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

Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis General Maintenance

102 messages,  Last post on Oct 10, 2009 at 5:59 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, Engine, Oil, Sedan

Messages Page 11 of 11 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#92 of 102 Opinion of commercial package CV by ronslakie1 Dec 19, 2008 (4:18 pm)
The 2.73 the standard ratio on the CV/GM unless you get the HPP (Handling and Performance Package). I have a 2001 GM LS with the 2.73 and it is plenty adequate. The only other mod I have is a K&N air filter, which has been on for 115K miles and I routinely get 27-29 MPG on the highway. It has been a wonderful car and amazingly still has the original battery, which will be 8 years old next March. Replies to this message: martykyj (Dec 26, 2008 3:06 am) euphonium (Dec 26, 2008 9:30 am)
#93 of 102 Re: Opinion of commercial package CV [ronslakie1] by martykyj Dec 26, 2008 (3:06 am)
Replying to: ronslakie1 (Dec 19, 2008 4:18 pm) What is the method you use to check the miles per gallon you are getting? Replies to this message: euphonium (Dec 26, 2008 9:30 am)
#94 of 102 Opinion of commercial package CV by ronslakie1 Dec 26, 2008 (3:26 am)
I have used both the trip computer and actual gas used at fill-up. I have found the car trip computer to be quite accurate. In town driving is in the 17-20 MPG range.
#95 of 102 Re: Opinion of commercial package CV [martykyj] by euphonium Dec 26, 2008 (9:30 am)
Replying to: martykyj (Dec 26, 2008 3:06 am) Tire pressure 35 psi, highway speed 60 mph, last September from Utah to Oregon, = 31.5 mpg, but the car was a 95 T Bird with the 4.6L engine.   Checked on the level from pump to pump.
#96 of 102 Re: Opinion of commercial package CV [euphonium] by calpete Jan 07, 2009 (7:04 am)
Replying to: euphonium (Dec 01, 2008 10:44 am) Thanks for the reply. But I'm wondering why you say it'll get better gas mileage than the standard car. It has the 4.6L engine & the 2.73 rear axle ratio which I assume is standard. What am I missing here? Want good mileage but am also considering a regular MGM which appears to have the same drivetrain setup. Thanks. Replies to this message: euphonium (Jan 07, 2009 11:57 am) calpete (Jan 07, 2009 1:26 pm) euphonium (Jan 08, 2009 11:19 am)
#97 of 102 Re: Opinion of commercial package CV [calpete] by euphonium Jan 07, 2009 (11:57 am)
Replying to: calpete (Jan 07, 2009 7:04 am) It has been my experience that the 2.73 is the "Economy" axle ratio compared to the standard 3.55 or thereabouts.   True, most of the driveline is the same, however compare the different hp ratings of the engines, tire size, and axle ratio.   If mpg is important, lean towards the 2.73 & the standard 4.6L engine. Replies to this message: calpete (Jan 07, 2009 1:26 pm) euphonium (Jan 08, 2009 11:19 am)
#98 of 102 Re: Opinion of commercial package CV [euphonium] by calpete Jan 07, 2009 (1:26 pm)
Replying to: euphonium (Jan 07, 2009 11:57 am) In one of the Edmunds customer reviews of the '09 MGM the writer states that he doesn't like, indeed hates, the ride of his '09 compared to his '03 MGM. He attributed the problem to the 17 inch wheels compared to the older 16 inch. He says they changed the wheel size but did nothing else to the suspension to accomodate the larger wheels. The car wanders at high speed compared to his '03. This concerns me since the car I'm considering also has the 17 in. wheels. Do you have an opinion on the 17 inchers & their impact on ride & handling? Thanks. Replies to this message: euphonium (Jan 08, 2009 11:19 am)
#99 of 102 Re: Opinion of commercial package CV [calpete] by euphonium Jan 08, 2009 (11:19 am)
Replying to: calpete (Jan 07, 2009 1:26 pm) My lack of experience with 17's over 16's = no opinion.   Speculation: The car with 17's may also be equipped with the "handling package" or sometimes called the "touring" option.   The "handling package" usually included, larger diameter tires, heavier duty stabilizers, air shocks in rear, heavy duty shocks in front, dual exhaust, high output alternator, plus other improvements i.e. 3.27 or 3.55 axle ratio.   I am told the ride of the car with the "handling package" is not as fluffy as the standard suspension which would more likely have the economy axle ratio, but it corners like a locomotive.
#100 of 102 2006 Merc. Grand Marquis flex fuel spark plugs by bob4374 May 21, 2009 (4:17 pm)
I was wondering if anyone knows if my 2006 Grand Marquis flex fuel has those long two piece spark plugs that fall apart inside of the engine like the trucks have? I'm about to change the plugs in it and I don't want to have any fun and costly suprises
#101 of 102 1999 MGM 145000 miles by yonsei93 Aug 25, 2009 (8:10 pm)
Hi, My car currently has 145000 mile and the car runs good but the gear seems to shift when I speed going up hill or whenever a speed like a clicking sound. The lights on the radio has gone out and want to bring it back. What is the average cost to replace the rear differential fluid? What kind of services do I need to do?

Messages Page 11 of 11 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

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