Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Is thebest car in the world Crown Victoria?
This discussion has been closed.
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
Crown Vics should be rightly melted down to make lighter faster funn-er cars for us and our kids.
Well, this Chrysler rag tried it with the Imperial, one of the few cars ever to be banned from demolition derbies, and found it wasn't as easy to cut through '60's sheetmetal as it was '70's sheetmetal. See, even back then people were whining "they don't make 'em like they used to" ;-) They timed the car from 0-60 and the 1/4 mile, both with all its bulk and without. I wish I could find that article today. I don't remember what the times were, but I think a typical Mopar muscle car with the same engine was still faster. Considering a musclecar would most likely have a hotter version of the engine, as well as quicker gearing, I guess that isn't too much of a shock!
And speaking of the Accord, or other popular imports of today, I believe that these cars will someday become "classic" or "collectables" or "value added". That is why I'm keeping mine. Our children and grandchildren (not us) will have a certain amount of nostalgia for these cars when the time is right. Soon our cherished muscle cars will be as irrelevant to them as those pre-50's cars are to us. The kids of today will look back on the era that they grew up in, and when they hit thier Forties they will rekindle thier youth with a bunch of rice rockets. (Or possibly a sled like the current Crown Vic.)
Getting back to the topic though, I think the sheer numbers of Crown Vics works in thier favor for future restoration consideration. Plenty of cheap parts to be had. Also, if my predictions above are accurate, the "classic" cars of tommorow will be dominated by the small 4 bangers of today. And, just as today anything "different" stands out in a sea of 60's and 70's musclecars and 50's hot rods, these monsters may become the "cool" and "different" restomods on the show fields of tommorow.
That they are the last of thier kind also works in thier favor. (Did I say that already?)
"Soon our cherished muscle cars will be as irrelevant to them as those pre-50's cars are to us. The kids of today will look back on the era that they grew up in, and when they hit thier Forties they will rekindle thier youth with a bunch of rice rockets. (Or possibly a sled like the current Crown Vic.)"
I think you may be right on this one. I would even say that nostalgic tastes sometimes lag a bit behind people's actual ages. For example, many of the adults who now like '40s and '50s hot rods aren't even old enough to remember those cars when they were new.
Interestingly, my friends (all around 16-20 years old) think my brother's 1977 Toyota Celica is a really cool car, when most people who were teenagers in the '70s would probably hate it, from its vinyl interior to its energy absorbing bumpers. As an 18-year-old, I don't know if I will ever be nostalgically attracted to a 1990s car, but there are plenty of vehicles from the '70s and '80s that already seem cool to me. So I would imagine the people who are just being born now will be the ones who buy "vintage" 2000 models in 40 years.
-Andrew L
As for "collectible", well, any car somebody collects is a collectible. The word doesn't mean very much really.
"Classic" is a term that has to be earned. An owner can't label the car himself. Well, he can, but who would believe him?
Honestly, do you really think a 1980 Toyota Corolla or a Ford Fairmont deserve the term "classic", just because a few survived or Uncle Harry repainted his? Kind of makes a joke of the word IMO.
Why aren't some very rare cars valuable? WELL, because nobody wanted to buy it when it was new! That's why it's rare, kind of like asparagus ice cream.
Now one of my cars, for instance, is a very clean, exceptionally nice Mercedes 300D. I love that car because it takes me everywhere and doesn't break down and is comfortable and still good-looking, etc.
Now when that car throws a rod or gets rear-ended, I"m certainly not going to fix it. I'll give it a pat on the butt and send it to the shredder.
Cruel? Inhumane? Perhaps, but it's just an old used 4-door car, all used up. Goodbye and thanks from the bottom of my heart.
Under your qualifications they only American cars of today (or the recent past) that could possibly qualify for future classic status would be the Corvette, Viper, Prowler, and perhaps (but probably not)a few Lincoln and Cadillac products.
Jeez I can't believe I forgot to mention the GTO and 'Cuda, early T-birds,....let's just say I forgot to mention a lot of cars.
I agree that you cannot currently put the Viper and Accord in the same category, but 40 years from now there could be a lot of people who will want the Accord for what it represented in it's day, or what it personaly represented for them in it's day.
I have a feeling you only view as classic, cars that are beyond the ordinary mans ability to obtain. I view such cars as irrelevant relics since I believe it is the ordinary man that determines what is or is not a classic. And he determines that by what he chooses to ressurect or preserve. And when he collectively chooses to do so en 'masse to a particular automobile, then that determines it's bona-fide inclusion into the world of "classic" automobiles.
