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

1…4748505253…61

Comments

  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    As far as I know, at least for now, the Crown Vic LX can get the handling package, which indeed includes the dual exhaust which boosts the car's output to 239 hp. They only quote the higher hp for the LX Sport because they want you to believe that you're getting something extra when you fork out for the Sport :). I'm still amazed that a factory dual exhaust system can boost hp by more than 10... I've heard that it really doesn't make that big a difference.

    I'm quite sure that if you get an LX with the handling package, you retain the chrome accents.

    Also, isn't the antenna in the rear window now, too? It looks like my 2004 LX has a rear window antenna.
  • batistabatista Member Posts: 159
    The Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis is a joke to have only 224-239 HP. It was acceptable until about 2001. The Honda Accord V6 puts out 240 HP (starting in 2002) and from a SOHC 3.0L while the CW/GM requires a 4.6L V8.
    When is Ford going to update these engines? They need to up the HP to 300 to get respect from their customers. The 2006 Toyota Avalon puts out 280HP from a 3.5L V6 and so does the Infinity engines.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    (Note to self: same person will be complaining about the poor fuel economy when gas starts selling for four dollars a gallon or more...)
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    batista,
    In all fairness my friend, you're not really accurate. Have you ever driven both? I did, in the same hour as a matter of fact. The V-6 in the 2006 Avalon does have great horsepower output, but this is at a higher rpm than a Crown Vic. When I drove the Avalon I noticed that it did have good power at higher rpm, but it lacked torque of any kind. The Toyota didn't even compare at all with the Vic when it came to the smoothness and quiteness department either. My wife even noticed it and she doesn't know a thing about cars! We both thought the Crown Vic felt much more substantial and even more powerful....just not as jerky as an Avalon. And the Toyota engine REQUIRES high octane unleaded in order to get the full hp out of it. The Ford just needs regular. Hey, some of these new Mitsubishis are putting out volumnes of hp from 4 banger engines....but would they drive nice or be powerful AND comfortable? No way. The Avalon is also about 5 grand more than the Crown Vic....and not worth it in my book. Like I said, drive both, side by side like I did, THEN decide which car feels like a luxury model and the other one a toy.
    Sorry bud, V-8 wins every time!
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    One other thing - the new Avalon has a special "internal" oil filter, not a spin-on oil filter. If you like to do your own oil changes, and not be held hostage to the Toyota dealership, pass on the Avalon.

    Still loving my 94 Grand Marquis - in fact my parents like it better than their 2002 Honda CRV. They have had my GM for about 2 months as the body shop tries to put the crackerbox CRV back together.
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    Thanks turbo, you've helped me a lot. That makes sense about Ford not wanting to advertise about just getting the handling package instead of a full blown sport model. The antenna thing? Well, I just read it from a Ford product memo that was posted from another site. The 2006 changes to the Crown Vic are as follows:

    Exterior

    Optional 16" chrome wheel on LX available
    Rear window antenna in rear glass
    Trip computer standard on LX and Sport
    New color....Tungsten Clearcoat Metallic
    Deleated color....Midnight Grey

    Interior

    Auto temp. control standard on LX
    Light Camel trim replaces Medium Parchment
    Medium Light Stone trim replaces Light Flint trim
    Charcoal Black trim replaces Midnight Black trim

    That's pretty much it for the '06 changes. Fleet and police get other changes. No real cosmetic changes until '07. Don't know about the engine. the Grand Marquis was supposed to get a facelift in '06 though. I haven't been able to confirm it or see any photos.

    Thanks again.
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    jsylvester,
    Really? An internal filter? Is this even something that a home mechanic can do without special tools or filters from Toyota? I never even heard about it...thanks.

    I'll bet your parents like the GM better than the CRV. My wife owns a CRV and it is reliable, but it rides like a go-cart with plastic wheels! When she test drove a Crown Vic she was shocked at how easy, smooth, and totally comfortable the drive was. I told her before hand (used to own a Vic years ago) but I don't think she believed me. Lol.

    Yep, the Crown Vic/ Grand Marq are really great vehicles. I sure hope they don't change them too much in the coming years. I just love them like an old friend!
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    No problem, glad I could help. I actually figured that Midnight Grey would go, since tungsten tends to suggest a dark grey colour. Odd about the interior trim; my 2004's interior is "Dark Charcoal", which sounds much like the colour that will be "coming in" in 2006! Ah, who knows how the Ford gurus work!

    Just as a note about this other discussion regarding the Crown Vic vs. the Avalon. I was looking at an Avalon, actually, as I was very impressed with it at the Detroit auto show: it has great interior room and comes very well equipped. However, nothing beats the torquey feel of the CV's V8, even if it is not as powerful as Toyota's V6 (and the Toyota's trunk room doesn't even come close). Also, with the revised transmission for 2004, I find the acceleration of the CV downright impressive. By not trying to squeeze every last pony from the 4.6L, Ford has been able to keep the engine smooth and effortless.

    We haven't gotten CVs in Canada for a number of years now - ironic, given that they're made here - but by getting mine used I saved a pile of dough and have a very unique car. Hmmm, $20k (Canadian) for a Crown Vic that isn't even a year old or $40k for an Avalon (which, I will point out, uses new technology that has yet to be proven like the CV's); that's a no-brainer to me!
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    I was hoping they would keep the midnight grey as a notch above black. Tungsten may turn out to be more light grey than I'm looking for. Black is really nice, it just takes more cleaning and care....something I'll most likely enjoy anyway.
    I too thought that the Avalon looks real attractive. The inside wasn't as large as I like but it was still a good size. The Toyota salesman told me that it rides better than a Crown Vic....something I took with a grain of salt and later proved that I was correct after driving it. Fast car, just empty feeling like most v-6 engines seem to me. I even drove a Nissan 350z the same day....just to see how a real sports car feels. Fast, but way too snappy for me. I felt like I was going to get a neck ache. Fun car but no way could I drive one to work every day. I'd considered some other cars more seriously but the cost/value factor was heavily in the Crown Vic's favor. The reliability of the CV can't be questioned either. I'll bet they rack up more trouble free miles than ANY comparable Japanese brand. The taxi fleets around here are still driving ten year old CV's and the cops have some from '97. Can you imagine how rough that's gotta be on a car?
    Solid, reliable, smooth, comfortable, and proven.
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    Yeah, a friend of mine's girlfriend has a '96 ex-cop car AND ex-taxi CV with almost 700,000 km on it, and it still runs pretty darn well! Keeping the front end configuration simple by not having to carry driveshafts or anything like that, certainly eases maintenance and aids reliability, in addition to the handling and traction benefits.

    I really like the midnight grey colour; I would have bought an '04 CV in that colour if the dealer hadn't been such a jerk. As it is, I'm glad that I got one in light ice blue instead, since it doesn't show dirt at all! My Trans Am is black, so I know what a pain in the butt it can be trying to keep a dark car looking nice :mad:
  • batistabatista Member Posts: 159
    You guys aren't considering the fact that the CV/GM does 0-60 in about 8 seconds while the Avalon/G35/300C is doing it about 6.0-6.5 sec.
    You might think that the 4.6L V8 is fast by the seat of the pants feel but in reality its average to slow for the model year 2005.
    Cops will have to switch to the Dodge Charger 5.7L since the Camry/Accord/Altima V6's are faster.
    Ford is behind the times with this setup and if they want customers under 50 to be interested they need to do some major changes.
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    A police pursuit vehicle's sole criteria isn't just a fast 0-60 time. If it was, cops would be driving something a lot faster than a Toyota Avalon. Rear wheel drive, towing, pushing (yes, pushing), durability, trunk and interior space, exterior size, weight (more is better than to light), low end grunt (the Avalon has none), ease of maintenance, great reliability history, excellent outward visibility, top speed, stability, and a whole bunch of other more detailed and technical criteria. All Ford would need to do, if the police requested, is pump up the horsepower in the current V-8. If that wasn't enough, but it already has proven that it is, Ford could even drop the 5.4 in and pump it up to 400hp. But this is all just posturing anyway because the police have been very satisfied with the whole 250hp p71 package just as it is. Just remember, even a bad guy in a Ferrari or sport bike can't outrun radios, helicopters, and bad traffic. And by the way, I am under 50 and I love the Crown Victoria. It reminds me how solid cars used to be in the good old days. I test drove an Avalon, a Crown Vic, a BMW 3 series, and even a Nissan 350z.....and you know what? Hands down the Crown Vic was a far better car in my opinion. The combined attributes of ride (exceptional), power (better than some, and great torque), smoothness, solid and substantial feel, looks, spaciousness, proven reliability, American style, and safety, make it the best car for me.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    is midnight grey, and I like it since it really is easier to keep clean as opposed to gloss black...interior is dark charcoal, easy to keep clean...also, my LX Sport has the floor shifter, bucket seats, and rear air suspension...I believe these are part of the Sport package, whereas the handling package is rear sway bar, dual exhaust, which is what they say raises it to 239 HP...am I wrong???
  • paranoidjackparanoidjack Member Posts: 1
    I have always been a Honda man, but have come to absolutely love my GM....when the transmission does not feel as if it's straining. Two issues:

    1) After the car is COLD, when started it often dies the first time, and then is PERFECT on the second. This was the case for a week, aside from that, car drove perfectly.

