By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I suspect it will be offered on the Base model eventually, maybe not this model year.
exterior: http://www.wieck.com/public/*2PV_020910
of 30MPH thru 85MPH or at any speed when RPM'S and speed match. This imbalance did not exist before the 2001 4.6. Johnbono, I have also owned GM'S before this and none had this problem. Go try some.
Whatsit mean when speed and RPM's match? Bout the lowest RPM's I've ever actually had the car moving under in my 4.6 T-Bird is about 1,500. If I could get 1500 MPH, aside from burning off the paint and hitting Mach 2, I'd have the world land speed record!
I took it to the dealership and they seem to say that this is a high performance engine that requires emaculate care and that running it (particularly under stress) when it's even a little low on oil could cause such a pressure failure. I will admit that I don't check the oil but about every 2 weeks or so, but it's hard for me to believe that this is also not somehow related to hard rear impact the vehicle took, considering that everything seemed to start at the moment of the collision. If there is any chance that this oil pressure failure can be accident related, I'd like to know it so that I can include it in my collision insurance claim against the other party. Does anybody know of a collision causing such a failure?
SB
The 4.6 is not all that much of a performance engine. As long as you do regular oil changes with 5w30 oil, you should be OK. The accident might have caused it. Since the accident, have you noticed any change in how much oil the engine is burning? That would be the real proof.
anglertype1:
The EPA numbers for the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis are basically a fiction. On a standard CV/GM, highway MPG will be about 25, and city MPG will be about 17. How you drive the car will have a serious effect on gas mileage. Where the vic and the marquis save money is on *maintenance*. The car stands up to the sort of abuse that in a LeSabre would wind up leaving parts strewn all over the road.
Unfortunately, the only cure for this problem is a 3-angle valve job, which any machine shop can do but it's expensive. The best thing to do is to watch that dipstick like a hawk and keep pouring oil down the crankcase.
Ford made a winner with this car and it has served me well. Sounds like the newer ones may not have the long-term reliability and longevity that the old flying bricks had. By the way - I drive a 2000 Bonneville SE now and the GM will be given to a friend soon that can use a dependable second car - no apprehension about turning it over to a good friend - can't always say that about an 11 year old 145K miler.
Best to all
Ken
Also, this engine apparently has this trouble. One mechanic asked me to look at the tailpipe of CVs on the road. Darn if I don't see black smoke coming out of about a third. It's a shame because I had liked this car.
We need a new car (read used) and the new CVs ride makes me car sick. We are now looking at a Buick LeSabre or Toyota Avalon. I wish there were such a thing as an attractively styled practical car.
Thanks for the input on the loss of oil pressure in my '96 CV 4.6 following an accident. Even though it may not be technically accident related, I can take some comfort in the fact that the problem is not necessarily due to "abuse" on my part, as one dealer rep. seemed to say. I'm gonna put a used engine in it, get a few more miles, unload it, and get something else. caveat emptor !!!
SBrown8243
Ron35
Best wishes to you in your car search.
Ken
Please let me know if you get any satisfaction on fixing your 2001 GM. I too am pursuing this with Ford and my dealer in New Jersey, since I don't think it is something I should accept as normal. I can't believe no one else notices this. Maybe we are the only ones with this problem. I don't think so.
I previously had a 93 CV which I loved. It started burning oil around 85000 miles. That's why I traded.
Has anyone else experienced this problem ?
Can anyone offer a solution on how to repair it ?
It is literally driving me crazy !!!!!!
I have filed a complaint with the Dispute Settlement Board thru Ford Motor and my hearing is set for April 19th. My Dealer's service department told me that they have NO FIX, and that the other 4.6 engines in 2001 GM or TC have the same problem. I was offered a $5000 allowance to trade for anything on the lot and that Ford would buy back my car at market value. This offer was made at 2000 miles. I do not want another 2001 GM with the same problem so I have opted to try my luck with the DSB as I want my purchase price refunded. Ford has a serious problem and the fix down the road will be lot's of money for them. Will post the results after April 19th hearing.
Even so, you certainly don't need to buy a $4500 rebuit engine unless there's something else terribly wrong. Replacing the seals should run under $600 (and I'm thinking in the $400-500 range off the top of my head); and anything more than that someone is taking you for a ride or they don't know how to do the job (which does not require removal of the heads).
that the base models do not. I did not find these seats to be overaly comfortable, and, if I recall, the 'butt pocket' was not aligned with the wheel well.
Anyway, I have a GM GS, the seats don't have a well defined 'butt pocket' and I haven't noticed the problem others have noticed.
In case anyone is interested, 2000 GM GS w/ handling performance package, 22k - trouble free.
Will probably need new rubber soon though.
Does anybody know the brand and model number of any good aftermarket shocks that would tighten up the ride motions, i.e. Bilstien, etc?
Thanks
piano falling off a skyscraper... but given the choice between that and the Cadillac DeVille that now looks like what the Chevy Impala should have (the same team that wrought upon the world the Asstek?).... and rear wheel drive vs. front.....
end of rant.
Thanks folks for the shock recommendations. I will lokk into that when I look for new tires, proabably during the summer.
We want to thank Edmunds and its board users for providing problem information that would be extremely difficult to get any other way...
although a CV, GM or TownCar is what we'd much prefer, we won't buy it with headaches like these. Arrghhhh!!
:Dave and Krystyna
Sorry So Long
follow most cars. Room for suspects, dogs, shot guns and
laptop computers. Nice exhaust sound on heavy acceleration. Wait 'till new Mercury Marauder 300 HP 4.6
comes out. Maybe Ford will offer a souped up Crown VIC.
quick question: has anyone priced how much the suspension from an interceptor would cost to put on a civilian Vic with no P&H package?
Ford wouldn't do anything---they told me anything over 1000 miles per quart is acceptable!!!
The air filter box is a very poor design and just does not compress the filter tight enough on the tab side---which also is where the fan blast hits it.
I wrapped some tape around the loops the tabs go in to increase the squeeze on the filter but it was too late---an engine that got 6000+ miles to the quart now gets 2000 or less. This occurred abruptly at about 35000 miles.
What kind of oil consumption do some of the rest of you get with the 4.6 in the CV and Marquis?
I don't know about sensor, fuel injector rail, throttle body hook-ups etc.---you're on your own there.
I wouldn't mind replacing it with a new CV or Marquis but the towing package was dropped in 1997 when Ford redesigned the rear suspension for "better handling and control".
Does anyone know why? Is the new suspension not heavy enough to tow with? Or does Ford just expect people to buy a truck which are more profitable then these cars? It's totally ridiculous that Ford's wimpy front wheel drive mini-van with a dinky V6 is rated to tow 3500 lbs. but a heavier rear-drive CV or Marquis with a V8 is only rated to tow 2000 lbs. This doesn't even change when the performance/handling package is ordered either---even though there's a deeper axle ratio included.
Every thing that is needed to provide a 3500-5000 lb. towing option has to be on the assembly line these cars go down as its the same line that the police cars are built on.
Hope Ford wakes up on this one before I have to replace my Marquis. Right now I would be buying a 2WD Toyota Tundra to get the combination of towing, a V8, and a comfortable ride.