Speaking of which, I wonder if, as the Panther bodies age enough that they are exempt from emissions testing, if we might start seeing some crop up with high-performance transplants. I think it'd be kinda cool to see a '79 LTD Crown Vic coupe with a Mark VIII or Mustang GT drivetrain in it! Heck, I'm sure they're actually lighter than the Mark VIII, so it should be enough to move it!
Unfortunately with emissions testing, it seems they're getting stricter and stricter, at least here in MD. I remember when I started driving, when the '88 models came out that fall, anything '73 and older was exempt. They moved it up a model year every year, but for some reason stalled out at 1976 years ago. Kinda makes me wonder though, if you get historic plates for, say, a '77 LTD (which you can now do in MD, and you don't have to take it through inspection), would you still have to go through the emissions test?
Short of it throwing a rod or being rear ended, what's the maximum you'd be prepared to spend to save your 300D from the shredder?
Yep, ballpark, that's about right. Very very few cars will ever be "classics", because very, very few cars deserve the name IMO. I equate "classic" with "champion" or something like that.
Model A Fords are not classics and never will be. For one thing, there are still maybe 1/2 million on the road, at least that. Also they are pretty humble cars, noisy and crudely built. Surely they are among the most famous of all cars, but their fame is more the Ford legend, the Depresson, etc. They are a part of history but not necessarily just car history--rather all of American history.
They are not "champions" among their contemporaries. Now a Cadillac 1931 V-16, that's a classic and a hundred times more car than a 1931 Ford Model A.
A 1990 Accord will be a nightmare to maintain electronically in 30 years. A 67 Galaxie will still be bone simple to fix in 2032.
And I've often heard that back then, you needed to do a tuneup every 12,000 miles. Now I'm not proud of this, but I did let my '68 Dart go about 40-45,000 miles once without changing the spark plugs, and when I did change 'em, I didn't notice a bit of difference in performance. In contrast, my '00 Intrepid needed new plugs at 51,000 miles, although Dodge and many others claim 100,000 mile tuneup intervals. So on paper, going from 12,000 mile tuneups to 100,000 mile tuneups looks really good. 8 times as good, in fact. But when the real-world difference comes down to 40K miles versus 50K, it's not so "paradigm-shifting" as they like to say here at NASA!
"I have a formula that works for me, which is that on an old car that is not nor will ever be valuable, like a 300D or an Accord, about 1/4 of the retail value to fix it up per year."
Not even from a collector-car standpoint, but just one of simple economics, how does this make sense? Barring a vehicle that has been totally crushed in a collision, or whose frame has rusted away, it's always cheaper to fix an existing car than to buy another one. Of course, you could buy a $1000 car, but chances are it will need major work soon, too.
In the long run, unless the vehicle gets truly destroyed, I think it's always cheaper to keep making repairs. 95% of the time, choosing to replace a car is simply an issue of "I'm sick of this car, I want something new," not any rational advantage.
-Andrew L
So far, I figure my Intrepid's been running about 21-22 cents per mile. I the out-the-door price on this car was about $22,000, so figure I'd have to drive the car 220,000 miles, without putting a single penny into it, otherwise, to get to that 10 cents per mile. Even if nothing breaks, it's still going to need tuneups, tires, belts, hoses, tranny servicing, coolant flushes, etc.
There is something to be said for warranties.
Electronics do not always age well. They get brittle, and can short out in many places. The issue of finding parts for a 35 year old Honda would be an issue as well. Many will be Honda specific, hard to find, and very expensive as well. An ignition switch is much more simple on a 67 than a 1990. Of course, I could hot-wire my Galaxie if I had to start it.
Also, the only computer on my Galaxie is the one in my brain.
The only pollution control on the Galaxie is "How rich do I want to set the carburator?"
Good point on maintenance requirements. Much of that can be fixed by selectively upgrading items, such as ignition, plugs, etc. Relatively simple and cheap to do. Other than lubes and tune-ups, what other maintenance is required annually? It has the spin-on oil filter, no oil baths required.
Ditto for the Crown Vic and various other modern day "turds".
The Crown Vic's only saving grace is that it's RWD and simpler in design than an Accord, and the basic platform has been in production since 1979. The thing that's going to hurt both the Accord and the Crown Vic though, is that the vast majority of them sold are 4-door sedans, which traditionally aren't as popular as coupes when they get old. Ford hasn't even made a 2-door Crown Vic since around 1987 or '88, and technically, I think it was a 2-door sedan. I'm splitting hairs here, but the difference is that a 2-door sedan shares the same windshield with a 4-door sedan, which is usually taller and more upright, and a 2-door coupe is usually more raked-back and has a bit lower profile. With some cars it's hard to tell though, especially since nowadays, even 4-door cars are much more rakish.
