You are here: Forums Sedans Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis

Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis

3244 messages,  Last post on Aug 25, 2009 at 8:13 PM

You are in the Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, Exterior, Sedan

Messages Page 177 of 325 1 ... 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 ... 325 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#1756 of 3244 Crown Vic and Grand Marquis: Full- Or Mid-Size? by randpall3863 Jan 23, 2003 (9:14 am)
The last model year I saw a true Crown Victoria or Grand Marquis made was the 1991 model year. Starting the following model year, they were shrunk. It is in body length and passenger room.     I have parked my mid-size Marquis Brougham beside both that are still classified as full-size. The body lengths and passenger rooms are the same. But the Marquis Brougham is called mid-size. The current Grand Marquis and Crown Victorias are classified as full-size. The only thing bigger on those are their wheels and engine.     It seems there is no longer a true full-size car. It includes these 2 models. I would like to see the true full-size brought back. I hope it is. It is these 2 models.
#1757 of 3244 lottery talk- by iusecad Jan 23, 2003 (10:26 am)
actually, it just may be on topic, as so many people in Town Hall think buying a Ford is a huge gamble...
#1758 of 3244 by rea98d Jan 23, 2003 (10:40 am)
"The current Grand Marquis and Crown Victorias are classified as full-size. The only thing bigger on those are their wheels and engine."   Actually, the engines are smaller. The 4.6 Liter engine used in all Crown Vics, Grand Marquis, Marauders, and Town Cars (did I miss any variations?) all equal 280.3 cubic inches, which Ford gratuitously fudges up to 281 on the spec sheets. In previous years, the cars have used 302 and 351 cubic inch engines. A few 255 cubic inch V-8's were offered for a couple of years in the early 80's, but there are without a doubt the worst V-8's Ford ever made, are very rare, and nobody wants them. I pray every one of them got melted down to make rebar or something. Back in the 70's, 351, 400, 429, and even 460 cubis inch engines were offered. Engines in the "full size" cars, like the cars themselves, are shrinking.   That being said, the 92-03 Crown Vics and Grand Marquiss are built on the same chassis and suspension (more or less. They make improvements over the years) as the '79-'91 models, and have comperable interior space. What they don't have is the square, formal styling that the older cars have, and the more contemporary, "rounded-off" look makes the cars seem smaller than their predecessors, when in reality they are the same size. If you wan the last of the "real" full size cars, you have to go all the way back to 1978, when the cars actually were considerably bigger, and could still be ordered with the massive 460 CID V-8. Just be sure you've paid up your gas card before you buy one!
#1759 of 3244 The Same Size Or Smaller? by randpall3863 Jan 23, 2003 (12:19 pm)
I own a Kelley Blue Book which lists the body lengths of both the 1991 and 1992 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis. The 1992's have a shorter body length. And they have no more passenger room than my 1985 Marquis Brougham with a fuel-injected 3.8L V6 which is classified as mid-size. The 1991's on the other hand had a longer body and more passenger and leg room. And they were equipped with a standard fuel-injected 5.0L V8 and were available with an optional 2-barrel carburetor 5.8L V8. And they were made more solid. 1991 was the last year they had steel bumpers. So, starting with the 1992's, they were made weaker. That is worse. It is why the 1992's required air bags and the 1991's did not.     Not only has the national news tested cars with steel bumpers with full frames vs. those with plastic bumpers with box-style frames in head-on collisions, front-end collisions and rear-end collisions. But I have seen the difference between my 1985 Marquis Brougham with steel bumpers in a front-end collision due to a deer vs. a 2001 Crown Victoria that had been in a front-end collision. Both were repaired simultaneously at the same auto body shop. The 2001 Crown Victoria had sustained more damage. Its front plastic bumper was smashed, as was its grille. Neither was on my 1985 Marquis Brougham. The auto body mechanic does not call that with the 2001 Crown Victoria "better". He said the same thing the national news has. It is worse. It is weaker materials that cost more.     The last true full-length full-size Ford product was the Lincoln Town Car, which was revised and shrunk down after the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham was discontinued. It is down to the same length and passenger seating and leg room as the current Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis. It is except the longer Cartier version.     Actually, I also drove a 1986 Crown Victoria with a fuel-injected 5.0L V8 that got as much as 30 MPG. I have not seen that yet with the "improved" 1992-2003 Crown Victorias. I do not call that "improvement".     Made more solid and heavy, they had no need for features like traction or stability control. The newer ones made lighter and weaker do. I do not call it progress. I call it regress.     Following the Crown Vics and Grand Marquis since they first came out, the boy lengths and seating and leg room remained the same through the 1991 model year. The only change made were smaller engines. The same goes with the Town Cars through the 1996 model year. I know. I drove a 1994. It was the same length and had the same seating and leg room as my 1976 LTD Brougham. The only thing smaller on the 1994 Town Car was its V8. The 1976 LTD had a 400 C.I.D. V8. It got 20 MPG. The 1994 Town Car had a smaller 4.6L V8. It got less than 20 MPG.     Improvements? The only improvements I have seen are the back seat end shoulder straps and 4-wheel ABS. But I see no other. It is yet.     If you want to claim the 1992-2003 ones have been improved, tell someone who is not as knowledgable about them as I am. It is all I have.
