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

1313234363761

Comments

  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    But this design really should be scrapped.
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    yesterday in the Houston fog. Texans still do things in a big way.
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    why?
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    Well, I've got two Grand Marquis's with gas tanks behind the differential. I'm not worried, because they are still inside the frame and (on my 2 cars) the heavy steel bumpers of the cars. I also have a 95 Thunderbird, which is RWD. The rear diff is aft of teh fuel tank, but the trnk is much much shallower, and rear seat legroom is non existant. And when you consider it costs more to make a tank that can go around the driveshaft, it's easier to say "Move the tank" than it is to move the tank. First, you have to have someplace else to put it, and this would involve eating up trunk space, rear seat room, or both. Jaguar got around this problem with the Series I-III XJ's by putting a tank in each rear fender, but this adds inconvenience, complexity, and leaves the tank even more vunerable in side impacts. Then you have to consider the Crown Victoria is built like no other passenger car in the country. Most cars are unibody designs where the floor and roof provide most of the strength, and if you hang the tank out behind the rear axel, you're hanging it behind all the big structural pieces of the car, and it's wide open for a hit. Crown Victorias have a full steel frame that provides a backbone for the car, and protects the tank. This is why it takes hits ant extremely high speeds to damage the tanks. Ford does rear end crash tests at 50mph on these cars, and the pass. The design is safe. The Crown Victoria is probably the safest passenger car on sale today when it comes to protecting passengers in a crash. All this hype about gas tank explosions is just the news media stirring up hype for ratings. Nothing more.
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    and why do they pick 82mph? why not make it fire proof up to 110?

    or maybe we could teach people not to drive their oh so fast cars into parked cars that have bright flashing lights. Although those people never seem to be at fault, or so the lawyers would have you believe.

    But pluto5, I'm not against a safer Vic. Let Ford incorporate the bladder & FIRE pannel into new Interceptors (civilian models don't need all that IMHO) and call it a day.
  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    I agree, the police should have these improvements.
  • johnbonojohnbono Member Posts: 80
    Since 1983, a grand total of 13 police officers have died in fires as a result of rear end collisions where the police vehicle was a crown vic. *13*. All of these impacts have been at highway speeds or above(70+mph). As far as the gas tank being behind the axle being a safety issue, that is ludicrous. Ford and Chevy have put the gas tank behind the rear axle of every live axle full frame passenger car that has been produced since at least the 70s. My 1975 Impala wagon had that design, my 1970 plymouth valiant had that design, and my 1995 crown victoria has that design. If the design was as unsafe as the media has alleged it to be, then it would have been scrapped 30 years ago.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    and it was. By everyone but Ford.
  • johnbonojohnbono Member Posts: 80
    Nice try, but wrong. The Dodge Diplomat was produced until 1989. The Roadmaster/Caprice/Impala/Fleetwood were produced until 1994.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    The Dodge Diplomat WAS decades ago. We ALL know about when the Chevy Caprice ended production. The concept remains...only Ford still makes cars this way. Whether or not that is reasonable is for the legislatures, courts and the public to decide.
  • johnbonojohnbono Member Posts: 80
    No. It is for engineers to decide. And just about every single SUV and pickup ever made uses the exact same design as the Crown Vic. Full frame vehicles have many drawbacks. They don't have the stiffness of unibody, they tend to rattle as they age, etc. Two drawbacks they don't have are crashworthiness and durability. No passenger car at the CV's price is as safe as the CV.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Maybe in an ideal world it is for the engineers to decide. In the one we live in, the legislatures, courts, public and one I left out before, bureaucrats decide such things. If you truly believe that engineers decide such things you are neither an engineer nor in the political process.

    I am in one of those two positions, and I can tell you flat out that not only do those groups get to decide, but they get to decide after the fact, and without all the facts. The Pinto is a perfectly good example. It had nothing UNIQUE about its set-up either, for its time. But you know what happened there.

    Look at emission controls, safety standards, CAFE. In ALL those instances, engineers had precious little input. What happens next to the Crown Vic is as much in doubt as what happened next to Trent Lott was in mid-December...
  • e_gillmane_gillman Member Posts: 12
    With respect to the police officers who have perished in fires of their Crown Vics, I must say that any death is one too many. However, that said, if the number is 13 over the past 15 years or so, then I believe that the cars are inherantly safe and that there are probably many other situations where police officers are dying that could use our attention and resources. As a Crown Vic owner, I wouldn't drive anything else, but I agree that it would behoove Ford to find a fix for this problem quickly and retrofit all police vehicles ASAP.
    BTW, how much has been discussed about additions to these vehicles screwed into the trunk? Could this be a factor?
    And, finally, I also agree with an earlier post that some responsibility should be publicly placed on those who are slamming into the rear of police vehicles stopped on the side of the road with their flashing lights and strobes on! Driver Ed sucks in this country.
  • usps52usps52 Member Posts: 1
    I am looking real hard at buying a new 2003 Mercury GM LS Premium and adding a conventional spare tire as the only option. I would really like to hear from new 2003 owners with this car and what they think, what would they order differently and approx how much they paid. Also, any 2000-2002 owners who traded up to 2003 and what they think, and how much to pay. Don't hold back with comments good or bad...25-30k is alot of money and I would appreicate honest comments! Pls adx to: usps52@yahoo.com
  • pennsykidpennsykid Member Posts: 3
    As the owner of many past & present CV/GM models, I read this board every few weeks. It is very interesting.

