bad effect...still, I believe it is prudent to not go below the 1/4 mark, simply because I have much better odds of preventing the condensation problem...will it be perfect???...no, but I do feel it is risky to take the chance of water condensation when a simple behavior has a great chance of prevention...and, you are still going to refuel anyway, so what the heck...YMMV
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Although primarily about Fusion, there are some interesting hints about the future of Five Hundred here (and perhaps even more so about Crown Vic/Grand Marquis):

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

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

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

    1. Front end more angular and aggressive.
    2. Same with rear.
    3. Beefier looking tires and more utilitarian/hotrod/sinister wheels.
    4. Add horsepower.
    5. Advertise the heck out of it.
  • bruneau1bruneau1 Member Posts: 468
    The handling package may be a little too firm for tradtionalists, and it produces some jiggles. A no-no is a car like the Marquis. Too bad all the other good stuff in the package doesn't come with the standard suspension which is more liveable. Of course, the solid rear axle needs to be replaced with a modern independant set up.
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    I had a 2001 Crown Vic LX (lost in divorce). Recently I test drove an '05 LX Sport and didn't really notice any difference in quality of ride. I'm real picky too, so I was surprised. Does anybody else out there really notice a jittery or harsher ride with the sport package?
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    I don't know, I think that the solid axle has its place, and that place is under a car like the CV/GM. Just look what Ford has accomplished with the new Mustang's setup; that is proof enough that just because a configuration is old doesn't mean that it has to remain out of date... kind of like rear-wheel drive and full-framed cars! I'm not sure how close the current Panther's rear is to the new 'stang's, but it would be an interesting experiment to drop it in and see (appropriately sized-up for the car, of course :) ).
  • havehadithavehadit Member Posts: 7
    When brake pedal is pushed there is a squeaking or squishing sound, like rubber rubbing against rubber. I've been under the dash and seems like the sound is coming from inside the flexible rubber boot. I tried some WD40 but didn't help. A mechanic yesterday said it could be the plunger going into the master cylinder. The noise is very irritating but I don't care to spend money unless the cause can be identified. Has anyone experienced this problem? Responses would be appreciated. Thanks, havehadit
  • frasierdogfrasierdog Member Posts: 128
    "The handling package may be a little too firm for tradtionalists"

    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.
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    While I agree that the handling package is a desirable option, to say that the added parts do not affect the ride is questionable. Anything that affects the compliance of the vehicle with respect to road imperfections will, by their very nature, affect the ride quality. The lower profile tires that come with those lacy wheels will give better handling, but will also absorb less bump energy, and instead transmit it to the wheels, and thus the suspension, and thus the rest of the car; the upgraded front bushings will make the suspension parts less compliant to bumps, and the different shocks obviously reduce ride quality by again transmitting more of the bump energy to the car's structure. It is a very careful balance to get good ride quality and handling, but there is always a trade off.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Our Lincoln Town Car was on the sales lot for over six months because "traditional" Lincoln drivers wanted their cushy ride. We eventually bought the "Handling Package" Signature for 24% off MSRP. It had Goodyear GA tires and it cornered like a locomotive, but when crossing the RR tracks it was and is still not smooth. It rides very well on smooth pavement, but on city streets you can feel every crack in the pavement. I switched to Michelin X tires and that helped soften the blows a little. In summary, the Handling Package makes the car more driveable, but a lot less comfortable.
  • frasierdogfrasierdog Member Posts: 128
    A Town Car with a handling package would still be about 60x softer ride than a Corvette.

    For that true isolation from the road feeling, try the sofa.
  • jkirkjkirk Member Posts: 4
    I have just been given my in-laws 94 GM. It has sat in driveway for a year. Speedometer works, Odometer and tripmeter do not. I need these fixed as I plan to use the car and know it's not legal to operate with this problem. Help? Also, after driving with AC on Max, water accumulates on passenger side floorboard, mostly in back (an inch deep). Yesterday, I only used AC on Norm, and the carpet is already dry. Any ideas? Lastly, is there a good maintenence/repair book available on this car--like Chilton's?
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    A sofa? This is a board dedicated to the wonderful CV/GM line of cars. Most of us here LIKE a soft ride. Comparing the ride of a CV or Town Car to a Vette is way out there. A Vette rides like a tricycle with hard rubber wheels....not exactly a comfort vehicle. One big reason folks buy Town Cars and Vics is PRECISELY because they ride like your sitting on a sofa. I'm only in my forties yet I've matured enough to be able to appreciate true comfort instead of just performance and speed. Would I like a Vette? Sure, for the occasional spin. But give me a softer ride like you would get from a stock Town Car or Vic as my everyday driver and trip mobile.
    If a person really wants a car that handles like a Vette.....get a Vette.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Also, on the rear air springs, there are three different types. From softest to firmest, it goes Town Car, LS Ultimate, and finally the HPP/LX Sport etc. I believe they had a fourth level when the towing package was available, but I could be wrong about that.