#1760 of 3244 Bigger Engine? by randpall3863 Jan 23, 2003 (12:24 pm)
Yes. The 1992-2003 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis have a bigger engine and bigger tires than my 1985 Marquis Brougham. But the bodies and seating and leg room are no bigger. It means they are smaller than the 1991 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis.     I like how you try to twist my words, rea98d. It sounds like you will lie and try to say anything to dishonestly sell a 1992-2003 Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis. Remind me not to buy one off you! It is if I buy one.
#1761 of 3244 Dude... by andre1969 Jan 23, 2003 (12:35 pm)
...the '83-86 Marquis/LTD are on the Fox platform, which originated with the compact Fairmont/Zephyr from 1978. In 1981, a guzzied up, formalized version came out, sporting the Granada and Cougar nameplates. While it served as Ford's midsized car in '81-82, it had the exact same dimensions inside as the Fairmont/Zephyr. In 1983, the LTD/Marquis took over, basically just a swoopier Granada, but the same amount of room inside. One difference though, was that the sloped-off rear end did cut into trunk room a bit, so an '83 LTD/Marquis would actually have a bit less trunk space than an '82 Granada or an '83 Fairmont.   The '91 and the '92 Crown Vic are the same car underneath. The '92 just has a more aerodynamic body. They're both still classified as full-sized cars.   According to http://www.fueleconomy.org, the '85 LTD/Marquis has 97 cubic feet of interior room, and 15 cubic feet of trunk space. The '91 and '92 full-sized Crown Vic/Grand Marquis are both rated at 111 cubic feet interior, 21 cubic feet of trunk space. It is all I know. I hope this helps.
#1762 of 3244 1759 by blh7068 Jan 23, 2003 (1:48 pm)
"The only change made were smaller engines. The same goes with the Town Cars through the 1996 model year. I know. I drove a 1994"   The 97's were the same as well, in fact those town cars were pretty much all the same from 90-97. 91 was the first year for the 4.6 in the town car.
#1763 of 3244 Speaking of fuel economy & Full size Cars by cfocfo Jan 23, 2003 (3:39 pm)
Didn't the government, about 20 or 30 years ago, require car manufactuors to increase their gas milage ?   Why is it then after all these years, we are still looking at 14 - 21 MPG in the city ?   Cynical/Honest opinions welcomed.   BTW, very happy about my new 2003 Grand Marquis whether "Full" catagory or "Medium sized" catagory and Andre , thanks for the fuel economy link.
#1764 of 3244 by johnclineii Jan 23, 2003 (4:26 pm)
As for the solidity and steel bumpers, in a severe collision SOMETHING is going to crush and give. Given the choice of sacrificing a car bumper and body or sacrificing my and my passengers' heads and torsos, I will pick crushing the car every time.   And airbags were required by the public pressure for safety, not because of weaker bumpers. If you feel your old car is superior and want to keep it, more power to you. But there is no need to bash (bad pun intended) the new ones!
#1765 of 3244 I think it was 1978... by andre1969 Jan 24, 2003 (5:28 am)
...that the government first forced the automakers to comply to their CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) requirements. I forget what the mpg number was that year, but basically, the average economy of the entire fleet of cars a manufacturer built that year had to be at or above a certain amount, or else they'd get fined $5.00 for every 1/10 of an mpg their average was below that figure, multiplied by the number of cars sold that year. To offset the cars that got bad mileage, often they'd just build more smaller cars to get the numbers higher.   One the 4-speed overdrive automatic became pretty much standard on big cars in the early '80's, your typical full-sized RWD V-8 like a Caprice, Grand Marquis, etc (Chrysler was out of the full-size market after 1981) was EPA-rated around 17/24 or so. Interestingly, that's about what the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic are still rated, nearly 20 years later!   There are several reasons for this. First, weight. These cars have put on a few hundred pounds over that span, mainly because of stricter safety standards, more standard equipment, etc. Second, while their engines are more efficient and technologically advanced, Ford used that advancement for improved performance instead of economy. They can afford to keep selling these cars however, because cars like the Taurus and Focus have gas mileage that's enough to offset the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis in the corporate average.   As for steel bumpers versus plastic, styrofoam, etc, well, don't most cars still have a steel beam there, behind the plastic fascia? One thing I do kinda miss, is how cars in the '70's and a good part of the '80's had their bumpers mounted on shock absorbers, so they'd bounce back out. That way, you'd be good for multiple low-impact hits! With new cars, one hit and it's off to the body shop! Still, I guess at higher speeds the newer bumpers are better. With something like a Grand Marquis though, that already had plenty of crush space up front, and a seating position fairly far back from the front of the car, I don't think an exposed steel bumper would compromise safety too much. They'd look out of place on modern cars, though!

Messages Page 177 of 325 1 ... 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 ... 325 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis