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
Future Vehicles Future Crown Vic and Grand Marquis
152 messages, Last post on Jun 07, 2008 at 4:54 PM
You are in the Future Vehicles Forum. Your Host is kirstie_h
|
|
|---|---|
I looked at the inventory of all the dealers Mercury's website included for my Seattle zip code, which showed dealers near the coast and Canada too. Is a rare car in these parts. My dealer didn't even have a model for me to see when I went there. I had to wait a few weeks them to have one and they said it took them a few months to get it.
|
|
|
Replying to: ionosphere1 (Jan 05, 2008 4:10 pm)  -mike |
|
|
|
| As predicted, at exactly 9:00 Pm my time (midnight Michigan time), they changed the special offer deal, as they had to, as the date passed. Interestingly,they significantly decreased the interest rate for the Grand Marquis, but they did not change the dollar amount of $5,500 ;-(. Wonder why they did not increase the dollar option with it. Also strange that for the Sable, the interest rsate is a lot higher. And now the date's been changed to 3/31/2008. I still figured out that even though the interest rate is much lower, I'm still better off to take the cash reduction instead, even for 60 months. | |
|
|
|
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/editorials/ford-death-watch-40-mercury-rip/ If what he says is true, everyone better buy a Grand Marquis like me while you still can!!!! Don't know what he's talking about though regarding questionairre and only 4 vehicles. He's wrong on both counts. |
|
|
|
|
and the recently enacted 35 mpg by 2020 law are what will finally sink the CV/GM/TC. I'd be really surprised if production continues beyond the '09 model year. By then, there will be enough late model, low mileage used ones on the road to satisfy the ever diminishing demand. For proof, look at resale values for the '03-'07 models. Not very good, and proof that demand is declining. Think about it; expensive gasoline will make these cars, rugged as they are, uneconomical for law enforcement and taxi service. For limo-type service the Taurus/Sable/(new for '09) Lincoln MKS will be better overall choices in the expensive gas era.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Mar 05, 2008 11:31 pm) That gas is expensive is no more true than it was 40 years ago when it was .35 a gallon. If your income has not risen at least 10 times in the last 40 years, it is not the price of gas that is the problem. Everything else has gone up. Why should gas be exempt from price increases? 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, you make a good point there, but from what I've read, oil at $103/barrel just surpassed the old record established in '81, in inflation adjusted terms. I suppose much depends on how you want to look at it, but I think record high - and rising - gas prices will prove to be a strong headwind for the old body-on-frame big Fords. I don't presume to know where gas prices will top out, or whether they'll stay high, but it's a virtual given that demand from China, India, and other emerging countries will continue to support relatively high prices.
|
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Mar 05, 2008 11:31 pm) Oh, and by the way hpmctorque, have you looked at the fuel economy ratings on the Taurus/Sable and even the Fusion/Milan/MKZ (no #'s on the MKS yet) compared to the CV/GM/TC? There's only between 2-4 mpg difference. And while that can represent a 10-15% improvement, many people would gladly trade that small of a difference for the other benefits the old Panther-girls offer. Things such as balance, durability, ride quality, stability, handling, safety, lower NVH, lower maintenance (especially front-end work), etcetera. When I take my Town Car on a road trip, let's say an 800+ mile round trip from Napa, CA to Los Angeles or Las Vegas. I average upwards of 21-22 mpg for the trip (and I average about 75+ mph trip speeds). Once I rented a Ford Fusion V6 for a trip to Las Vegas, thinking I'd save a lot of gas money. I only averaged 24 mpg for the trip, the ride quality while nice for a small car, was not even close to my Town Car. A lot buzzier, plus I felt a lot more exhausted and wound-up when I got there and when I got back home. The extra $13.00 I saved on the round trip (about 4 fewer gallons of gas  $3.19 per gal), wasn't worth the lack of comfort, frustration and stress that came with the smaller, buzzier confines. What some people don't take into consideration is that those smaller, higher revving engines have to work a little harder than the loping, long legged, large car V8 engines when it comes to hill climbing and passing. And I don't believe they come anywhere close to the big, slower turning V8's when it comes to longevity either. I'm convinced that my Town Car's life expectancy is easily 250,000 or even 350,000 miles or more. I'd just like an updated version as would a lot of other people I know and talk to. And as far as gas goes, most of the big, comfy car buffs, like me, don't mind spending $200 - $250 a year in feeding costs for the benefits of a traditional, full sized rwd luxury car. Also I'm of the mind that there's no substitute for extra steel around you if in a major accident (say Town Car vs Accord in a head-on). As for as law enforcement is concerned, there is no substitute for rugged, well balanced, reliable, durable and economical (maintenance & repair wise). Suspensions, steering racks, transaxles (transmissions), tire wear, cooling systems, and more on the Taurus for example, would cost law enforcement agencies