    2) NOW, this seems to happen less, however until about 4-5 mins of driving have gone by (I've been having to let the car warm up first), the car bucks as if the timing is off. Bogging down, feels like starting a manual in 2nd gear, but with a consistant on.off.on.off. pattern, UNTIL reaching a certain RPM and the LUNGING smoothly until the shift. The shift is often painfully hard.

    I should add:
    My car has 142k on it. I recently had the tranny flushed, as well as that ford additive people use to kill that ford "shudder" from the rear axle (shifting from 1st to second gear). It's also maroon, lol. Thanks! Help me out, I was an import man until this car won my love!
  • danielj6danielj6 Member Posts: 285
    I've been reading Mercury's web site and Edmunds and both claim a $5000 cash rebate for the 2005 Grand Marquis. Although I'm seriously considering buying one, I'm yet to find any favorable reviews and recommendations.

    In 2000 I came close to getting one but I opted for a Sable S.W. Now the bug bit me again. I really like both the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis, but there is a $3000 difference in cash rebate between the two. So I'd opt for the latter.

    Comments are welcome.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    Grand Marquis depreciates MUCH less..as they are not generally used for fleets, taxi cabs or cop cars. They usually cost a wee bit more than the CV, similarly equipped. If money is a factor, these large cars depreciate rapidly. A nice, year or two year old car can be had for much less than you might expect...hard to find the handling package or sport package used though....

    You might also want to look at the Five Hundred/Montego, but you won't find body on frame, V8 or the ride/comfort of the Panther series. You will find AWD and Volvo levels of safety, though.
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    I've heard, but not gonna call it fact, that the Grand Marquis doesn't ride as well as the Crown Vic, and that it has slightly more road noise. Now, don't just believe this from what I've heard. They both share the same platform and body....so how could it be true? Personally I like the look of the Crown Vic a bit more that the Grand Marquis. The front grill especially. As far as depreciation between the two, I really have no idea. But what johnclineii said about great deals on used, he couldn't be more right. Even where I live you can go to a used dealer and pick up a Crown Vic or GM that's three years old, with say 25k to 35k miles on it, in great shape, for around 15 grand. That's about a fifty percent savings if you don't mind used.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    For 15 grand here, you can buy a one year old CV or GM with 15-20k on the clock.

    The Mercury has more insulation than the CV, not less. The ride is, if anything, a bit smoother, unless you get the handling package....

    Mercuries are Mercuries due to more quietness, a slightly higher level of perceived luxury, and slightly higher pricing...
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    Indeed, there are some insulation differences and such, but it is hard to justify forking out the extra money just to get the Mercury name; nowadays, "Mercury" doesn't mean much. As an example, when i was shopping for my car, a dealer had a 2004 GM LS for $27.7k, all taxes in and everything (these are Canadian dollars, don't forget). I ended up getting my CV, with more options, for $24.1k, all in. Who would pay $3.6k for the sake of the Mercury badge, and give up the steering wheel mounted controls, 6-pack CD changer, etc.? It's not like the CV has a bucking-bronco ride or anything!

    As far as new goes, a local dealer actually has a new 2005 CV (odd, since they're not sold in Canada anymore!) for $32k + taxes. So, as someone pointed out, there is much money to be saved by going used, and with CVs being used in so many rental car fleets, there is a huge supply in all manner of colours. True enough, the handling package is never specified, but it seems like all of them get the Premier group, which is very nice (it strikes me as overly expensive to buy new).

    I must admit that I like the style of the CV better than the Grand Marquis, especially the back. It never seems like Mercury knows what they want to do with the behind of the GM. The CV has a nice, clean, plump rear (I'm an [non-permissible content removed] man, what can I say? LOL!). As such, getting one for less than a GM is a perfect situation for me.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    The main reasons I prefer the GM over the CV is the slightly better interior, better grill and tail lamps, and the features and options are packaged in a way I prefer. More importantly, Mercury dealers usually have a much better selection. Also, the GM has a $5,000 rebate, and the CV only $2,000.

