You are here: Forums Future Vehicles Future Crown Vic and Grand Marquis

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

What is this discussion about? Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, Sedan

Messages Page 3 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#17 of 152 Re: whew [cgn49] by johnclineii Mar 29, 2005 (3:16 pm)
Replying to: cgn49 (Mar 27, 2005 5:38 am) Been on a 2000 mile trip + with the Five Hundred.   Anyway, the car could definitely use a bit more power. Then again, I averaged over 30 mpg on the trip, with AWD nonetheless....   So, even I am conflicted! I love the CVT. Feel free to join us over at the Five Hundred forum here... Replies to this message: chuck1959 (Sep 08, 2005 2:54 pm)
#18 of 152 Re: Crown Victoria SVT [lexusrocks] by samnoe Apr 04, 2005 (5:25 am)
Replying to: lexusrocks (Mar 29, 2005 1:46 pm) "I also feel the Ford Five Hundred needs a new engine, preferably one with at least 250 hp..."   Yeah, Ford also fells the same. And that's why the new Duratec 3.5L engine will be added to the 500 next year.   I also think that the CV needs a boost to compete with the others on the market. The need to improve the powertrain, the interior, and a few other minor stuff.
#19 of 152 Maybe there is hope for CV/GM engine/car upgrades... by bigunit67 Apr 06, 2005 (2:49 pm)
In the regular CV/GM chat room, one of the posters makes a point about Dodge introducing a Charger Police Car model for MY 2006, and that this little fact will force Ford to upgrade the CV, especially in the area of engine power.   I did a little digging, and does indeed appear the Charger will be offered with an option of the 3.5 or 5.7 V-8 for 2006 - to police fleets. I don't endorse anyone's website, but you can follow the following link to get the data I did: link title   Personal rant/opinion/burning question section:   1. I would think Ford could offer the 3-valve 4.6 as an option while retaining the existing 2-valve for who don't want/crave extra power w/o burning up too many development dollars.   2. Also, if anyone out there knows, could Ford put a version of the cylinder-deactiviation technology that Diamler is using on the 300c to work in their V-8 cars? Don't take away from what is there, but add something useful and relevant to the package to make people take another look at it.   3. And to go full-blown crazy, how possible would it be to incorporate an electric motor with the CV/GM and have a hybrid version available? It just makes sense to me to take your oldest car platform, one whose costs have long since be recouped, and make changes that would likely be well received in today's marketplace. With Buick going through a total makeover, and the Bonneville being axed, and a whole new 280 HP Avalon to contend with, do something that makes the public take another look at your cars. You can't just "build it and have them come".   Comments, questions? Threats? Replies to this message: euphonium (Apr 07, 2005 8:15 am)
#20 of 152 Re: Maybe there is hope for CV/GM engine/car upgrades... [bigunit67] by euphonium Apr 07, 2005 (8:15 am)
Replying to: bigunit67 (Apr 06, 2005 2:49 pm) Ford should continue with the 220 hp 4.6, Mercury should continue with the 239 engine, but only Lincoln Town Car should have the 300 hp engine available for why should the price of a Lincoln only get you a Ford powerplant? Jaguar's six speed tranny should be with only the Town Car, leaving the Ford/Mercury with the common 4 speed AOD. When you pay much more, you should receive much more. Mercury buyers are not interested in performance as the demise of the Marauder proves. Also, bring back the Towing Package enabling the sedans to drag 3,000 lb trailers. One shouldn't have to buy a pickup or SUV for the infrequent towing of boats.
#21 of 152 euphonium, we must stop meeting by marsha7 Apr 07, 2005 (6:00 pm)
like this...I thought the only thing proven by the demise of the Marauder was that no one would actually pay an additional $5-7,000 for 60 extra HP and a cheap trio of 3 gauges sitting in front of the floor shifter...while we all seem to want the extra HP, since it probably cost Ford less than $100 in parts to do so, no one got suckered into paying mega thousands more for it...add an add'l grand, you have takers...add an add'l five to seven grand and it will rust on the dealers lot until the arrival of forever...
#22 of 152 euphonium, sorry but I don't agree by bigunit67 Apr 08, 2005 (1:58 pm)