far more than the additional fuel charges of the Crown Vic cruisers. California Highway Patrol (and other state's trooper agencies), along with large municipal law enforcement agencies (like L.A.P.D. and L.A. County S.O.) have intensive endurance testing programs for their police cruisers. And year after year, the old fuddy-duddy Ford Crown Vic just keeps on coming out on top, in spite of it's age and weaknesses. Besides, when you're responding to an officer in distress' call for back-up, or when in pursuit of a fleeing felony suspect (jumping over curbs & bottoming out on road dips), I don't think anyone is too concerned about another couple miles-per-gallon. Besides they're the government, they just pass the costs on to us. Taxi services are just as concerned or more about durability, longevity and maintenance costs, which once again tend to favor the good ole Crown Vic. And as far as limo & livery services are concerned, how many front wheel drive stretched limo's have you seen lately, even Cadillac DeVilles (DHS); they're almost as rare as stretched Hummers. Even the livery trade doesn't want fwd cars. They cost too much for maintenance & wear, reliability & durability is far worse, and comfort & ride quality is nowhere near as good. Next time you see a few limo drivers take your own unscientific poll, you'd be hard pressed to find 10% of the owners & operators who'll disagree with that. These people are business people, they don't buy Town Cars because they're all Lincoln enthusiasts; they buy them because they are the best product & value on the market for what they need. My question is: Why, why, why Ford, would you give up this market that has become your birthright, only to have to try and fight to get a piece of it back later? I just don't get it. The MKS, as nice as it is, will not really replace the Town Car with the limo & Livery market, sure you'll see a few stretched MKS' and executive livery cars (sort of a fashion statement, like a stretched Navigator). I think the Chrysler 300 will probably get the lion's share of that market, and Cadillac is working on a full size rwd vehicle that I'm sure will eventually take a piece of that market as well. When Ford does finally bring a viable rwd car to market 4 or 5 years from now, they'll have to fight to get back into that market, which will be expensive; and do you really expect Chrysler and GM to just hand their market share back to Ford, or do think they'll fight like the dickens to keep it? |
|
|
Replying to: hpmctorque (Mar 06, 2008 9:42 am) Unfortunately, I believe we're being treated like drug addicts. The drugs are oil based products (gasoline, diesel, heating oil, etc.), the consuming public are the addicts, the oil companies are the pushers, and the oil producing nations are the growers & suppliers. The unfortunate part is that the government is in partnership with the suppliers and pushers, and their take is the taxes on the oil and gas. We need to change our habits, yes; but we need to take our nation back. Many of the billions our government is spending on the war in Iraq could be better spent on shoring up our infrastructure here at home, investing in the education of our youth, and subsidizing and partnering with U.S. auto makers, universities and research industries, in developing alternative technologies and sources of energy that would lead to our becoming energy independent. Now that I consider is in our national security interests. Unless the grand plan is to annex Iraq as our 51st state. Then that would solve our energy independence for a long time into the future, and P. M. Nuri Al-Maliki can become governor and the Iraqi people would be U.S. citizens; at least then we'd have a lucid reason for needing to clean up the mess we've got over there. But as my friend euphonium was saying, it's not just the price of gas that's the problem, it's also the price of everything else (a lot of it tied to the price of gas) and the fact that incomes have not kept pace with inflation. Here in California, back in 1971. I was a young man with a young wife and new-born baby. Gas averaged about 35 cents p/gal (under 25 cents during gas wars), minimum wage was $1.65 p/hr. (fortunately as a young management trainee I was making a whopping $675 per/month), my rent on a small 2 bedroom apartment was $125 p/mo, and a good sized Baby Ruth candy bar was 10 cents. Today, gas is $3.50 per gallon (10x incr.), min. wage is $8.00 p/hr. in California (less than 5x incr.), a friend owns the building that my old apartment is in and he rents that same apartment for $1850 p/mo. (almost 15x incr.), and I saw a similar sized Baby Ruth candy bar in a convenience store the other day for $1.40 (14x incr., they call it a jumbo size now). Gas at 10x the 1971 price seems very high to most people (myself included), but as euphonium was saying, it's not as bad as with many other things or as bad as it could be. Hey 14x or 15x increase on gas would put us easily at $4.90 - $5.25 p/gal. (inflation adjusted of course). Just be glad it gas is a better bargain than Baby Ruth candy bars. And let's not consider the inflation rate of higher education, taxes, or health care. Then gas would really look like a bargain. Fortunately my income increased by about 25x 1971 rate, but it sure don't feel like I'm 25x better off, in fact I know I'm not.  I wish it were 1971 again, things were so much simpler then. 
|
|
|
Replying to: peetiedog (Mar 08, 2008 12:50 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Future Vehicles Future Crown Vic and 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