    Now, if I could only find an LSE around, I might take the plunge.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    the filters are available on line or at your dealer, but it is just a paper filter. It still requires the removal from the oil pan, as well as the replacement of two o-rings with every change.

    Toyota claims it was done to be "environmentally friendly". I think it was done partially because the average Avalon buyer has no mechanical aptitude, and probably doesn't even know what an oil filter looks like.

    On the weekends, I sell power lawn equipment at the local Home Depot - it is in a very nice area of town. Many of my customers have no mechanical aptitude - I am constantly explaining what a choke is, the concept of stale gas, what is a spark plug, etc. It is interesting to have a customer bring a lawnmower back with no oil, or mixed oil with the gas in a 4 cycle engine, etc.

    Not to stereotype, but most of them drive large Japanese or European SUV's, or European cars. Money they have, but not mechanical ability. You can make a killing buying nonrunning power equipment at garage sales.
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    Does the GM truly have more insulation for sound proofing, or is this what you've heard? Not trying to be a stinker, I just honestly want to see a photo or proof. Also, why would it ride any better if all the suspension parts are identical per package? If what you say is fact, I'll be looking at the GM a little closer....especially if the cash back deal gets the final price as low or lower than a comparable CV. I've thought about sound proofing a Crown Vic, to make it even quiter than it already is. The problem is expense. Quality sound proofing material cost serious bucks.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    The high level CV's have the same insulation as the GM does. Finding a high level CV (the LX or LX Sport) is the rub....

    Drive both, then decide. After all, you are the one who will be living with the car!
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    I thought this was the case....I just forgot about the base model CV. When I drove an LX Sport last weekend, I was surprised at how quite it was. Several years ago I drove an LX and I recall it being about the same. The base model must be slightly less comfortable and noisey.
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Hi and welcome - I just want to point out that posting your email address is a very bad idea. If you want registered Forums members to have it, all you have to do is make it public in your profile.

    When you post it, you make it available to all kinds of automated email address collectors (spambots, etc.) that are crawling the web to harvest addresses for any number of malicious purposes. These automated things cannot get to it in your profile since someone has to be a legitimate, registered, logged-in member to see it there.

    You can repost your message without the address and I can delete the one with the address in it, if you'd like. Drop me an email and I'll take care of it. Uh, just see my, um, profile for my address! :-)

    Again, welcome!
  • djr2djr2 Member Posts: 2
    I also have a 1999 Ford Crown Victoria (mine's a police interceptor model) with 88,000 miles on it. It has the exact same problem. I have not replaced the LCM because the only place I've found one was at the dealer for $350.

    Let me repeat - you have described my problem to the letter. I am in the process of replacing the MFS (multi-function switch) a fancy name for the turn signal switch (cost $55 at AutoZone). I read in another forum that this could also cause the problem. I'll let you know if it works.

    Also can you tell me if you were able to find an LCM from other than a dealer and how much you paid (if you don't mind me asking). Any help would be appreciated.

    David (also from Indiana (Terre Haute))
  • djr2djr2 Member Posts: 2
    Yes, please do. I have already posted a new message w/o email. Thanks, I'm new to this message board stuff. Any other hints or suggestions?
    David
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Message deleted. Email me if you have further logistical questions - we don't want to derail the discussion. ;)

    Welcome!! It will be interesting to see if replacing your MFS takes care of the issue. Let us know.
  • marge90601marge90601 Member Posts: 1
    Today June 18 05, I bought a 2001 Grand Marquis LX, leather, pass power seats incl lumbar, power pedals, traction, abs, outstanding cond, dark green, but no cd or air suspension, with 43550 miles in Whittier CA 90601 ....for $8900
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    Ford has agreed to settle lawsuits filed agaist it due to cracking intake manifolds on certain 1996-2001 4.6L engines. The engines are found in: Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, Mustang, Cougar and Thunderbird models. The settlement could impact over 2 million vehicles and cost Ford up to $375 million USD.

    The plastic intake manifolds Ford used were plastic and were nortorious for cracking, thus causing coolant leaks.

    The terms of the settle include:

    • Ford will reimburse customers with receipts for the intake repair.
    • Ford will pay $735.00 to those without receipts, provided that they can verify with a dealership that a repair was made.
    • Ford will extend the warranty coverage for customers whose intakes have not failed.

