Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis

1303133353661

Comments

  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    Our TC has both & our TB has neither & they're missed on the TB. However, the TB does have a Tach.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    I think they are just following GM's lead in decontenting their product. As long as they keep the functional items, like 4 wheel disc brakes, ABS, traction control (on the GM), etc.

    While neither feature is an absolute necessity, they have already deleted the remote fuel filler release and other nice touches previously. I also think the base fabric has been downgraded.

    They are still bargains, only makes one wonder what they are taking out that you cannot see.
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Member Posts: 854
    Well, decontenting is widespread in the industry, even at H&T's "holy halls".
  • genex1genex1 Member Posts: 11
    Why does Mercury and nearly all other manufacturers recommend lower tire pressures for front tires. In the case of my GM it is 35 in back and 32 in front. I've been putting 35 in all 4 tires mostly because I don't understand why front and back pressures need to be different. Is it related to RWD drive?
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    The higher the tire pressure, the harsher the ride. And since the front tires move side to side with the steering wheel (duh!) the softer you make the front tires, the less vibration translated into your arms. Thus, the pressure is cranked down a bit in the front tires to "absorb" some of the road vibrations.

    The best thing for tire life, however, is to ignore the car maker's reccomendations, and fill your tires according to the tire maker's specifications. Of course, I just take the lazy man's approach and fill 'em all to 35, regardless of tire or car make.
  • genex1genex1 Member Posts: 11
    rea98d Is it correct that you live in FIJI? Are they many CVs or GMs there?

    Your point about front tire pressure would seem to apply to rear tires almost as well inasmuch as the rear tires usually follow the front tires over the road. If a softer ride is desired, it would make sense to lower the tire pressure in all 4 tires. I agree with you that it is probably just as well to keep all 4 tires at the same pressure. My guess is that result of differentiating front and rear pressures is not significant.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Nope, I live in Texas, they just didn't have a Texas flag on the list, and Fiji look cool, so...

    As far as a softer ride, the reason (this being my theory. Ford Engineers may have other reasons) that the front tires are cranked down a little lower than the back is because the front tires are directly connected to the steering wheel, and the driver feels road vibrations through that. The back tires have no suce direct connection to the driver, and can have the pressure cranked up a bit higher without affecting ride quality as much. It's not a matter of keeping the front tires from shaking the whole car, the suspension can handle that, it's a matter of keeping the front tires from shaking the steering wheel, and dropping the air pressure just a bit, at least in theory, helps.
  • dudney0dudney0 Member Posts: 1
    In July of this year, I bought my fourth Grand Marquis..I have owned 87,92,97, and now the 2002 models..They have all been great cars and I have had no reason to consider others..
    My complaint with the 2002, (the LSE) has to do with the steering and handling package...I do notice a slightly better hiway steering action...the car seems to need less attention to keep it in the middle of a lane..However, this seems to be at a sacrifice to both ride and gas mileage...I have found about a twenty percent reduction in both hiway and city mileage and at low speeds, (across RR tracks and city potholes), their is a more pronounced jolt..
    My favorite of all these Grand Marquis was the 87..The engine was the 5 liter model which was subsequently reduced to 4.6...I thought that the five litre was a quieter and better sounding engine..
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Yeah, the different gearing in the rear (what, 2.75 to 3.27 for 2002), and the firmer tires and suspension are both trade-offs some like, and some don't.

    I've always thought that firmer suspensions cause more rattles in a car, and is harder on the car in general, but I don't know if that can be proved.
  • hwyhobohwyhobo Member Posts: 265
    More and more station wagons are coming back. In my area, Volvo seems to sell more wagons than any other style. The Japanese seem to have a wagon now in almost every model (and more are coming). Toyota Highlander is a bestseller. So is Subaru Forrester. German car manufacturers all have wagons now. Besides, many of the current SUV buyers really buy them as poor, gas-guzzling substitutes for wagons. And all I want is a good, ol' American full-size, RWD station wagon. Do you think Ford will resurrect CV/GM wagon in time, or will we let the Japanese and the Germans eat our lunch again?

    Am I the only one who is waiting, or would others like to buy a CV/GM station wagon?
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    List price of the GS is being reduced by $200, but the following changes are known, so far:

    CD player is being removed from the radio, will be cassette only. Don't see it on the option list, though it is standard on the GS Convenience.

    Cargo net in trunk is gone.

    Automatic brake release is gone.

    Pockets on front of seat is gone.

    Good news, is antilock brakes and traction control is still standard, but if you want the CD player, you have to spend the $800 for the Convenience model. The appearance package on the Convenience model will be a different two tone combination and include two tone leather, but will set you back an extra $900 over the current one.

