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
1. I have heard many CV owners in the hot deep
south complain about weak air conditioners.
2. Reliability. I don't think anyone can assert
that the CV can beat a Camry. Maybe an ext.
warranty can offset the Camry's superior
repair record.
Has anyone out there gone from a Camry/Accord to a CV? I'd be real curious to hear your comments.
I would not be so quick to discount the Crown Vic's reliability, though. Crown Vics have the best reliability and durability record around. The car is also *very* cheap to fix compared to a Camry or other import FWD car. Tranny work is cheap, engine work is cheap, and unlike a FWD car, there are *no* CV joints in a crown vic, and those will eventually die on just about any FWD car. I've replaced them(not exactly cheap) on an Escort, an Audi, and a Geo. The crown vic is the car the kind of American car companies should be making instead of what they ARE making.
1) This may seem silly to some folks, but I drive alot of miles on a daily basis over our majorily crappy Pa. roads, and the road noise level in the Accord drove me nuts. 2) Size and safety 3) Cheaper maintenance. 4) Mechanical simplicity (i.e. I can do alot more maintenance and repair myself).
I'm not going to say that a CV/GM is going to be more reliable over the life of the car than a Camry or Accord, but assuming even average reliability and not taking into account the reduced gas mileage, routine maintenance costs for the CV/GM should be lower. I know the newer imports have longer schedule than they used too, but the '95 Accord I had required tune-ups every 30k, and timing belts every 60k, in addition to fluid changes...overall, so far th GM has been a lot cheaper to keep on the road (27k so far)... Only time will tell if it is more reliable in the long run.
Oh and air conitioning: The A/C in the Accord was a constant source of headaches and trips to the dealer. The GM A/C is nice and cold and very effective (my opinion).
'97 - replaced tape (sometimes right channel was making funny noise), under warranty
'98 - changed transmission fluid
2000 - replaced front tires and they suggested front brakes, did that too.
2001 - replaced rear tires
now it is due for transmission fluid change, radiator flush and fuel filter.
Yes, and this year I ran over an old truck tire on inerstate, could not avoid it because of heavy traffic at 80 mph, shock was quite strong and I got a small dent and scratches on my left doors. Fixed that for $600 (paid 250, rest was insurance).
Looks like new inside and out.
Gas mileage is not so bad, 26-27 mpg on interstate with regular gas, for this weight, size and comfort it is truly amaizing. I have no complaints about AC, though my previous CV '81 was blowing colder air when it was 18 yrs. old. I have tried Camry and Accord, but they just seem to be lower class cars compared to CV, I mean comfort/noise/luxury. I especially did not like new Accord for its sleepy AT.
Glad to share MS Excel spreadsheet of repairs to anyone interested in the vehicle history. Email: cmarsz@earthlink.net.
It's a very different car than a Camry. It's much bigger and more difficult to manuever around corners and into parking spots. It has a solid rear-axle so the drive wheels will be a little uneasy if you drive over a bumpy road at speed. I'm a huge fan of RWD drive cars, but they do handle differently than FWD in slippery conditions. Snow isn't a factor in the deep South, but you better have snow tires if you plan on getting around in it safely. It's quiet and rides great but will be more floaty than a Camry. The interior is also very different. I'd recommend you rent one and drive it around for a few days before making a decision.
As far as reliability... I would always purchase an aftermarket warranty on ANY new car. For less than $1500 you can get bumper-to-bumper coverage for 5 years/150k, and that's worth the peace of mind for me. Parts and repairs, when needed, will usually be less expensive than the Camry.
Keep in mind that the CV is very much a "heavy-duty" car. It's big and solidly built. Most sales go to fleet units (police and taxi) where money and lives are on the line. They're not going to be buying cars year after year that are breaking down on them. For hard driving or long highway trips carrying any kind of weight in the trunk, the CV is the clear winner. The V6 Camry I drove was miserable going up long hills with the A/C on.