One thing I'm wondering though, is how many computer systems and such can just be dismantled, as they age? For example, it's fairly common to disable the Lean Burn computers that Chrysler used back in the '70's, and emissions controls can fairly easily (but not necessarily legally) be taken off of those smogged engines of the era. But today, with computers controlling practically everything, once your HAL9000 decides it doesn't want to cooperate anymore, I wonder if there'd be a practical way to bypass it?
Oh yeah, I saw a '92 Crown Vic for sale the other night at a gas station. It had 94,000 miles, and they wanted something like $3950. Looked like it was still in good shape. I almost think that if you took someone from the past, and showed them a pic of a '92 Crown Vic and an '02 Crown Vic, most people would think the '92 looked more futuristic!
For the past 100 years anyway, the only cars that people have really craved and desired had at least ONE of these three things: Power (lots of it), Performance (best in its class and type, a standout) and Prestige throughout all economic classes (self-explanatory).
The Crown Vic and Accord have none of those, so the outlook isn't good.
Also, while GM's B-bodies got excellent economy for their size (Even the 260 hp Caprice 350 was EPA rated at 17/26), they still dragged the company's CAFE numbers down. OTOH the Tahoe, which essentially replaced the Caprice on the assembly lines is rated at something like 15/19 in 2wd form. Worse for the environment yes, but better for GM's CAFE numbers, because trucks are figured differently from cars. Also much, much better for their bank account! Leave it to the government to try forcing us out of one type of vehicle, but leave us wide open for something that costs more, burns more gas, and makes us more dependent on foreign oil. Oh well, as Archie Bunker once said "What's good for GM is good for America!"
There's no denying that the Crown Vic is a good car, but I think the main problem is that it's viewed for the most part as a workhorse. Put them into police and taxi service and run them into the ground. They even make the interiors of them more police-car or taxi-like nowadays, with a cheaper grade of carpet, and plain vinyl door panels. When the current style came out for '92, the "civvy" models had cloth door panels and a ritzier grade of carpet. I guess it was cheaper to just build them all the same way though, to make the transition to police or taxi duty simpler.
Certainly. Remove the 4.6 and 4R70W, and replace with a carbureted 460 and C-6. It'll fit. As far as external dimensions go, the 4.6 is a very big motor.
But the argument is specious, as no one is going to take the trouble to fix a Crown Victoria in 20 years, anymore than nobody does ground-up restorations on 20-year old 4-door sedans today. People will use 'em, love 'em and junk 'em.
You'll be able to find a Mint, low-mile, original Crown Vic or Accord.
There's gonna stillbe some out there if only because they made SO damn many of em!
Bill
re your comment that "The aftermarket is built not on numbers available, but on the frenzy to restore the ones that are left. There are probably more Corollas than any other car ever made, but you can't get aftermarket parts for 80s models"....
I agree with your premise, but not your example.
19802 Corollas are the most popular Corollas ever made, and for good reason: they were rear wheel drive, light weight platforms with engines that pulled strong from 2000 rpm and redlined at 7500 rpm. They are, by far and away, the most desirable Corollas ever made, and they are a cult car in Japan and here in SoCal as well. A trashed 85 GTS will sell for $2500, and a clean one will sell for upwards of $4500 -- well above the original purchase price.
I have an 85 GTS sitting in my driveway, and it is my heroin. I also have a turbocharged 2000 LE, as you know, and it is infinitely faster than my 85, but I would ten times rather drive my 85. To give it its due, it will scratch any stock Integra, MP3, Civic or whatever out there (been there, done that). And in the mountains above my home, the 85 is a pure delight to drive.
As for aftermarket parts, TRD makes all kinds of parts for it -- suspension, brakes, engine, whatever -- and you can easily install a Japanese motor with turbo, 20V or whatever, for a few hundred dollars. The 4AGE Corolla is the Chevy small block of Japanese cars. If you want really insane power, an MR2 turbo is the way to go. You can build it to over 450 hp and you can tune the suspension to lay all that power to the ground.
Okay, I'm done....!!! =O)
Also, you can't order a new dashboard for it, or find the chrome trim pieces, or new seats. Nobody is going to tool up to repo '80 Corolla interior and trim parts!
So the only way '80 Corollas will survive is a) time capsules that are originals and b) nuts like you who make them into something interesting.