The TC, GM, and CV have been around a while and dont have a lot of development costs to recoup. An article I saw last year in the USA today stated that the ave profit, as of the end of 2003, on each car was approximately 10,000 dollars. Knowing that, what ford attempted to do with the sticker of a Marauder was nothing but an attempt to milk more profit out of one product line to cover holes in the rest of it's lineup...NOT offer a competitive car at a realistic price.   Adding that to what Marsha7 says, taking an already high profit-margin car and attempting to milk several thousand more $$$ out of it is what turned the public off, not the concept of "more power". If you look around at the new 280 HP Avalon, the 265 HP Maxima, and many others, the public is addicted to ponies again, despite high gas prices.   When you see the sticker for a Chrysler 300c and then compare it (last model year) to the Marauder, Ford has a hard time justifying what they offered vs what others produced from scratch. I do agree with you that they should raise the content value of the TC. It should not be the price it is with a 240 HP engine powering it. However, I would wager most TC owners wouldn't be swayed by what a Ford or Mercury can offer since there is more to a town car than just what's under the hood (extra size, status, amenities, etc).   Whether we're 100% right or not, maybe SOMEONE at Ford is reading this and realizes what they're throwing out there is behind the times and they'll catch up soon.
#23 of 152 Keep The Basics by jsylvester Apr 10, 2005 (6:41 pm)
As long as the redesign doesn't mess with the basics, which in the case of my 94 Grand Marquis, a car that feels solid even after 11 years and 115,000 miles.   I'd settle for the same power, but I would like a 6 speed auto for better fuel efficiency. If they could add a couple of MPG to both the city and highway EPA rating, I'd be happy.   I'd even settle for the same exterior if they would update the interior, especially the horrible cup holders in the newer ones. The one in my 94 falls short, but it feels Swiss-made compared to the one I saw in a 2005 at the auto show. Also, go back the the better leather, thicker carpeting, and some interior chrome they had before the decontenting began.
#24 of 152 Yeah, Keep the Basics by ragdollgirl Apr 15, 2005 (8:17 am)
I agree with jsylvester, the basic car is great. I, too, have a 94 GM. Mine has almost 200,000 miles. It still looks and runs great, albeit with a few electrical issues that don't affect the performance. I'm about ready to scope out a new car and although I haven't yet looked closely at new GMs, I think I will get one, unless they have been seriously "decontented". I like mine so well I hate to have to go and reinvent the wheel, so to speak. I hope I am not disappointed when I do go look at new ones. If they have cheapened the leather, carpets, etc., maybe I will be. It doesn't appear as though Ford will be improving those items soon. Too bad.
#25 of 152 Soild rear axle, interior, power by fsmmcsi Apr 20, 2005 (7:27 pm)
The only problems I have with the Crown Victoria / Grand Marquis / Town Car are the completely outdated interior (sliding around on the flat seats is no fun), and the solid rear axle. You just can not have a smooth ride with a solid rear axle. Ford apparently did not have a competitive push before the 300 & Charger came along.   As for the engine, the 2006 Explorer has upgraded to the 292 HP / 300 Ft.-Lbs. three valve 4.6 V8 and the six speed automatic, and all of the other vehicles which used the two valve 4.6 apparently will also upgrade to that engine and transmission for improved power and better mileage. Replies to this message: jsylvester (Apr 23, 2005 2:43 pm)
#26 of 152 Re: Soild rear axle, interior, power [fsmmcsi] by jsylvester Apr 23, 2005 (2:43 pm)
Replying to: fsmmcsi (Apr 20, 2005 7:27 pm) You are correct, there are some compromises with the solid rear axle, but there are advantages. It is simple and durable, and usually requires only simple shock absorbers as any future maintenance.   On the interior, I'm guessing part of the update will be to make better form-fitting seats for the bucket seat option. Myself personally, I prefer the bench seat, but you do slide around on the leather.

Messages Page 3 of 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 16 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Future Vehicles Future Crown Vic and Grand Marquis