As for the A/C... it gets very cold very quick in my Vic, and the blower is one of the strongest ones out there. The only complaints I've heard are from some of the older folk who say it's too cold/too much fan even on the lowest setting. You won't have a problem in this area.
My 98 CV has 90k miles and has been a joy to own and drive. I've only had one unscheduled repair ($200 for a sticking high-beam stalk switch) that was covered under an aftermarket warranty. It takes regular gas and I'm getting about 22mpg (70%hghy/30%city) with the Performance & Handling Package. The newer (post-99) engines are slightly more fuel efficient, but the P&H will still steal 1-2mpg from you.
The vibration is easily detected at any speed or even in Park. Just increase and decrease the RPM's while in Park and you will feel the vibration in the steering wheel, or level off at any speed from 30 MPH on up and the vibration mimics tires out of balance. Once you feel this vibration you will be able to reconize it very easily and it will drive you up a tree. I have tried at least 40 GM and Town Cars (2001) and they all had this engine imbalance. My GM was diagnosed by an 8 Time Certified Tech that owns his shop in Orlando Fl and with his help FMC refunded my full purchase price 8 months after I bought it. My advice is to stay away from a 2001 with a 4.6. The 02's may be cured. I would wait!
I know that in average Toyota/Honda are more reliable, but it is also a matter of luck. It also seems that Honda/Toyota fans believe deeply that those cars are better, even when something brakes they are still happy because it is as good as it can be.
Did you ever find a 2001 that did not have an imbalance problem? My 2001 GM doesn't t have this problem, or at least I never detected any vibration coming up thru the steering column. There's some occassional slight engine vibration at idle, but it goes away as soon as the accelerator is pressed. It's nothing even I could complain about. But if there's any chance I can get my dealer to buy back the car, I'd sure go for that!
Any suggestions on how to deal with Ford would be appreciated. Is there any technical reference number or problem to cite?
Thanks.
How about it, you techies out there?????? Thanks for the help.
By the way, I still haven't heard any first hand accounts of new CV owners with the sport appearance pkg - does it really exist????
More power to you if you cannot detect this problem. There is nothing to cite from Ford. I was satisfied with my GM except for the vibration. Drive your's and enjoy.
Yes, it does exist, but is anyone buying into a full size GM/CV with buckets? If I were to buy one, I'd get the sport option; however, I rarely have four people in the car, let alone six, so the sports option works perfectly for me.
Besides, I'm waitng for the Marauder anyway.
Also, would adding Bilstein shocks give the GM a tighter, more controlled, less floaty ride? Sometimes it feels like the GM is wallowing like a dinghy. It handles fairly well for a large car otherwise.
I'm not sure if replacing shocks or springs will help. I think the hop might even be more pronounced with the P&H package. In general I think it's a bad idea to "upgrade" a fairly new car unless you know exactly what you're doing. Often times people spend hundreds of dollars trying to change the fundamental feel of a car only to make it worse.
One thing that would definately fix the hop is an independent rear suspension, but I doubt we'll see this on a car less than $30k. Maybe on the Towncar perhaps?
I have been assured that the engine/cranny are OK for now, although if I were to buy the car, I would expect to pull them out and replace them with new..... My question is this: If I were to do this, assuming the car had not been in an accident previously, does this seem like a sane plan ?? I would expect to pay in the mid 3000 for the car and spend perhaps another 3500 on motor/cranny (I am shooting ball park here)
As I said, the car LOOK absolutely gorgeous !!!
I just want to make sure my decision's based mostly on rational thought and not totally on emotion, as I seem to have "fallen" for the car....
All insight most greatly appreciated... thanks in advance. P.. I currently own a 99 DX which I'll be selling shortly cause the loan payment is driving me nuts.... the "new car" would be paid for... Thanks
To all - despite what I have read in this forum about the converter shudder supposidly being eradicated with the '98 models, it has reared its ugly head on my '00 model at about 27k. Does a fluid change take care of this (schedule is for 30k) and does it pose a long-term reliability issue?
