Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Ford Crown Victoria/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
|
I can understand why Canadians buy fewer large cars with the higher fuel prices and all. I'm kind of lucky in my situation. My job is only 10 miles away so it really doesn't matter about gas mileage. I could drive a CV, Civic, Echo, or Expedition. But for a V-8, the Vic does outstanding. Somebody on another board has now said they saw a 2006 GM. I just don't understand how this can be if Ford has posted, in company letterhead, that the build on these cars doesn't even start until August sometime. I just wish I could see a photo or other proof that an '06 is already out there. Like I've said before, the facelifted GM is something I really want to see. It may be a preview look at what the CV will look like next year......and if it's really nice, I'll get the GM instead of the CV. No way though that I'll wait all the way to 2008 for a 3v engine or MAYBE better styling. I like it the way it is well enough to not gripe if they vastly improve anything. Although if they pop in that Mustang V-8 in '07 - '08....I'll be ticked!! 300 horses in a CV would be really nice! P.S. I thought the CV was cleared of any flaws in regard to the fuel tank?
|
|
|
Replying to: basils (Jun 29, 2005 3:18 pm) 300 horses in a CV is called a Marauder; given that sales disaster, Ford is probably disillusioned with the notion of a powerful full-size sedan. Just think, if they could have done a 300 hp CV in 1994, it might have gone somewhere. The big problem with the Marauder was its price and positioning. Everyone thinks that, because a car is V8 powered, it has to be ultra-fast. Instead, if people just saw the Marauder as an over-achieving cruiser (and if it was priced only a few grand more than a GM), which is what it really is, it would seem like a much better car. As for the CV Pinto-ing out, it might have been cleared - or Ford burried the cases. Regardless, I still think that they're plenty safe cars. The gas tank has been in the same basic place since 1979, as far as I know, so why did the complaints just start in the last few years? No matter how your gas tank is arranged, if you get rear ended hard enough, there will be the possibility of fire. Lawsuits like those against Ford tend to be more "get rich quick" than justice-oriented. I commute 120 km every day, so I am pleased to see my car getting 26 mpg  . Paying for gas is one luxury (actually, a necessity) that I will gladly pay, 'cause I love driving so much.
|
|
|
I see what you are saying about the Camaro/Firebird. It would be real funny to end up with a situation like that. In reality I've already considered it. I just don't trust that Ford will make the right move on the remake. I hope I'm wrong. The Marauder was a nice car with poor marketing and a high dollars-to-horsepower price tag. If they just slip the Mustang engine into the Vic as an option for the younger or performance crowd, and give the whole car a minor facelift inside and out, then start a superb, yet simple advertising blitz about the reliability, toughness (cop car and taxi angle), comfort, power, and a "last of it's kind American icon" kind of campaign, I really believe they could easily revive the sales and add ten years to this car. Look how long the Yamaha V-max motorcycle stayed in production even though it's widely regarded as dated. Make the people what they don't know they want, and they will buy it like sheep. How far, in miles, is 120km? Please excuse my ignorance. Do you use synthetic or dino oil? Yeah, the gas tank thing was cleared a while back. Ford was found not at fault from what I recall. With Ford being so large, every "pro-consumer" and "Ralph Nader wanna be" is looking for anything to bring them down. They tried it with the Firestone tire thing too. And right now a recall has started about some switch or something that caused a fire in something like one car out of a million....but I wouldn't want to have been the one that owned that ONE car!
|
|
|
Replying to: basils (Jun 30, 2005 8:22 am) Although Ford may have been cleared in the courts, the damage done in the court of public opinion will take a while to undo. One of the big selling points of the Panther cars is its safety, and even calling that into question, let alone there being something actually wrong with it, will probably hurt. I was talking to one of London's (Ontario, that is) police officers the other day about whether they were thinking of using Chargers or not (we currently exclusively use CVs). He said no because Chargers do not have enough room for rear seat passengers when the cage is installed (there's precious little there even in a CV!). Also, most of the aftermarket equipment is built specifically for the CV. While Dodge will do its darndest to change this, at least Ford has a bit of an advantage for the time being. This seems fair, since they're the only company that did not abandon the traditional police formula so many years ago. 120 km is about 75 miles. I will just be using standard oil in my CV, at least for the time being. My turbo T/A gets $7 per liter synthetic, but I don't think I need to resort to this in the old 4.6 . I've heard that there isn't much benefit to using synthetic in a "regular" motor, as long as you change the oil at the required intervals and the car is not used in severe-duty driving. My highway stints are about as light duty as you can get.
|
|
| Can't argue your point except to say that there are folks who do not use seatbelts, even tho it is prudent to do so, yet some have wrecks and do not suffer injury...you go below 1/4 tank without bad effect...still, I believe it is prudent to not go below the 1/4 mark, simply because I have much better odds of preventing the condensation problem...will it be perfect???...no, but I do feel it is risky to take the chance of water condensation when a simple behavior has a great chance of prevention...and, you are still going to refuel anyway, so what the heck...YMMV | |
|
|
|
Although primarily about Fusion, there are some interesting hints about the future of Five Hundred here (and perhaps even more so about Crown Vic/Grand Marquis): http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0507/03/A01-235800.htm
|
|
|
Replying to: johnclineii (Jul 03, 2005 3:02 am) Besides that, the CV has built-in urban toughness by virtue of it being THE quintessential cop car. How much more urban does it get than that (wrong side of the law, I guess . I imagine that Ford will restyle the CV/GM into something much squarer come 2008 or whenever, to be more in line with the Fusion/500. The excitement around the Focus' "new edge" styling died off pretty quickly, so I'm sure that Ford is desperate to find a winning formula that will not date itself in 5 years.
|
|
|
Replying to: turbo301 (Jul 05, 2005 8:16 am) 1. Front end more angular and aggressive. 2. Same with rear. 3. Beefier looking tires and more utilitarian/hotrod/sinister wheels. 4. Add horsepower. 5. Advertise the heck out of it. |
|
|
Replying to: justiceisdead (Mar 11, 2000 9:55 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: bruneau1 (Jul 05, 2005 2:30 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Ford Crown Victoria
2010 Mercury Grand Marquis
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
