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 179 of 325 1 ... 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 ... 325 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#1774 of 3244 by johnclineii Jan 26, 2003 (1:32 am)
Meanwhile, the big old engines went into things like Chevy Suburbans, where big engine freaks found them, the car companies realized that the truck fleet and the car fleet were treated separately under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) legislation, they gussied up the trucks to make them more non-farmer, white collar as opposed to blue collar friendly, jacked up the prices, and the high priced non-offroad SUV concept was born, the car companies made lots of money, then at least some people began to figure out they were paying way too much money for just an engine, but the ONLY remaining CARS that have body on frame, V-8's and RWD are the Crown Vic, Grand Marquis (and now Marauder) and the Lincoln Town Cars. SUV's are also beginning to be seen by some as unsafe (having a much hihger center of gravity and needing to be driven like, well, a truck), threatening to others on the highway, and gas guzzlers.   This gets us to 2003, where you now find SUV's becoming more car-like, crossovers like Pacifica, Matrix and Vibe. Suddenly, the US car companies are realizing that in the past ten to fifteen years they had basically ceded the car business to the Japanese and Europeans, especially so at GM.   The days are getting interesting...and the Crown Vic and GM continue to soldier on, years after their predicted demise. We should salute Ford Motor Company for continuing the CV/GM after General Motors dropped the Caprice/Impala in order to use the plant where they had been made to make more SUV's, which brought GM much more profit per unit! On the other hand, if it weren't for the huge fleet sales to police, cab companies and commercial fleets, and the very high profit on the Town Cars, the CV/GM/LTC sedans would have been gone long ago. Too bad Ford didn't also save the large station wagon. I bet a lot of potential sales are out there, especially to those who would rather have a car than a minivan.
#1775 of 3244 andre... by blh7068 Jan 26, 2003 (5:30 am)
Were the majority of the Ford V-8's 302's in the early 80's? I remember a friends parents had a 79 Crown Vic w/a 302....meager HP...but the car still got out of its own way. Did Ford still offer choices of rear axles on their full size cars in that time period? Or was the "economy axle" the only choice?   Sidenote- GM still offered a 350 through '81 in the Z-28, automatic only in U.S models. Canadian models still could be equipped with a 4 speed!!
#1776 of 3244 John... by blh7068 Jan 26, 2003 (5:38 am)
"The days are getting interesting...and the Crown Vic and GM continue to soldier on, years after their predicted demise."   Good point. Sufficient demand for full size/RWD/V-8 still exists. Ford has even expanded its full size offerings by bringing back the Maruader.
#1777 of 3244 1979... by andre1969 Jan 26, 2003 (7:55 am)
...I vaguely remember and old Consumer Reports test from 1979 where they pitted a Crown Vic 302 up against a Chevy Caprice (or Impala, I forget now) with a 305, and a Dodge St. Regis with a 318. In this test at least, the Ford blew the other two away.   I think the Ford did 0-60 in around 13 seconds, while the Chevy was more like low 15's and the Dodge was pushing 16!   As for rear-ends, I don't know what this particular Ford had, but I think a 2.73:1 was pretty common. 2.56:1 was a popular Chevy rear-end back then, and Mopar was sticking mainly 2.45:1 rears behind most of their V-8's. I know in the case of Chrysler, they changed first and second gear in the trannies to compensate for the taller rear-end, but I don't know if Ford and Chevy did the same thing.   Ford did offer a few other rear ends, such as a 3.08:1 and for higher performance they'd switch up between a 3.27:1 or a 3.55:1. Sometimes the quicker rear-end would actually help mileage, in mixed driving. I have an 1985 Consumer Guide new car reference, and they tested an '85 Crown Vic with the handling package (3.55:1 rear, dual exhaust, limited slip) and an '85 Grand Marquis with just a 3.08:1. They got an average of 17.1 mpg out of the Ford, and only 13.9 out of the Merc!   Just for comparison, in that timeframe, the big Chevy/Pontiacs were using 2.56:1 and Buick/Olds, 2.73:1. The only thing Chrysler had left by that time was the Diplomat/Gran Fury/Fifth Ave, essentially a Volare trying to pass for a full-size. They weighed almost as much as the truly big cars, and were stuck with 2.24:1 rears! How they got out of their own way, I'll never know!
#1778 of 3244 by rea98d Jan 27, 2003 (9:28 am)
For clarification, after 1983, Ford's LTD and Mercury's Marquis/Marquis Brogham were built on the midsize Fox platform shared with the T-Bird and the Mustang. That is the car that came with the 3.8, and they were midsized cars. The full sized cars were called the LTD Crown Victoria, and the Grand Marquis. The full size cars NEVER EVER EVER came with a V-6, so if you have a Marquis with a 3.8, it is not the same car as the Grand Marquis with the 5.0. The 1979 Grand Marquis is built on the same platform as the 2003 Grand Marquis, and except for the short-lived, unloved 255 V-8, engine sizes have been getting smaller over the years. A 3.8 was never offered in a full sized Ford car. The fact that Ford had a mid-size LTD and a full size LTD Crown Victoria (and Mercury, a mid-size Marquis and a full size Grand Marquis) is confusing. Made even more so because the lower trim levels of the full sized cars in '82 used the same names as the mid sized cars in '83. So, a 1985 Marquis Brogham is a totally, completely different car than a 1985 Grand Marquis, while a 1982 Marquis Brogham is the same as a 1982 Grand Marquis, except it has cheaper seat upholstry and less fancy gadgets. Are we confused yet? Engines have been getting smaller over the years. In 1978, the last year for the big cars, you could get a 460, a 400 or a 351. In 1979, you could get a 351 (which was totally different from '78's 351. Go figure), a 302 or a 255. The 255 was dropped from the lineup a couple of years later because it proved to be about as popular as ski-jackets in the Outback, leaving the 351 and the 302. Then the 351 was dropped, fisrt for civilian cars and then for police packages, leaving only the 302. Finally the 302 was dropped in favor of a 280 cubic inch (4.6L to use modern terminology) V-8, which, with some improvements, is still in use today.
#1779 of 3244 New GM by frankss Jan 27, 2003 (12:43 pm)
Just bought a new 2003 Grand Marquis. It is a GS model, got leather seats,full size spare,CD,and keyless entry along with some other gizmos. Runs great, peppy motor,very comfortable.
#1780 of 3244 Bumbers and Air Bags? by 99windstar Jan 27, 2003 (12:45 pm)
Weren't air bags mandated by the Feds? I don't think any car maker would have swapped an inexpensive steel bumper for a very expensive air bag systems just for grins.   Today's Crown Vics and Grand Marquis are at least as sturdy and safe as an 85 Marquis. Or Grand Marquis for that matter.   Many have pointed out here that the mid size LTD and Marquis were fox-based Fords. If you have one, crawl under that sucker. Follow the "frame" from the back end of the car all the way to the front bumper. Guess what? You can't. It doesn't have a full frame. It's "uni-body" (read cheap) construction.   Apples and oranges here folks...
#1781 of 3244 by rea98d Jan 27, 2003 (4:20 pm)
"Apples and oranges here folks..."   More like apples to office furniture....   FWIW, my 1995 Thunderbird (which I named Patsy) has heavy duty steel bumpers. I learned that the hard way bouncing her off a guardrail, and she lived to tell about it. You can't see the bumpers, because they are hidden behind a plastic fascia, but they are there, and when you need them, you'll kneel down and thank God (or whatever supreme being you beleive in) that they were there. And they work just as well as the old, chrome covered bumpers of the old days. You get more cosmetic damage on the plastic fascia, but the car itself holds up just as well. You know what else? Patsy's also got dual air bags. Driver and passenger. Old fashioned steel bumpers and airbags both. And when you really think about it, airbags and bumpers do different things. Bumpers are the car's suit of armor. The protect the functional parts of the car by posing a hard, impenetrable barrier to delicate stuff such as radiators and gas tanks. (Why do you think you have to be running 70 or 80 when you rear end a Crown Vic to make the gas tank explode. 20 or 30 would be more than enough without bumpers!) Air bags, on the other hand, keep the driver from impaling him- or her- self on the steering column. Bumpers are to protect the car, air bags the driver.   One more thing...Not all cars have metal bumpers. My grandmother's '92 Bonneville has a similar setup to my T-Bird- a plastic fascia with the real bumper behind it. Except where the real bumper is cold, hard steel on my T-Bird, it's fiberglass on my Grandma's Bonneville. I think GM is secretly a division of Rubbermaid or Tupperware, the amount of plastic in their cars! Seeing how that Bonneville was built has forever turned me off to GM cars, despite the 100,000 relatively trouble-free miles the car has given. Fords are built much tougher, and I feel much safer in a full-sized Ford than I do in a comperable GM product.
#1782 of 3244 Air bags... by andre1969 Jan 27, 2003 (4:24 pm)
...I think ultimately they were mandated, but the auto makers had so many years to get ready for them. They had to come up with some kind of passive restraint, either in mid-year 1988 or the beginning of '89. Ford went for motorized shoulder straps, while GM had those dumb seatbelts that were anchored in the door. You could fasten it, and when you opened the door you could still get out. Unfortunately, if your door flew open in an accident, or got ripped off and back, you were screwed. Chrysler started putting air bags in their big RWD sedans in mid-'88, but other cars had a regular lap belt, and then a shoulder strap anchored to the door. I had an '88 LeBaron coupe like that, but then an '89 Gran Fury with a driver's side air bag.   I think it was 1994 or so that dual air bags were finally required. Interestingly, the GM air bags that they offered on a few Olds, Buick, and Caddy models in the '70's was a dual system, and only cost about $300 as an option. For comparison, fuel injection on a Cadillac was something like $500 back then!   As for comparing a modern Grand Marquis to an '85 Grand Marquis, I'm sure the new one is even safer, thanks mainly to the air bags and the "softer" bumpers. In 1985 I believe they still had a 5 mph standard for bumpers, so at very low impacts, an '85 might sustain less damage than a new one, but at higher speeds, the newer one will protect the occupants better.   They always were fairly safe cars, though. I believe big Fords from '79 on up were rated better for safety than the big GM and Mopar products.
#1783 of 3244 2000 CV Traction Control by usaf52 Jan 27, 2003 (8:17 pm)
Reading the Edmund's review of the 2000 CV, the text says that the 4 wheel ABS includes the traction control. Is this part of one integrated system? If the CV has ABS does this mean it automatically has traction control??

Messages Page 179 of 325 1 ... 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 ... 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