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 256 of 325 1 ... 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 ... 325 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#2544 of 3244 jsylvester by marsha7 Jun 27, 2005 (2:07 pm)
I have suspected the rear for some time, as I do have the higher ratio...but then how does the vehicle get the 17/25 rating, when it is obvious that certain factors have changed, which may directly affect mileage???
#2545 of 3244 Re: turbo301 [iusecad] by gmctruck Jun 28, 2005 (4:57 am)
Replying to: iusecad (Jun 25, 2005 9:21 pm) Running the gas tank down to almost empty is not a good thing to do for several reasons. Dirt and debris on the bottom of the tank has a greater chance of getting sucked up into your fuel system causing poor performance and clogged fuel passages. Second, your fuel pumps have to work harder to get and move the fuel. Some in-tank fuel pumps use the fuel to help keep them cool. So not only do you risk clogging up the fuel system, but the fuel pumps are more susceptible to early life failure from being more stressed and over heated. I usually don't go much below a half tank before filling up. You also don't feel as much pain at the pump if you fill up from a half tank versus filling up from empty. I know it's a psychological thing, but it does help ease the pain at the pump a bit. Replies to this message: turbo301 (Jun 28, 2005 8:54 am) iusecad (Jun 28, 2005 9:19 am)
#2546 of 3244 Re: right on! by turbo301 Jun 28, 2005 (8:54 am)
Replying to: gmctruck (Jun 28, 2005 4:57 am) Yup, those are all good points, especially the one about the fuel pump relying on the gas in the tank as a heat sink. Especially in stop-and-go city driving, they can get pretty warm!
#2547 of 3244 Re: turbo301 [gmctruck] by iusecad Jun 28, 2005 (9:19 am)
Replying to: gmctruck (Jun 28, 2005 4:57 am) well I don't personally run it empty; there always seems to be at least 2 gallons left when I do fill up. (I hate stopping at the gas station.)   I've never bought into the theory about the pump sucking crap off the bottom of the tank just because I've always felt that stuff gets stirred up into the mix every time you fill up. (JMHO)   And I live in NE MN and so far haven't had to deal with stop & go traffic. But I understand what y'all are sayin'...
#2548 of 3244 Seeking feedback by isseyvoo Jun 28, 2005 (10:27 am)
A friend of mine's grandfather's estate is being settled, and on the block is a (always garaged) 1990 GM, cream colored with the half vinyl roof and opera light. I remember coveting this car when I was in college back when it was new. Anyway, I don't need the car. In fact, it would be a total indulgence. But the family is threatening to sell it to a cab company if I don't step in to save it, and it's too beautiful to suffer that fate. Anything I should be forewarned about before taking the plunge? (Obviously, since it hasn't been driven in quite some time it will need a change-out of belts, hoses, fluids, plugs, etc.)
#2549 of 3244 2006 MGM Changes by frasierdog Jun 28, 2005 (12:29 pm)
https://www.fleet.ford.com/showroom/2006fleetshowroom/2006-grmarquis.asp   - New grille and front fascia - New headlamps and available fog lamps - New tail lamps - Wooptifreakingdo - Prettydamnpitiful   Color me disinterested in 2006. Replies to this message: turbo301 (Jun 28, 2005 2:56 pm) basils (Jun 28, 2005 5:48 pm) turbo301 (Jun 29, 2005 3:56 am) and 10 more...
#2550 of 3244 negative rant... by turbo301 Jun 28, 2005 (2:56 pm)
Replying to: frasierdog (Jun 28, 2005 12:29 pm) I saw a 2006 Grand Marquis driving around about two weeks ago. They look okay - nothing that we haven't really seen before - but I fully agree that Ford is just wasting this design by not livening up a bit; the public couldn't be any less interested, and it's all Ford's fault for stagnating. Foglights are AVAILABLE? Foglights are like the new power steering - you can't imagine a new car of any stature NOT coming with them. It's shamefully that it took Ford this long to put them on, let alone not even STANDARD?   BTW the two-tone paint treatment is gross Talk about a lack of imagination. No longer is two-toning the graceful (or outrageous, depending) styling touch it was in the '50s. Simply painting the lower half of a car a different colour (and slapping on the bumpers from the corresponding colour parts bin) barely counts as two-toning: it's more like a really distinctive gravel guard treatment!   I love that fleet page - "4 distinctive trim levels". Gotta love how automakers today think that juggling a bit of equipment leads to the creation of "distinctive" trim levels. Replies to this message: basils (Jun 28, 2005 5:48 pm) turbo301 (Jun 29, 2005 3:56 am) basils (Jun 29, 2005 8:27 am) and 9 more...
#2551 of 3244 Re: negative rant... [turbo301] by basils Jun 28, 2005 (5:48 pm)
Replying to: turbo301 (Jun 28, 2005 2:56 pm) A 2006 GM? No way, must have been a 2005 model. The build on the car doesn't even start until this coming August. If you still insist it's an '06, let's see a photo or hear a detailed description of what's different....not just a subjective slamming of what a travesty a car without foglights is (who cares). And how is two-tone paint not imaginative? See any other major brand out there with it? I don't, and I think it takes guts to do it. And why would you say it "barely counts as two-toning"? Do you expect them to paint the car a different color right down the middle? Of course the bumpers are painted, what do you want, the old chrome style back? Besides, the target demographic that the GM is aimed at typically finds two-tone paint kind of nice. I actually like one combination myself. Yes, Ford could do more to improve the panther line, but right now just keeping themselves in business is "Job 1". I plan on getting an '06 in August before they possibly ruin the current look that I find very attractive. And when the GM actually shows itself to the public, I truly hope it looks even better, because I may just get one instead of a CV. Replies to this message: turbo301 (Jun 29, 2005 3:56 am) basils (Jun 29, 2005 8:27 am) turbo301 (Jun 29, 2005 9:12 am) and 7 more... jerry18 (Nov 16, 2005 8:53 am)
#2552 of 3244 iusecad by marsha7 Jun 28, 2005 (6:51 pm)
there is another reason not to allow the tank to go below 1/4...the concept of sucking up all the silt has validity, but when you allow the tank to run too low, moisture can collect in the tank and permit rust...when the tank is over 1/4 (and, actually, kept over 1/2) the odds of moisture condensation can run very high...   I appreciate that we do not like to stop and fuel up...but your reason for doing it your way is strictly convenience, with no basis in automotive principles...the reasons given NOT to do it your way, given by multiple posters, has sound automotive reasoning behind it...good luck... Replies to this message: iusecad (Jun 29, 2005 9:26 am)
#2553 of 3244 06 Changes by jsylvester Jun 28, 2005 (8:32 pm)
I have driving lights on my Intrepid R/T, and I use them maybe 3-4 times a year - I don't see where it improves visibility unless you are in the mountains. Technically speaking, most cars have driving lights, not fog lights, as fog lights are aimed lower, and are designed to shine under the fog, which typically hovers about 1 foot off the ground.   What I miss in the newer Grand Marquis is the complete lack of chrome in the interior. Maybe it is just me, but comparing my 94 to a new one, and the newer interior looks more European, and much more boring.

Messages Page 256 of 325 1 ... 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 ... 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