    Ford lost an appeal earlier in the year to have the case dismissed.
  • ksjo30ksjo30 Member Posts: 2
    My 02 GM with 53K just activated the CE light tonight. Is there anyway to determine what went haywire without making an appointment at a repair facility and spending 80.00 for the diagnosis?

    Should I be concerned, or can I let this go an few days?

    I read somewhere that some parts stores will do a free/low cost while you wait scan , hoping of course that you'll buy the parts from them.

    Again the car seems to be running fine and this light just poped on and stayed on as we started the car.

    Any help would be appreciated
  • ksjo30ksjo30 Member Posts: 2
    In regards to the Class Action suit and cracked intake manifolds.

    Can you provide any link for more information and remedys
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    Autozone will do a free code scan.

    The check engine light covers so many things - it is a noncritical issue, but you shouldn't go for months with it lit. If it was me, I'd check the gas cap, and then make a stop at Autozone to see what codes are thrown.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    I was wondering what drivers of late-model CVs and GMs are finding they get in terms of gas mileage. I have been steadily improving mine; even with the A/C going virtually all of the time, combined city/highway (although mostly highway) I'm getting about 23.7 mpg; this week I went 596 km without having to fill up, netting me a cool 26 mpg! These numbers impressed me quite a bit. Although not Toyota Echo territory, I couldn't ask for more from a 4000 lb, V8 sedan that does not feature any sort of cylinder deactivation (thank God :lemon: ).
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    I purchased my 2004 CV (LX Sport, dual exhaust, 239 HP) on August 1, 2004...coming up on 1 year, 20,800 miles, so I think I am broken in...have yet to exceed 22 mpg on highway, tried 87, 89, 93 octane, no difference in performance or mpg...kinda disappointed, really...sticker said 17/25, and I personally know of folks with late model Town cars who obtained 27-28 mpg with all highway running...75% of my driving is interstate...AC on or off, no matter...should I trade for a Honda Civic???...:):):):):)
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    Hmmm, it is surprising that you haven't been able to get a bit better mileage than that; that's more on par with my '85 GM. Of course, every car is a bit different. It's interesting to know, though, so thanks for replying.

    Just me personally, but I would never trade a CV for a Civic :). At least up here in Canada, every second car is a Civic!

    BTW do you find that the middle portion of your gas tank - i.e. the range from one quarter to three quarters - is your best mileage zone? In other words, I find that the top quarter of the tank seems to get drained very quickly, while the quarter to three quarter range lasts forever.
  • jsylvesterjsylvester Member Posts: 572
    I think what is hurting you is the different rear end gearing - 3.27 vs. 2.73 for the LX and Base models. I think that is it, since my 94 has the 3.08 rear end, and it is pulling around 24-25 mpg on the freeway. Also, my understanding is the 03 redesign added weight to the car via a heavier frame.

    If you considered swapping rear end gearings, you also have to consider the computer and speedo issues. It can be done, but not sure how much it would cost you.
  • johnclineiijohnclineii Member Posts: 2,287
    As for that range on the gage being the best mileage zone? Nope, it's just the way the gage is calibrated. Most gages are similar. They are meant to provide feedback to the driver as expected, not actually reflect the exact amount of gas in the tank.

    One big difference, though. When a General Motors gage first says empty, you usually have about 5 gallons left. When a Ford gage first says empty, you had better find a gas station...and quickly.
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    I thought of the rear end ratio, but I don't think with an overdrive transmission it makes that big a difference. My '85 with the handling package had a 3.55 originally, but after its rear disintegrated it was replaced with a 3.08. Gas mileage remained the same.
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    your experience with GM / Ford gas gauges is the opposite of mine. My '95 Chevy pickup (with its 28 gallon tank) had maybe 2 gallons when the needle touched "E". My '98 Vic though seems to have 4 or 5 left at "E" when the light comes on. And my '90 was even more pessimistic. It would have 6 to 7 gallons at "E". My brother hates riding with me because he's always afraid I'm going to run out of gas...