Same with your GTS. A few will survive at the hands of a devoted small following, but they will disappear in time because no one will endure the substantial cost of restoration on a $4,500 car full retail. You probably wouldn't even fix it yourself if (god forbid) it were totalled. You'd find a new toy (maybe another GTS).
As for "value added", I guess that's true in the sense that it's hard to resist going to TRD for every single suspension piece and engine upgrade they have for the car, but my car is bascially stock, except for a TRD suspension, Weapon-R filter and TRD exhaust. Yet it will smoke a stock Civic, MP3 or Integra, and in terms of handling and driving enjoyment, there is simply no comparison. It is a mechanical wolverine -- a screaming, crazy little monster that will take all the abuse you can give it and come back for more. It is to me now what my Alfas were to me in the 60s and 70s.
They are no different that early RX-7s I think, or early CRXs or 240Zs. People buy 'em, love 'em, fix them up "to a degree", but nobody's restoring them (well Nissan restored some of them and took a beating, too!). I would have noticed in my biz, I think, if old Japanese cars were being restored. They ARE, however, sometimes modified or street-rodded, because they are so incredibly dull to begin with (back then I mean).
When I start seeing $25K-$30K restorations on Toyotas at collectible car auctions, I will absolutely declare myself a believer, because that's the only proof I could accept that the cars will survive.
As for dull, you are absolutely wrong about the 4AGE Corollas. Road and Track included them and their Supra cousin as best in class, and a hoot to drive. If you say they are dull, you will have a tough time convincing me you've ever driven one -- especially as a fellow Alfisto. They have a great gearbox, an engine that will happily pull full throttle from 2000 rpm in any gear all the way to a 7500 rpm redline -- and with decent tires, they corner like a scared rabbit. You really need to drive one and see what I'm talking about. There are plenty of Toyota nuts up there in SF, I'll hook you up if you're interested. We have a major show up there every year.
The Crown Vic, in my opinion, is neither classic, collectible or special interest. It's just an old used car to most people. That's okay, the world needs old used cars, too.
Same with a Crown Vic. Ford will make mechanical parts for a long while, but not trim, lenses, glass, etc. That could get hard to find as the Vics go to the crusher.
These cars are lost because nobody cares about them. If they did, they'd pay the man more than the government for this "precious car".
Supply and demand, plain and simple.
Also, parting a car out will almost always yield a higher profit than the whole car, and who's ready or able to do that?
I clipped something about scrappage laws in Scandanavia that I'll have to dig up. This is not just an American problem -- it's all over.
This comes from Jim Conrady, president, SIMCA Car Club of America:
"Sometimes we don't know how good we have it compared with other places in the world. France, for instance, had an incredible country-wide bounty on turning in old junkers, and it has permanently destroyed many of the mainstream locations of old classic French cars -- some worth literally tens (and restored, hundreds) of thousands of dollars each in today's market.
Delage, Delahaye, Hotchkiss, Tractions (Citroen) and other obscure, yet highly prized, cars were systematically destroyed.
The purge has been gnerally done away with over time, but the effects created a permanent deep scar on the rebuilders' market in Europe. My friends from there have mentioned it repeatedly and just shake their heads in dismay.
We don't want any ownership or collection of any kind to be crippled by this loss of freedom. It would be a travesty and take away a right that would be greatly missed. I would like my 6-year-old son to enjoy the hobby as I have over the years -- freely, and without restrictions of any kind."
amen.
I do agree, though, that crushing these old sedans will result in a loss of parts for the more desirable collectibles, but here again, I also think this works itself out. No American cars that are worthy of restoration today seem to be "starving" for parts that I can see. The aftermarket is vital and takes up the slack.
As for the argument of "affordable" old cars to fix up as a hobby, the reality is that it costs just as much to restore a 4-door sedan as a 2-door convertible, so that doesn't really fly.
What is lost by scrappage campaigns, though, is cheap old running cars to enjoy. That is undeniably true, that sometimes perfectly good old cars are destroyed.
I think we need to look at the Big Picture here and see that scarcity improves value.
I ended up chaining it to my NYer and pulling it to another spot in the yard. I guess that's kinda rednecky, turning what was Chrysler's flagship way back in 1979 into a tow truck!
Let's face it -- I'd love to have another 56 Pontiac (even though they weren't particularly attractive cars) if for no other reason than that's the car I first made out with my girlfriend in. And I'd love another 69 Road Runner because it recalls those long summer days in Michigan when I had nothing to do but hook up with my buds and go street racing.
I'd also love another 57 DeSoto convertible just because the damn things were so outrageous looking!