    Don't know about the Crown Vic, yet.
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    When will the Ford engine be replaced by a Lincoln engine in the Towncar? Say, 5.4 DOCS, 300+ h.p.?
  • gmarquisgmarquis Member Posts: 11
    My wife made a left turn and ran over a curb/island with the right rear wheel. I wasn't there, but she hit it hard enough to blow out a practically new Michelin radial tire, with a 4 inch gash in the sidewall. Fortunately the rim wasn't damaged too much. The problem now is that traction control keeps kicking in at speeds over 40mph or so, and won't let the car go over 40mph, ie. no freeway. If I defeat the traction control with the glove compartment, it seems to work OK, but I still think it may be downshifting when it normally wouldn't. This last part could be my imagination. Anyway, anyone have any ideas what might have happened, and if there is an easy fix? I jacked the car up and took off the wheel, and everything looks OK. There's no vibration that would lead me to believe that the axle was bent. The car is a 2000 Marquis. Thanks ahead of time for any help. Thanks,
    Ted
  • gmarquisgmarquis Member Posts: 11
    Correction. That was the LEFT rear wheel.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    There is more damage to your wheel than you think. The traction control works by the ABS computer counting the revolutions the wheel makes and comparing it to the other wheels. This wheel, perhaps due to damage you can't even see, is now turning faster or slower than the others.

    OR the replacement tire is a different size...

    OR the ABS sensor is damaged.

    In any event, you need a repair, but it is likely one of those three things.
  • gmarquisgmarquis Member Posts: 11
    Thanks. I'm hoping it's the spare. I did some research and saw what you mentioned. Although I have a full size spare, it's one of the Goodyear Eagles that came originally with the car. The new tires are Michelins so at least there is a the possibility that it could be the reason (crossing my fingers). I'm hoping so because at the lower speeds, possibly the mismatch isn't as noticeable to the computer, but above 40mph, it may be? Anyway, I'll get a new/same tire, and see what happens. Thanks again.
  • gmarquisgmarquis Member Posts: 11
    So it ended up being the difference in diameter between the full sized spare (Goodyear Eagle), and my current set of tires, Michelin Pilot XGT H4 radials. Even though they are the 'same' size, putting the two side by side revealed that the Goodyear tire was close to a full inch smaller in diameter. Now it makes sense that traction control didn't kick in until ~40mph, when the computer started to detect the difference between the speed that the left and right tires were spinning at. Putting on a matching Michelin solved the problem. Funny thing is, the full sized spare was an option, so the regular spare is/was one of those dinky things. I didn't see in the owner's manual directions to turn off traction control when using one of those, which would probably be a must. Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember reading it.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Glad it wasn't something major! :)
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Donut spares usually have instructions not to exceed a certain speed that, if doesn't get you killed, will most certainly get you arrested for impeding traffic. Donut spares were first concieved by Satan himself, BTW, and should be outlawed immeadiately. First thing I did when I got my T-Bird was go to the junkyard and get a full-size spare. I only later discovered wheels from a Crwon Victoria don't fit on a Thunderbird. Wheels from a Taurus, do.
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    An Alaskan Guide book highly recommended replacing the donut with a regular tire/wheel. After traveling the Top of the World road from Dawson City to Tok, I understood why. Expect to replace a windshield too when you get back.
  • tomcat630tomcat630 Member Posts: 854
    The only Ford "big wagon" that is coming to the market is the 2005 Freestyle. It will have AWD as an option, not RWD though.

    Also, Daimler-Chrysler is bringing out the 2005 Chrysler Pacifica and Dodge Magnum. Based on the RWD LX platform.

    I have a 1987 Merc wagon for fun and some go "eeww" while most others go "wow!"
  • piecekeeperpiecekeeper Member Posts: 18
    Does anyone know how much is costs to replace a side window on a 87 Grand Marquis? Does anyone know if you can buy one from a junk yard and place it in yourself? My son broke his, can't afford a new one so he's driving around without a side window. Please help if you can. If you have any answers, please send to my Email (piecekeeper2502@aol.com) Thanks
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    Ford LTD/CV used the same window I believe. Asking an auto glass shop which windows work would give him more of a variety to look for in the wrecking yards. The library has a book or two which illustrates how to do the job. Check it out.
  • usaf52usaf52 Member Posts: 70
    Have noticed that the NYPD are replacing their CV's with Chevy Impalas, as are many police departments. Any reason for this? I remember there was always a bad rap on FWD cars as police vehicles, but now it seems to be the thing to do.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Ford has gotten a LOT of bad press on the CV/GM's. They go kaboom in SERIOUS rear end accidents, accidents that would totally destroy lesser cars (but then again they are one of the few carlines left with the gas tank aft of the rear axle), and now there are departments which allege the frames are rusting.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    They are switching simply because for crowded urban areas, police chases and high speed driving are not very common. Impala's are cheaper, and get better gas mileage.