    The basic fuel tank location on these models dates back to the Galaxy's of the 60's. The tank is not located directly behind the bumper (like the Pinto was), but is between the trunk & rear axle. Fairly well protected from behind, and protected by the frame on the side. (Note that many small unibodies place the tank directly under the rear passenger seat.)

    The problem seems to happen only in extremely high speed rear end accidents, over 50-60 mph. If the car is hit so hard that the rear axle moves, bolts from the rear axle could possibly puncture the tank. (I doubt if most cars could take a hit like that without major problems.)

    There is a TSB (Technical Service Bulletin) that details a simple fix; typically cutting off the offending bolts. Ford should incorporate this design improvement for all new CV/GMs.

    Meanwhile, I still feel safer in this car than most others. Also, look at how the gas tank hangs right below the rear bumper on certain SUVs. Since cars are lower than SUVs, I wonder why we don't hear more reports of fires on these? Like someone said in an earlier posting, it is probably a small group of greedy lawyers and uninformed journalists that are pumping up this story.
  • yonsei93yonsei93 Member Posts: 22
    Happy New Year!

    I have a problem with my 99GM Ls with 51k miles. The last couple of days the car is having problems starting. To make it start I have to pump the gas pedal before starting. I know this is not normal. Because I have not had a single problem since I got this car in 99.

    What do you think is wrong?

    Thanks
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    After inserting the key and turning it clockwise just a little, you enable the electrics to actuate. After hesitating two seconds, turn the key all the way to "Start" having given the electrics time to wake up and get set. Being of the feminine nature, Victoria needs a little foreplay.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    ahem... cough, cough.

    :)
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    I once called a hangover a cold with a sore throat and got away with it.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Hmmm...

    I can't remember a hangover I ever had that acted like a cold with a sore throat. The ones that I remember (ackkk!) behaved like a horrible case of the stomach flu.

    Ahem again.

    Moving right along....

    :-)
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    but I'm sincerely serious about the proceedure for starting the 4.6 engine. I've got two and when in a hurry, it takes longer to start and turns the starter motor more than when I wait for the electics to dispense fuel and air into the combustions chamber prior to cranking.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    not a problem -- just remember that we are family friendly site, that's all!! :-)
  • usaf52usaf52 Member Posts: 70
    My neighbor traded in his 2000 CV. He's not the little old lady from Pasadena, but close. He's an 80 year old gentleman who only put 15K on that car. Checked with the Ford dealer that now has it on the lot. They have it Ford certified and for sale at $12900. It is the STD model. I understand that the certification from Ford gives it a 6 year powertrain warranty, roadside assistance and stipulates that the vehicle must be in almost new condition when sold. True?? Comments??????
  • genex1genex1 Member Posts: 11
    Those of us who may have underestimated the problem by thinking that only 13 deaths in more than a decade is not catastrophic, might have our minds changed by looking at the link provided by Pluto5 in his Dec 31 posting. The link seems to document the fact that there were over 80 fatalities involving GM, CV and TCs between 1994 and 2002 which fatalities appear to have been associated with fire. Moreover, one would have to expect that there have been many more non fatal but serious injuries resulting from gas tank fires. Still, without comparatively knowing overall rates of fatalities and serious injuries, it is hard to judge how bad the problem is. I'm inclined to think that the risk factor is no greater than it is for all cars in general.
  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    No offense but that's what people said about the Pinto.
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    For anyone that knows ...... what is the going price for a GM relative to the Invoice price posted by Edmunds ?

    I would expect below invoice, maybe $400 - $500 below ? Especially now that they have been compared to the Ford Pinto ;)
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    LOL!

    although I remember reading the NHTSA investigated the Vic and found no problems. But what do they know...

    here's the link: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/Current/CrownVic/CrownVic021003.html
  • yonsei93yonsei93 Member Posts: 22
    Still having trouble starting my Gm 99 LS with over 51k miles. I wrote 2 days ago in regards to my car not starting. When I turn on the car the car dies when I put it into idle. Then it will die. I tried warming up the car far awhile peddling it then tried to let it go by itself. It would idle for about 30 seconds very low and it will die again.

    Any ideas...Help my car is parked at a shopping center..somewhere.

    Thanks!
  • houndoghoundog Member Posts: 21
    May have some water in the fuel tank - try some water remover additive. Also, have you ever changed the fuel filter. Try the cheap fixes first - if these don't work additional diagnosis may be required. Could be an ignition problem. May be low on fuel pressure. Good luck.
  • likes2bikelikes2bike Member Posts: 1
    I'm new here. I'm thinking about buying a '98 or '00 CV or GM (I've got a few specific ones picked out on local dealer lots, with about 40-50K on them). My wife wanted a minivan, but I'm not happy with their reliability / maintenance record (excpect for Honda or Toyota which are WAY outside our budget). I can't stand SUVs (price of ownership, bad mileage & safety, etc.) To me the CVs / GMs seem like the next best thing. I need to accomodate 2 adults / 2 kids w/ lots of 'stuff' for vacations, but most of it's life will be around town for carpooling, hauling groceries, etc. I'm most sensitive to gas mileage and overall durability. Has anybody lived with one for 5-8+ years?? I know they're rated for about 16-17mpg in town, which I'm OK with, as long as I can get 25 on the road. We've also not had a car with good a/c for some time, so I'd love to hear how well these cars fare. My wife thinks we're 'too young' for these cars, but they've really grown on me. Please tell me I'm headed in the right direction here. Thanks much for your help.

    P.S. Next in the running is an early 90s Acura Legend w/ 100K, but I'm leery of old a/c, tired trannys, nearness to rust, etc.
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    When patient you can find private parties selling these with around 10 to 15 thousand miles on them.Look at estate sales and auctions as well. Two things to be aware of on these vehicles are:(1)the plastic intake manifolds have been failing(2)Ford has problems with A.C. seals leaking after a few years. These are two items I'd check out. If you find one with dual exhaust, it may have the touring package which is desireable. Rear air shocks are also good when loading the trunk. Have you considered a low mileage '98 Lincoln Towncar Executive?
  • ronslakieronslakie Member Posts: 58
    yonsei93 - I had this same problem with my 2001 GM and it turned out to be a Idle Air Control Valve (IAC). I had the dealer do mine because it was still under warranty, however, I looked it up in the Factory Service Manual and it is an easy replacement (on firewall). I saw a post on the Crown Vic Net awhile back and someone bought an aftermarket version for about $26. I'm sure this is your problem because I have seen quite a few posts on this.

    Ron
  • harmarharmar Member Posts: 94
    Had the same problem on my '99 Sable. An air sensor control caused it. Minor repair and minor cost (mine was under warranty) for a do it yourselfer. Good luck!
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    on our '94 4.6 V8 with over 100,000 miles. The fog horn stops at a faster rpm and the car still goes down the road. Is there an economical fix and what is it? Thank you.
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    It is the Idle Air Bypass Valve Resonator Tube Assembly. Updated one at Ford Dealer is about $18 and easily installed in a few minutes.
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    Apparently hit by full size SUV which overrode the tank or he forgot to fill up.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    My, aren't we cynical?
  • pluto5pluto5 Member Posts: 618
    After the Mustang and Pinto fuel tank designs you have to be a little wary of Ford.
  • tcjd2000tcjd2000 Member Posts: 1
    I just bought a 2001 Mer. Grand Marquis LS. It didn't come with the card that tells you what the 5-digit permanent entry code is. I've heard that there is a sticker in the car somewhere with this 5-digit code on it. Anybody know where? I would like to use the driver door keypad system but the dealer said it would cost me $80.00!!
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    When you buy a new GM, you get the code on a card and an additional 4 stickers to put where you want.

    I just bought a GM and yesterday was deciding where I will place a sticker inside the car, (hidden), while I carry the card in my wallet.

    So ..... if the original owner thought the same way, your code could be anywhere, NOT in one particular spot.

    If you don't find the sticker/code, ask the dealer to call the past owner for it ! And lastly, I would pay the $ 80, (although it doesn't seem right) because as you know, you can:

    put in an additional 2 codes, easy to remember
    know that you will NEVER be locked out again !
    grab something out quickly, while keeping your car locked
    and you can even pop the trunk open from the key pad.

    Good luck !
  • kinleykinley Member Posts: 854
    Look all around inside the trunk. Pull the cloth away from the inside of the fenders and you might just find a "Hide A Key" with a spare key inside.

    $80 bucks is a ripp off. E mail the assembly plant.
  • dbc123dbc123 Member Posts: 105
    I've long complained here and elsewhere about the stiffened up suspension on the 03 GM/CV/TC. It's not just me - Consumers Reports in the Feb issue says the ride is "stiff and jittery" and that it feels "nervous and unsettled". Pronounced it the worst ride of the cars in the compairson - Buick and even Toyota were better!! Too bad Ford has destroyed the one big advantage of these cars - all for "handling" which was also considered poor....
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    Interesting that Consumer Reports would write that. Wonder if they tested the model with the handling package.

    I test drove a Marauder and did find the ride to be somewhat stiff, but, in the Marauder, that's to be expected. However, even with a suspension that is stiffer than the regular GM, I never noticed any jitters. But, after driving the Marauder, my 94 TBird ride felt extremely soft.

    Maybe Mercury is after the buyers that have either had enough of the SUV craze, or gotten tired of their sports sedans, and want to get back to a full size car. In that case, they may find the standard GM ride "less stiff" than the SUV or sports sedan ride.

    After test driving the Marauder, I couldn't help but wonder if that level of stiffness would become more annoying than enjoyable after the car had aged.

    But, the Marauder also seemed to accelerate with ease, as compared to the 4.6 TBird, which I had thought was a pretty quick car.
  • cfocfocfocfo Member Posts: 147
    "Maybe Mercury is after the buyers that have either had enough of the SUV craze ... they may find the standard GM ride "less stiff" than the SUV or sports sedan ride."

    That was my case, I almost joined the SUV craze, but due to saftey reasons and my preference for more comfort vs more perfomance, I bought a GM.

    I have heard that past GM owners feel the 03 is "stiffer". I can completely understand that. But my comparison of ride comfort was relative to other 03 cars, and I can tell you that driving the 03 GM, (I do have the handling package), that with all the roominess and seat comfort, I feel like I'm riding in a limo. Speaking of limos, I haven't seen many Buick or Toyota limosines, or SUVs for that matter. Why do you think that is ?

    "nervous and unsettled" in a GM ? Hardly !

    You want to know what "nervous and unsettled" is ?

    Drive a "perfomance" car around those 6000 lb + SUV and trucks while they are on their cell phones and wonder if they are going to stop when they should.
    That, my friendly reviewer, will make you "nervous and unsettled" !

    Buick has a very smooth riding SUV, but most others ? That highway bounce in an SUV is not my idea of comfort driving. But obviously, I'm in the minority.
  • rea98drea98d Member Posts: 982
    I wouldn't be taking car advice from the same people who test light bulbs and low fat margarine. CR has been known to change rating and reccomendations on car models where the car has not changed at all from the year before. When the say a '99 model is more reliable than a '00 model when the only difference is the addition of neon green paint in '00, one has to wonder.
  • jerrym3jerrym3 Member Posts: 202
    Read something recently where the majority of cars involved in recent snow related accidents were SUVs.

    About a week ago, we got hit with a rush hour, sudden freezing drizzle in the North Jersey area. Caught everybody by surprize (wasn't supposed to drizzle until the early morning hours).

    Saw an SUV do an upside down flip on a bridge where the light rain had frozen immediately. Landed on it's roof.

    Can't figure out why the SUV flipped over; after all, every SUV commercial shows that SUVs can go up/down mountains, cross streams, and go through snow with absolutely no problems!!!Truth in advertising.

    Let's see; should the SUV driver sue the manufacturer, the TV stations for playing the ad, or the Department of Transportation for not having a sander on every bridge in town as soon as it snows? Better yet; sue them all and let the one with the deepest pockets pay.

    All three of my brothers-in-law have at least one SUV, and I know I'm in the minority, but I just don't see it.
  • harmarharmar Member Posts: 94
    Even rental companies are aware of SUV handling differences. I arranged for a car from Enterprise while mine, at the time (Sable), was in for a day's service. When I arrived at the office, the manager asked if I would accept an Explorer at the same price as the econobox I'd opted for. He had just two vehicles left and wanted to give the SUV to me, rather than an "older lady" he felt might not be able to handle it as well. The Explorer was the first SUV I'd driven (but I do own a '79 F250 3/4 ton SuperCab). The Explorer rode and handled like my truck, which, in essence, it IS. On bad back roads, it was bounce, pitch and roll all over the place. On good roads, it handled decently, but required my attention. Many SUV buyers apparently expect to be able to drive them like the pros in the commercials do - up the sides of mountains through three feet of snow. (Well, the fine print at the bottom of the TV screens telling them NOT to is hard to read, I guess.) In MI, many SUV drivers think they can elude any terrible road condition. And it isn't just a "guy thing," because women seem to drive them the same as men.

    If Ford finds it has alienated a good percentage of its CV/GM buyers by altering the suspension, it will change back. Ford still makes a decent profit on these models. I doubt it will ignore a segment of the market no other Big Three manufacturer covers at that price range.
Sign In or Register to comment.