    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.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    car, like it is on my friend's 2004 F150 FX4 truck...I cannot check for the reason I will give you...

    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:
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    I think, off the top of my head, that the headlights come on when you press unlock on the keyfob only if the headlight switch is set to the furthest left position, that is, the automatic position. If the switch is just set to "off", the headlights do not come on by themselves at any time. I can't guarantee that that's right but give it a shot if you're lights aren't currently set to auto. I know that setting it to auto does something with the lights when you shut off the car or something... :D

    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.
  • isseyvooisseyvoo Member Posts: 121
    Can't speak to the odo issue, but the A/C water accumulation is probably something as simple as a clogged or loose drain hose putting the condensation from the compressor in your floorboards instead of outside on the ground. This happened to a car of mine (a Honda actually), and it turned out the fix was as simple as sticking a wire coathanger up into the drain tube (near the firewall on the right-hand underside of the car) to dislodge some debris. When running the A/C, you should be able to see the condensation slowly dripping on the ground under the right side of the car. If you don't see this, then that is what coming inside.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    Since my light switch is at the off position (I hate auto on-off, I am quite capable of deciding when I want my lights on or not), I will try your idea...thanks...

    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...
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    You do realize you can get out of the front doors without unlocking them?

    Only Fords seem to do this...
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    Indeed, that is a very handy feature. Other carmakers used to do this (my '80 T/A does, for example), but I guess for liability reasons or whatever the practice has all but disappeared. I wish you could do that on the back doors, too.

    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! :D
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    light switch on auto, and then unlocked the doors with the remote fob...only the interior lights come on...thanks for the thought...

    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:
  • jkirkjkirk Member Posts: 4
    Anyone know how to even get "behind" the dash? I was at the dealer Saturday, and the Service Writer told me I could "pop off" the dash panel that runs underneath the steering column and get in that way. Well guess what, that dash panel doesn't snap on and off, so now it's broke, and taking it off only revealed the metal panel underneath. My speedometer works fine, but no trip meter or Odometer. Are these electronic, sensor fed, or via a cable from the transmission?
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    I'm sorry the auto light thing didn't work; I think that it keeps the lights on for a short time after the car is turned off, so I just extrapolated :).

    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!
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    a feature like lights staying on should not be what differentiates 40K from 20K, any more than antilock brakes or airbags...IMO
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Get a shop manual from your public library is the easiest answer. I would not start taking things apart without reading up on it entirely.
  • frasierdogfrasierdog Member Posts: 128
    I doubt the library will have what you need. You will need a true Ford service manual.

    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
  • jkirkjkirk Member Posts: 4
    THANKS! Just checked the local library and they have Chilton's Ford CV & GM 89-98 Repair manual. I've got it on order! This should be a good start....and if not, I'll try the cd off ebay.

    Thanks, again! :)
  • reefslingerreefslinger Member Posts: 3
    Hi guys, I just bought a 93 GM and had a class 3 hitch installed to pull my 3500 lbs boat. When I dropped the trailer onto the hitch, the car sat way too low to drive. I don't see any air shocks or a shut off in the truck. The springs are virtually new (they look brand new). What's easiest/cheapest way to beef up the rear end so it can handle my boat? Just add heavier springs? and also a tranny cooler? Thanks.
  • reefslingerreefslinger Member Posts: 3
    Another quick question, I have a 93 GM. I went to the drive-inn the other night and couldn't shut the day time running lights off by engaging the parking brake (the way I've always done it before) The car did'nt come with a manual, could someone please enlighten me? Thanks again.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    I may be wrong on this, but Ford has never used DRLs (Daytime Running Lights) like GM and Toyota, so your lights are not DRLs, IMHO...

    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... ;);):blush:

    I am certainly subject to correction on this...

    Where in creation do drive-in theaters still exist...Dukes of Hazzard County???
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    My '04 CV has daytime running lights; not sure where you got the idea that they never had them :confuse:

    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:
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Look into the Monroe air shocks for replacing the rear shocks. The most economical installation is having the valve stem for manually applying the air each time you hook up the boat/trailer. More expensive is on board compressor. Locate the air shock valve stem so it is out of the way of loading the trunk.

    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. :)
  • reefslingerreefslinger Member Posts: 3
    Thanks for the info on Monroe air shocks. I looked them up here in Ontario and the cost was around $300 CDN a piece plus 2 hrs labour. Does the pricing make sense?
  • isseyvooisseyvoo Member Posts: 121
    Well that explains it no? Canada mandates DRLs, the U.S. doesn't.
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    In addition, is it true that police cars do not get DRLs in order to be able to "sneak up" on suspects if so desired? It's scary how the DRLs on my '04 are brighter than the regular lights on my '85! Headlights, although a lot more expensive now, have certainly come a long way.
Sign In or Register to comment.