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 192 of 325 1 ... 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 ... 325 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg #

#1911 of 3244 by rea98d Jun 06, 2003 (10:35 am)
*Sigh* We've run this exploding fuel tank thing into the ground. Parking a police car on the side of the road during a traffic stop is hazardous in any car, especially when you consider the trooper is going to have his car over toward the lane of traffic more than the car he pulls over, to protect the motorist he's stopping. Add in cars barreling down the interstate at 70-80 miles an hour, and it doens't matter if your in a freaking Sherman Tank, there's gonna be some serious damage. As Wilbur Wright said, "If you want perfect safety, you will do well to sit on the fence and watch the birds." The NHTSA has investigated this thing to no end, and found no fault with the Crown Vic. Ford issued a recall mainly for PR reasons because a few liberal journalists found they had a little time on their hands between wars and promiscuous congressmen, and decided to fill in the dull time with a little slander on a major corporation, and damaged Ford's image. So Ford had to do something to repair that damage.
#1912 of 3244 Gas Tank - One More Time by dbc123 Jun 06, 2003 (6:11 pm)
Previous post is spot on. There is nothing wrong with the design of the CV/GM/TC gas tank. These are among the safest cars in the world and the statistics bear that out. The gas tank is nearly 3 feet in front of the back bumper. The car must be hit at an insane speed to damage the tank. This is what happens more frequently in police than civilian use. Enjoy the car and quit worrying about this issue.
#1913 of 3244 Reply to # 1911 by p100 Jun 06, 2003 (7:40 pm)
You sound like a lawyer for the Ford Motor Company. If there is nothing wrong with the design, then why did Chevy Caprice police cars (used until 1996) not catch on fire when hit hard from behind(at least to my knowledge)? Statistically speaking there were just as many hit from behind and with the same force. Chevy Caprice is every bit as large and safe a car as Crown Victoria.
#1914 of 3244 copied from my link in #1910 by iusecad Jun 07, 2003 (7:05 am)
Expressing the risk of fire as a ratio of fires in fatal vehicles per total fatal vehicles yields a ratio (including police vehicles) of 0.033 for both the Ford Panther and AOS (all other sedans). Excluding police vehicles yields a ratio of 0.029 for the Ford Panther versus 0.033 for AOS. These results indicate that the subject vehicles are not over-represented with respect to the risk of fire in high-energy crashes.   ODI Findings:   The crash energy levels associated with post rear impact fuel tank failures in the CVPI vehicles are significantly greater than the levels in FMVSS 301 tests.   Fuel tank failures during high-speed rear impacts can result from numerous causes in addition to the hex-headed bolt and U-brackets identified in the Ford TSB. Crash reports identify many causes for loss of fuel system integrity during a high-energy rear crash, such as puncture from a deformed frame rail, lower shock absorber supports, or stowed items in the trunk, hydrostatic rupture, and other causes.   Based on analysis of FARS data, the risk of fire per fatal rear crash in the subject vehicles is comparable to that of the GM B-body vehicle (Caprice).   The vast majority of reported post rear crash fires in the subject vehicles (over 80%) occurred in CVPI vehicles, even though they constitute less than 15% of the total Panther vehicle production.   The Florida Highway Patrol Study did not identify a difference between the post rear impact fire risk in CVPI vehicles and that of the Caprice police vehicles.   Ford-sponsored testing indicates that the subject vehicles are not unique in their inability to maintain fuel tank integrity in at least one example of a severe rear impact crash.   There have been numerous high-energy rear crashes involving CVPI vehicles within the scope of Ford’s TSB that exhibited little or no fuel loss and no fire.   The available information regarding fuel tank failure mode, the risk of fire per fatal crash, field performance, and crash testing indicate that the performance of the subject vehicle in high-energy rear crashes is not unlike that of the most comparable peer vehicle, the GM B-body.   Reason for Closing: Under the present circumstance, it is unlikely that further investigation would produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a safety-related defect in the subject vehicles. Therefore, this investigation is closed based on the evidence available at this time. The agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by new or changed circumstances.
#1916 of 3244 2003 Owner's Comments by dbc123 Jun 14, 2003 (8:18 am)
Any other owners of 2003 CV/GM care to share their observations on their cars? These cars have just undergone the most radical updating since 92 and I'd like to hear what others are thinking about the changes. I've a new 03 and a 94 GM which I alternate driving. They are very different driving cars although the appearance is not changed that much.
#1917 of 3244 dbc123: Does your 03 have the 239 hp Lincoln engine? by kinley Jun 14, 2003 (8:26 am)
If so, how would you describe the performance, acceleration, difference between the two. Choosing between the CV & GM - what were the values and reasons to choose the GM over the CV?
#1918 of 3244 4.6 Engine HP Ratings by dbc123 Jun 14, 2003 (6:04 pm)
For 03 all 4.6 single exhaust are 224 HP while dual exhaust are rated at 239 HP. Since duals are (were) only available on the discontinued LSE model you now have no choice of HP ratings. The Handling and Performance Package (HPP) is still available on the CV and this gives dual exhausts along with stiffer springs and sway bars. You may recall 92-01 4.6 engines were rated at 190-200 HP or 210-215 with duals.   For 02 Ford changed the cylinder heads to Performance Improved (PI) heads from the Mustang engine and gained about 10% in HP. These PI head engines do not run as smoothly or quietly as the earlier engines but do make noticably more power - it's a tradeoff. I've not completely decided if the loss of the silky feel of the earlier engines was worth the added power which is noticable only when the engine is really wound up to higher RPM.   Which would you choose?
#1919 of 3244 dbc123: Smooth and quiet has more Class. by kinley Jun 15, 2003 (11:15 pm)
#1920 of 3244 Kinley: I agree: Refinment is Important by dbc123 Jun 16, 2003 (6:06 am)
These relatively minor quibbles aside, I'm continually amazed at the value these cars represent. I paid less than $2K more for my new 03 GM than for the new one in 94 - compariably equipped. They represent an incredible value, expecially with the huge cashback offers now existing. Only about 10% price increase in 9 years and numerous upgrades during that time to keep the cars current.

Messages Page 192 of 325 1 ... 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 ... 325 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg #

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