Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis

3292 messages,  Last post on Mar 24, 2013 at 8:46 AM

You are in the Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis Forum.

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

Messages Page 177 of 330

#1759 of 3292 The Same Size Or Smaller? by randpall3863

Jan 23, 2003 (1:19 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 3292 Bigger Engine? by randpall3863

Jan 23, 2003 (1:24 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 3292 Dude... by andre1969

Jan 23, 2003 (1:35 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 3292 1759 by blh7068

Jan 23, 2003 (2:48 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 3292 Speaking of fuel economy & Full size Cars by cfocfo

Jan 23, 2003 (4:39 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 3292 by johnclineii

Jan 23, 2003 (5:26 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 3292 I think it was 1978... by andre1969

Jan 24, 2003 (6:28 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!

#1766 of 3292 well, maybe if they painted the bumpers by iusecad

Jan 24, 2003 (11:19 am)

instead of just chroming them, they might not look so bad. Kinda like the "Sport Appearance" packages on full size trucks.
 
But yeah, my dad wants to get out of his Impala already because of the plastic bumper covers: a couple of months ago he backed into it with his work truck and cracked the cover. I think it was $400 fixed. His deductible is $500... didn't even scrape the dirt off the bumper on the truck.

#1767 of 3292 MPG Improvements by cfocfo

Jan 24, 2003 (1:10 pm)

"EPA-rated around 17/24 or so. Interestingly, that's about what the Grand Marquis/Crown Vic are still rated, nearly 20 years later!"
 
That's exactly what I'm talking about ! I traded in a 94 Caprice for the current GM. Same weight, same engine (roughly, alittle more HP now) and the new GM gets the same 17/25 MPG.
 
The Caprice should of done better in '94 and now in 2003, we're at the same MPG. It would appear the government had no real intention of enforcing fuel improvements.
That is going to bite us in the butt someday !

#1768 of 3292 andre by randpall3863

Jan 24, 2003 (2:51 pm)

I knew it was either the 1997 or 1998 Town Car that was reduced in size. But I was not sure which. I thank you for helping with that.
 
  Actually, the 1984 and 1985 LTD Brougham and Marquis Brougham were both available with an optional 5.0L V8. I found this out from my Chilton's, the Ford Motor Company and the books at auto parts stores. It was available for both either with a 4-barrel carburetor or fuel-injected. The LTD's was made at Ford's U.S. plant. The Marquis' was made at their Canada plant. That was the biggest engine used in both.
 
  It was also the biggest size used in the Fairmonts, Zephyrs, mid-size 2-door Thunderbirds and 2- and 4-door Cougars, Granadas and Monarchs.
 
  They also referred to that engine as a 302 C.I.D. V8. The 1984-1991 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis came with a standard 5.0L V8 and were available with an optional 5.8L V8.
 
  I need to find my Kelley Blue Book. It lists the lengths of the 1991 and 1992 Crown Victorias and Grand Marquis. The 1992's were shorter in body length than the 1991's and had less back seat passenger leg room than the 1991. When I find my Kelley, I will give the actual lengths.
 
  Also, the 1991's still had steel bumpers for more protection. The 1992's got plastic on the front and rear. It made the front and rear weaker. It is why air bags were added to the 1992's. They were standard. It is when back seat shoulder and lap straps were added. They were weaker in the front and rear. My cousin has a 1992. But the back seat straps were an improvement. And 4-wheel ABS became available for them. So was a fully shiftable 4-speed automatic added. So was a smaller 4.6L V8. It is since the body was shorter than the 1991. And it was lighter with plastic, rather than steel.
 
  I will be back after I find my kbb. It has the lengths of the 1991's and 1992's. It is a reliable source for that. It is not for car pricing. But it is for sizes. I will return.

Messages Page 177 of 330

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement