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 178 of 326 1 ... 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 ... 326 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#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!
#1766 of 3244 well, maybe if they painted the bumpers by iusecad Jan 24, 2003 (10:19 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 3244 MPG Improvements by cfocfo Jan 24, 2003 (12:10 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 3244 andre by randpall3863 Jan 24, 2003 (1:51 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.
#1769 of 3244 Why am I expecting dueling banjos to start playing ? by cfocfo Jan 24, 2003 (2:38 pm)
#1771 of 3244 1768... by blh7068 Jan 25, 2003 (6:54 am)
"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"   Am I reading correctly, the removal of steel bumpers prompted the move to airbags?   The concept of airbags dates back to the 50s...maybe even earlier . Ford- yes Ford even experimented with airbags in vehicles that were not intended for sale in the early 70s. IIRC, GM used some airbags in some Caddys,Olds and Buicks in the mid 70's. Those did not last long.

Messages Page 178 of 326 1 ... 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 ... 326 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