    As for mileage, the first summer I had the '98 (2003), I got 25 hwy constantly. Now I average 22. I did just change the air filter so I'm hoping that'll help. But I've got the Focus for good mileage anyway...
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    I have suspected the rear for some time, as I do have the higher ratio...but then how does the vehicle get the 17/25 rating, when it is obvious that certain factors have changed, which may directly affect mileage???
  • gmctruckgmctruck Member Posts: 186
    Running the gas tank down to almost empty is not a good thing to do for several reasons. Dirt and debris on the bottom of the tank has a greater chance of getting sucked up into your fuel system causing poor performance and clogged fuel passages. Second, your fuel pumps have to work harder to get and move the fuel. Some in-tank fuel pumps use the fuel to help keep them cool. So not only do you risk clogging up the fuel system, but the fuel pumps are more susceptible to early life failure from being more stressed and over heated. I usually don't go much below a half tank before filling up. You also don't feel as much pain at the pump if you fill up from a half tank versus filling up from empty. I know it's a psychological thing, but it does help ease the pain at the pump a bit. :cry:
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    Yup, those are all good points, especially the one about the fuel pump relying on the gas in the tank as a heat sink. Especially in stop-and-go city driving, they can get pretty warm!
  • iusecadiusecad Member Posts: 287
    well I don't personally run it empty; there always seems to be at least 2 gallons left when I do fill up. (I hate stopping at the gas station.)

    I've never bought into the theory about the pump sucking crap off the bottom of the tank just because I've always felt that stuff gets stirred up into the mix every time you fill up. (JMHO)

    And I live in NE MN and so far haven't had to deal with stop & go traffic. But I understand what y'all are sayin'...
  • isseyvooisseyvoo Member Posts: 121
    A friend of mine's grandfather's estate is being settled, and on the block is a (always garaged) 1990 GM, cream colored with the half vinyl roof and opera light. I remember coveting this car when I was in college back when it was new. Anyway, I don't need the car. In fact, it would be a total indulgence. But the family is threatening to sell it to a cab company if I don't step in to save it, and it's too beautiful to suffer that fate. Anything I should be forewarned about before taking the plunge? (Obviously, since it hasn't been driven in quite some time it will need a change-out of belts, hoses, fluids, plugs, etc.)
  • frasierdogfrasierdog Member Posts: 128
    https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/2006fleetshowroom/2006-grmarquis.asp

    - New grille and front fascia
    - New headlamps and available fog lamps
    - New tail lamps
    - Wooptifreakingdo
    - Prettydamnpitiful

    Color me disinterested in 2006.
  • turbo301turbo301 Member Posts: 73
    I saw a 2006 Grand Marquis driving around about two weeks ago. They look okay - nothing that we haven't really seen before - but I fully agree that Ford is just wasting this design by not livening up a bit; the public couldn't be any less interested, and it's all Ford's fault for stagnating. Foglights are AVAILABLE? Foglights are like the new power steering - you can't imagine a new car of any stature NOT coming with them. It's shamefully that it took Ford this long to put them on, let alone not even STANDARD?

    BTW the two-tone paint treatment is gross :sick: Talk about a lack of imagination. No longer is two-toning the graceful (or outrageous, depending) styling touch it was in the '50s. Simply painting the lower half of a car a different colour (and slapping on the bumpers from the corresponding colour parts bin) barely counts as two-toning: it's more like a really distinctive gravel guard treatment!

    I love that fleet page - "4 distinctive trim levels". Gotta love how automakers today think that juggling a bit of equipment leads to the creation of "distinctive" trim levels.
  • basilsbasils Member Posts: 25
    A 2006 GM? No way, must have been a 2005 model. The build on the car doesn't even start until this coming August. If you still insist it's an '06, let's see a photo or hear a detailed description of what's different....not just a subjective slamming of what a travesty a car without foglights is (who cares). And how is two-tone paint not imaginative? See any other major brand out there with it? I don't, and I think it takes guts to do it. And why would you say it "barely counts as two-toning"? Do you expect them to paint the car a different color right down the middle? Of course the bumpers are painted, what do you want, the old chrome style back? Besides, the target demographic that the GM is aimed at typically finds two-tone paint kind of nice. I actually like one combination myself.
    Yes, Ford could do more to improve the panther line, but right now just keeping themselves in business is "Job 1".
    I plan on getting an '06 in August before they possibly ruin the current look that I find very attractive. And when the GM actually shows itself to the public, I truly hope it looks even better, because I may just get one instead of a CV.
  • marsha7marsha7 Member Posts: 3,703
    there is another reason not to allow the tank to go below 1/4...the concept of sucking up all the silt has validity, but when you allow the tank to run too low, moisture can collect in the tank and permit rust...when the tank is over 1/4 (and, actually, kept over 1/2) the odds of moisture condensation can run very high...

    I appreciate that we do not like to stop and fuel up...but your reason for doing it your way is strictly convenience, with no basis in automotive principles...the reasons given NOT to do it your way, given by multiple posters, has sound automotive reasoning behind it...good luck...
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles