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

#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??
#1784 of 3244 I'm not sure... by andre1969 Jan 28, 2003 (9:44 am)
...but I think on the GM/CV, if you have ABS then you have traction control. At least it's that way on the '03 models, from what I've read. It may have been different in '00, but I doubt it.   I have seen ABS and traction control listed separately on cars from other manufacturers, though. I believe it usually went for $600 for the ABS, and then if you got traction control it was another $150 over that.
#1785 of 3244 frankss - congrats on new GM by cfocfo Jan 28, 2003 (1:14 pm)
That GS model with leather is one of the best values out there ! What a great car, enjoy !   John, I think you summarized the SUV era as well as I've seen. (# 1774) And it appears to be heading full circle - back to the form of the family station wagon.   I can name a few PROs of the WAGON: - the wagon seats 6 AND has a large cargo area without reconfiguation or jumping over seat rows. - less of the SUV bounce/jiggle - safer on the hwy, (lower center of gravity) - I would guess better MPG than SUVs (less wind resistence)   Sure, many will always see the family wagon as "uncool" or not having enough "style, just as many say the same thing about the CV/GM. But my guess is that SUVs will have peaked out in 2003, and that the American car makers better face the foreign competition better in the CAR market to prevent further overall market share loss. (I know GM had a small fractional gain last year).
#1786 of 3244 New Wagons ? ie Ford Freestyle Fx by cfocfo Jan 28, 2003 (1:59 pm)
Wagon or SUV ?   http://www.cars.com/news/stories/012103_storya_ap.jhtml?aff=natio- nal
#1787 of 3244 Recent convert to Grand Marquis by soboy Jan 30, 2003 (4:34 am)
Hello all - I am a car enthusiast, used to work for Ford, cars are my hobby and my passion. Last year, I inherited a 1998 Mercury Grand Marquis, LS with antilock brakes and traction control. 37,000 miles and in almost perfect condition. I never thought I'd be writing this, but I love this car! It is smooth and quiet, reasonably quick, gets great gas mileage for a large car with a V-8, it has excellent brakes and much better handling than I expected. It doesn't feel like a boat, as I remember my father's American cars did from the 1970's. I also feel very safe driving it with the wife and kids aboard. Before getting the GM, I was seriously thinking about buying a new BMW, but now I am going to stick with the Grand Marquis.

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