    Back in the 60's & 70's, NYC had always used 6 cylinder versions of police vehicles for the same reasons.

    The CV explosions have been extremely rare, but in a society run by sensationalist journalists and lawyers, they smell a buck may be able to be made from it. Some say the newer more environmentally friendly gasolines are more volatile, as the events seem to take place in hot western states.
  • usaf52usaf52 Member Posts: 70
    Police depts in rural areas are also switching to the Chevy Impalas, as I have seen several areas of North Carolina that now have Impalas, and I understand some Florida areas are also switching.
    One reason may be the newly adapted police policies of not going into those long auto chases as in the past. I do notice, though that State Police units still have the CV's.
  • harmarharmar Member Posts: 94
    Window replacement is fairly intuitive. Make a diagram (or take a polaroid or digital picture)before disassembling, keep screws, etc. for various parts in separate margarine tubs and/or color code them with they came from, and reassemble in reverse steps. The only caveat is to make sure no special tools are required. (Manufacturers often toss in some special screw THEY say is for some reason necessary, but I say is to make it tough for average Joes to do their own work.) Junk yards are hooked together online or via teletype now, so can locate even a distant window. Or ask a local glass shop where to look. In my area, glass shops will even give "poor" folks, such as college students, a break on labor costs. -- My '00 GM's frame was extremely rusty when I got it (16K miles, program car), and I was told they all are rusting that-a-way. It has caused me no problems, but, then, I haven't been whacked by any racers, either.-- My local frame shop (Michigan) told me local cops absolutely hate their Impalas, because their rear ends break away in high speed chases. State police still use CVs.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Impalas are unibody, a really strong unibody. The rear ends breaking away is not only darn near a physical impossiblity, it is an urban legend. The only ways that rear end is going to break away during a high speed chase is if someone has physically cut it off from the front end or if it is hit very, very hard by another vehicle or a stationary object.

    Rear ends breaking away? Most law enforcement officers just don't like front wheel drive vehicles. I suppose any reason not to drive one is as good as any other.

    The Impala is a fine vehicle, purpose built to be a police car. That being said, it is no CV/GM: no body on frame, no V-8, no rear wheel drive, much less heavy. Durability in police service has been good so far, notwithstanding what is clearly abuse by some of the drivers who do not want to be in a FWD V-6 unibody car.

    One last thing. Impala rear end breaks away in high speed chase. Think about it, the media would be all over that. So would Ford. And you couldn't blame them. The fact this hasn't made the national news is reason enough to realize it isn't true.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Piecekeeper, all Crown Vics and Grand Marquiss from '79 to '91 use the same doors/side windows. The only things to watch for are (logically) 2-door cars will have different glass from 4 door, and some early models have the "vent window" in the front door. Otherwise, just hit the local boneyards and pull the needed glass from the first box body Vic you see.
  • mercmaraudermercmarauder Member Posts: 22
    I talk to a lot of cops. Everyone that has expressed a preference liked RWD cars better than FWD. Specifically: big, comfortable, durable RWD cars. Some like 'em fast, too.

    Most were sorry to see GM discontinue their big RWD cars. The Caprice was very popular.

    There's a learning curve involved in switching to FWD - especially in high performance or pursuit driving. Some cops just don't want to learn, and some just don't like the way a FWD car handles and drives.

    Also, I've had some cops tell me that the new Crown Victorias have problems with the rear ends "breaking loose." I just figured they weren't used to the new variable assist rack and pinion Ford has switched to. It's happening - and no media outlet that I know of is reporting on it.

    Could be something similar involving the Impalas...
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,242
    A journalist with a major daily newspaper is looking to talk with people who bought entry-luxury cars having owned more-expensive luxury cars (e.g. traded 5-series for 3-series).
    If you have a story to share, please send your daytime contact information to jfallon@edmunds.com no later than Friday, December 20, 2002. Please be sure to include the vehicle model names and model years. Thanks for your consideration!

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
    Review your vehicle

  • felixc1976felixc1976 Member Posts: 31
    I'm completelly confused by what some people are saying here about rear end breaking loose? How does this happen? Does it happen when you get hit 60mph head on, or when cops park their cars by the donuts shops?
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    I think he's referring to what I call "Dukes of Hazzard turns." Picture the General Lee on a dirt road going really fast through a turn. The front end tries to turn while the rear looses traction and tries to go straight. Thus you have the famous dirt-track-racer sliding turn. A good driver knows how to do that without hitting anything. (He also knows not to do it on public streets). A bad driver dirties his diapers when he accidently does it. It's a common trait in RWD cars, and I'm surprised they don't teach cops how to do it in the police academy.
  • felixc1976felixc1976 Member Posts: 31
    Ok, I understand now. But won't it happen on other RWD cars such as BMW, Lexus and etc?
    Also, does this happen to 2003 CV only or earlier models too? I also thought that the stability & traction control package on Police CV won't let you rear wheels spin in this situation. Of course I'm not sure at what speeds it spins out of control, most poeple won't ever turn faster than 40mph on any short 90 degree turn.
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    My guess is that by the time your CV/GM rear end begins to fish tail ahead of the front tires, your SUV will be making it's second roll over on its roof.

    Is this why Cops don't drive SUVs ?
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    But police DO drive SUV's. At least here they do.
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    BTW, I test drove an 03 GM and the ride was everything I thought it would be, exceptional ! It even cornered well as reviewed, acceleration was well above the other 5 new cars I drove.

    One minor problem was I was reclining back in the nice leather seat and went to change the radio station via the steering wheel controls, and surprise ... no radio controls on the wheel. I was in the GS w/convenience pkg. So I thought, not a show stopper, and reached for the radio button and found out, EVEN with my long arms, those buttons might as well be in the glove compartment.
    Does anyone that already owns a GM find this annoying or do you just get used to it ?

    I was told the controls are on the top of the line LS Ultimate.
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    not exactly a "performer". Curious, what were the other 5 new cars you tried out?
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    The engines on the others were: 3 were 4 cyl, and 2 were a 6 cyl.


    I would like to gain some MPG with my next ride. Obviously, a drawback in the CV/GM, but the safety and value weigh in well.


    Now I'm curious, what new cars do you consider engine worthy ?

  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    A partial list, but not all include:

    Marauder engine, Aviator, Mustang HO, Jaguar 4.2, Lincoln LS V8 has a lot of snap from the line. A mfg rep advises the 04 Towncar will have the engine currently in the Aviator. We'll see.
  • genex1genex1 Member Posts: 11
    I thought that the issue of CV police car problems with the explosive gas tank had come to rest. However, a recent news report indicates that Texas (I think) is suing the Ford Motor Company for the results of their testing of a gas tank shield being offered to some 300,00 CV police cruisers around the country. This seems to have come on the heels of the death of a NY police officer, a couple of weeks ago, in a CV police car gas tank explosion. The news story I heard reported that there have been 14 such deadly accidents since i988. What's the latest on this issue and does it affect 2002 and 2003 CVs, GMs and TCs? all of which have about the same gas tank structure?
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    not significant to warrant the expense of a "safer" car. Nothing can be perfectly safe.
  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    Just looking underneath the CV/GM gives one pause; why would they locate the gas tank right behind the rear bumper? I know: they are the same company that designed the Mustang and the Pinto that are famous for fires!
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    and where would you put the gas tank? I ask because I own a '98 Interceptor as of 12/18.

    And I don't blame Ford for drunks going 80.
  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    And the answer is: the gas tank goes in front of the differential, not behind it. And you don't use the trunk as part of the gas tank, as in the Mustang.
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    so, how much room does that leave for the rear seat?

    And who says that would solve fires in rear end collisions?
  • dmersdmers Member Posts: 23
    I hope that some group is checking out the crash data results of Chevy Impala/Police cars that are in rearend crashes of 60-80 MPH and publishing the results for the public to see.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Well, the Impala WAS purpose built to be a police car and compete in that field. And it DOES have the gasoline tank in front of the rear axles. (no differential, since it is FWD).

    Still, any car is apt to explode if hit in the rear at speeds of 60-80 MPH. Then again, many of the law enforcement crashes where fire and resultant death has occurred have not involved speeds that high, though some have.

    We are talking about the deaths of law enforcement officers here, some of whose brothers and sisters in the profession read this group. This is about far more than a car. It is about making the vehicle as safe as practical for a cost point. The local and state Governments are in this boat, too. Ford no doubt could build a far safer vehicle were it able to charge, say, $40,000 per cruiser. And all these pols who are banging the drum against the Vic cruisers would NOT be buying them. That's a guarantee. The trial lawyers will have a field day with the fact that of the few vehicles left with gas tanks aft of the rear wheels, most are Fords.
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    for those of you with a high speed connection... (it's a little over 9 minutes long)


    http://www.cvpi.com/safety_video.htm

Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

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.