Thanks
The car was running fine, but since it had over 100,000 miles on it, I figured it was time to replace the spark plugs a few weeks ago. At the same time, the place doing the new plugs noticed that one of my tires was almost gone. So, I ended up getting some new Firestone tires at the same time.
Since getting the work done, I'm now getting apx 4 miles per gallon less than I was getting before having the work done. I would normally expect mileage to get better, or at least stay the same.
Has anybody heard of this happening after having such work done. I thought about it being the tires, but they're not bad tires....steel belted with a 55,000 mile tread wear warranty. They were not the top of the line tires, with a 75K treadwear warranty, but I bought a step lower because, as I told them, with 106,000 miles I really didn't expect to still be driving this car for another 75K miles. Is it possible that something was done wrong with the new plugs or did I get lousy tires? I'm thinking about taking it back and mentioning this to the people who did the work, but I'll fear they'll just say it's the tires I bought and I should have bought their better set to get the best gas mileage. I've had two other sets of tires on this car, both comparable in specs to these new tires, but always got better gas mileage.
Right now I'm getting maybe 11-12 mpg city where I had been getting 15-17. On the highway it's apx 20-22 where I had been getting 25-26 before the work was done. Anyway, just wondering if anybody had any thoughts about such a drastic drop in gas mileage like this.
Thanks.
C (normal) ID (heavy duty)
Front B46 - 1497 B46 - 1495
Rear B46 - 1498 B46 - 1496
AutoZone's prices are ~$99 each.
Re: your AT problem. Before I bought my '00 Marquis, I looked at www.alldata.com for info on any Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) for it. Alldata used to provide the complete bulletin, or a summary, free. No longer. But it will give you a listing of TSB number, issue date, and title. Alldata listed only 11 TSBs on the Marquis through May 2000, but it seems likely there are more not yet entered into its database. Anyhow, TSB 99-14-12, July '99, titled "A/T-Green Service Tagged Transmissions, 4R70W" is the only one listed for an AT. You might want to ask your dealership about it, and others that may have been issued by FoMoCo, but are not on Alldata yet.
Good Luck!
You'll probably have more problems with things like the A/C compressor (spendy), sensors, window actuators, wiper motors etc. then the drive train.
Good Luck.
If they weren't replaced, do so---the last set I bought (my son has a 4.6 in a T-bird) was about $90 at Ford. Could have saved a few bucks at one parts store and spent more at another but hoped that the Ford set would have the problems worked out by now.
Thanks again.
Also, for #970 Do these cars last forever ?? by smmsmm.
My 94 GM LS had 130K and ran great before trading for a loaded '00 GM. If the car had any kind of maintanence you are probably good for another 60K of trouble free driving. You may have to spend a $1000 on basics like shocks, tires, brakes, muffler/exhaust, waterpump, alternator etc. Do change the Trans. fluid every 30-35K for a long life
[non-permissible content removed] Luck!
Guess which local Mercury dealer won't get a shot at selling me my next new car, for which I'm about due.
The new wires also have different plug connectors---they are all rubber with no plastic piece like the first 2 sets that I've gone through.
Is there anyone with any experience with this?
Happy 4th. Great country and GREAT CAR!!
the deal:
with a running .. coming to a stop light e.g.... my hoop tie begins to sputter and the charge indicator goes up and down like Nasdaq. Or when blinker is used the same deal... is the sign of alternator problems? Battery is about 4 years old.
#2
I want to upgrade my wheels and shocks ('96 GM GS) and would appreciate some knowledgeable advice. Nothing to fancy, but something more pimp than the crap it has on now. I need new shocks and would appreciate some feedback from bilstein owners and what do you think about the standard midas crap?
Thanks for now
Iceberg
What would you recommend ?
By the way, you can buy a Lexus ES300 for about the same price as a loaded Avalon (around 30K). The Avalon has more interior space than the Lexus and has the same 210 HP V-6. I've also driven the Bonneville and like the Avalon much better. I've heard the 300M is a really great car, but have no first hand knowledge. Good luck with your purchase.
- requires premium gas
- the cheapest Avalon starts at 27k (MSRP)
- 2000+ model is butt ugly on the exterior (liked interior though)...seems to be a Toyota trend
- with any Toyota you get obnoxious sales and service. Why pay more when I got morons with an attitude in the service dept of my Lincoln/Mercury/Jaguar dealer for 5k less than the starting price for an Avalon?
- The strut front suspensions of Toyotas always feel like they are going to colapse on themselves when you hit a bump
- its driven by the wrong set of wheels
But, opinions are like A#$&*(%s, everybody's got one.
Ultimately though, buy what suits YOU best.
to their opinion. That's one of the things that makes this country great. However, I would like to clarify some facts about the Avalon.
1. It does not require premium fuel (I own one and the owners manual specifically states that 87 Octane is recommended)
2. You can purchase a base model Avalon for around 24K (I paid $26,400 for mine with leather, power seats, aluminum alloy wheels and a JBL stereo/CD player as options)
3. I have not had nor heard about any problems with the Avalons front suspension.
4. I wouldn't worry too much about head on collisions between an Avalon and a CV or LT. So far, neither I nor anyone I know who owns an Avalon has been decapitated. In fact, I don't know anyone at all that doesn't have their head anymore, except for maybe some of the people posting messages on the Edmunds boards.
Finally, the 2001 Avalon won the top spot in J.D. Powers initial quality results for mid size premium sedans. BTW, the EPA considers the Avalon a full size car due to the substantial interior volume.
On another note, I just read about the new Mercury Marauder in R&T. It is supposed to have a 300 HP engine. I can hardly wait to test drive one. It's due for sale next summer as a 2003 model. Has anyone seen or driven one yet?
But considering my experience with several local Toyota dealers, marshal1 must live where you can actually make a deal on the durned things...tey sell droves of Camrys to idiots in these parts who think you pay what the paper stuck in the rear-window says..:)
About the gas.... the dealer and everything I have read indicated that the Toyota 3.0l V6 required premium (now this was a year and a half ago), and it does in all of the vehicles Toyota put it in. One Toyota I did seriously consider for a while was a Camry V6 w/stick, but the lack of headroom and premium gas requirement was a turnoff (and the dealer attitude)... so, if you use 87 octane does that reduce performance like some Honda/Acura engines?
Except for an extremely poor paint job (many onlookers thought that the car was a two tone shade of black!!), the car has a mean look about it. The doors were locked, but the interior looked high class. The buckets appeared to have more bolster support than the CV with the sport package parked nearby.
The Mercury promotional package claimed a 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. Pretty solid for a big Merc.
Rear end was more CV than GM. In my opinion, the GM's full width rear red reflector would have looke good on the car rather than just the CV tailights.
We could not look under the hood, which was ridiculous. (People were crawling all over the new, much more expensive Q45's and Lexus 430's, but the Merc (and Ford with the sport option) were locked tight.)
Go to www.mercuryvehicles.com and you can get a lot of information on the car. There's also an Edmund's MM chatbox with a lot of old posts regarding projected price, is the car a GM or a distinct vehicle, etc.
The only exterior change, other than trim (rear/front facia, wheels, dual exahusts, and paint), that I noticed was the grille. It seemed to have lost the GM "hump" in the middle (flatter from left to right), and reminded me more of the Cougar front from a few years back.
But, since the CV/GM's are scheduled to be reskinned next year (according to some car magazines), we wondered why this car was even shown with an announcement date so far in the future.
We also wondered if the recent gas price increases were going to kill the car, but prices seem to have leveled off.
Mrf, I have been using 87 Octane in my Avalon and have been very pleased with the performance. I haven't put premium gas in it yet due to the high prices, so I don't know if it would have any effect on performance. I suspect that as with most cars if you use a higher octane fuel their will be a marginal increase in performance. In my experience with previous cars that I've owned the performance difference is barely noticeable to the average human.