when will the grand marquis production stop?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Got the girlfriend an '04 Grand Marquis a few months ago. She wasn't so sure she would like the car at first...you know, the 'granny' thing and it's size. After driving it she just loves it and says it drives and handles better than most cars she's driven. I think most people that have any negativity toward these cars should actually try driving one. I have a friend at work that I influenced to look at the Crown Vic for his next car purchase. He got a great used one and has had nothing but great things to say about his choice.
I've always loved this car and if I had the money I'd buy another used one. Best deal for the money (used). Fantastic comfort, good power, great handling for a large car, reliability second to none, safe in an accident, and in my opinion, great looks. For the more 'sporty' minded you can turn these cars into a fairly decent hotrod too.
I'll miss them when production ends.
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg
For the more 'sporty' minded you can turn these cars into a fairly decent hotrod too.
I'll miss them when production ends.


When I win the lottery, I'm going to put a Cobra power train into a GM or CV. That would be ... something.
 
Oh yeah.....that would be cool to have the 5.4L and about 500HP in a Grand Marquis. Put some beefy tires on it and a few other mods and that thing would be one awesome car!
 
I'm glad to hear that so many of you are getting 24+ with these! Do the police spec cars get mileage as good as this? I'm guessing that you'd want the 2.73 rear gears to get the highway economy.
 
My 96 CVPI has 3:27's and I got 24.75mpg at 60mph on a recent trip, and that may have been winter blended gas.

Normally, I get about 22-23 at 75mph, and surprisingly about 19-20 in the city.
 
Originally Posted By: crw
I'm glad to hear that so many of you are getting 24+ with these! Do the police spec cars get mileage as good as this? I'm guessing that you'd want the 2.73 rear gears to get the highway economy.


I would guess that the police interceptor CV's get lower mileage due to the rear gears being more "sporty."

It's interesting--my GM has a single exhaust system. But I got underneath it during an oil change to look around. These cars have a true dual exhaust through dual cats--after the cats the pipes are joined into a single system. It would be very easy to bolt on a dual system and add a few HP.
 
Originally Posted By: crw
I'm glad to hear that so many of you are getting 24+ with these! Do the police spec cars get mileage as good as this? I'm guessing that you'd want the 2.73 rear gears to get the highway economy.


Coming from someone that has had several former police issue CVPI's, most average around 13 mpg around town. Highway, around 25. This is with 93 octane. 87 will give you a measly 10-12 around town.

Keep in mind these were all VERY high mileage ex-cruisers. I'm sure newer, lower mileage CVPI's would get better fuel mileage.
 
I use to get around 13mpg around town in my car before I used Auto RX, now I get a minimum of 15.5, and that's with regular hard driving. If I drive like a normal person the least I'll usually see is 18. Drive like a granny and it can be over 20.

These cars seem to be prone to plugged piston rings, which is why I recommend that everyone who owns one use Auto RX to clean it up, then keep it clean.
 
Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
I use to get around 13mpg around town in my car before I used Auto RX, now I get a minimum of 15.5, and that's with regular hard driving. If I drive like a normal person the least I'll usually see is 18. Drive like a granny and it can be over 20.

These cars seem to be prone to plugged piston rings, which is why I recommend that everyone who owns one use Auto RX to clean it up, then keep it clean.


Repeated ARX treatments made no difference in MPG in my case.
 
Originally Posted By: JackFish

Nothing like a full perimeter frame to make you feel like in an accident you win.


JackFish- funny you say that. A lot of people think they'll fare better in the older body on frame vehicles in an accident. Truth is, the cold, hard data shows otherwise:

2009 Ford Crown Victoria vs. 2009 Ford Taurus:

IIHS Crash Test Ratings (much tougher than NHTSA):

Frontal Impact: Good vs. Good

Side Impact: Moderate (w/ Side Airbags) vs. Good (Standard Side Airbags)
Poor (w/o Side Airbags) vs. N/A (Standard Side Airbags)

Rear: Moderate vs. Good

Maybe your *car* may fare better in an accident in some respects (and I'm not even sure about that), but that's 1950's thinking regarding safety (haven't you seen those safety videos from the 50's with those cars plowed into trees and each other where the car looks great after the accident, but many of the people inside didn't make it?) I'd think you'd be more concerned with how you and your passengers fare in an accident.

Also what's the verdict on those gas-tank fires in which many policemen have lost their lives? I know Ford put in various systems to handle this (shield above gas tank and fire suppression system) but is this just a design flaw, or would more modern vehicles likely also experience the same fate in high-speed rear impacts?
 
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: JackFish

Nothing like a full perimeter frame to make you feel like in an accident you win.


JackFish- funny you say that. A lot of people think they'll fare better in the older body on frame vehicles in an accident. Truth is, the cold, hard data shows otherwise:

2009 Ford Crown Victoria vs. 2009 Ford Taurus:

IIHS Crash Test Ratings (much tougher than NHTSA):

Frontal Impact: Good vs. Good

Side Impact: Moderate (w/ Side Airbags) vs. Good (Standard Side Airbags)
Poor (w/o Side Airbags) vs. N/A (Standard Side Airbags)

Rear: Moderate vs. Good

Maybe your *car* may fare better in an accident in some respects (and I'm not even sure about that), but that's 1950's thinking regarding safety (haven't you seen those safety videos from the 50's with those cars plowed into trees and each other where the car looks great after the accident, but many of the people inside didn't make it?) I'd think you'd be more concerned with how you and your passengers fare in an accident.

Also what's the verdict on those gas-tank fires in which many policemen have lost their lives? I know Ford put in various systems to handle this (shield above gas tank and fire suppression system) but is this just a design flaw, or would more modern vehicles likely also experience the same fate in high-speed rear impacts?

The fuel tank thing was blown out of proportion. The fire rate is no higher than any other modern vehicle. The Panther is also the only vehicle tested to 70MPH rear end collision. It meets the gov. spec for fuel leakage at a 30MPH crash at 70.
fueltank.jpg

The fuel tank is where it is so the rear axle can protect it from side impact collisions. It seems to happen more often with police because of all the stuff they put in the trunk (have you seen a cop trunk?) along with the fact they are in danger more being along side the road so much. It is unfortunate some officers lost their lives, but it isnt the fault of the car. I would look at the DUI that usually end up hitting them.
 
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee

The fuel tank thing was blown out of proportion. The fire rate is no higher than any other modern vehicle. [...] I would look at the DUI that usually end up hitting them.


Do you have a source for your claim about the fire rate being no higher than any other modern vehicle?

Reading up a bit more on this, isn't this increased risk of fire in a high speed rear end collision due to the fact that the fuel tank is placed behind the rear axle and within the crumple-zone of the rear end?
 
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee

The fuel tank thing was blown out of proportion. The fire rate is no higher than any other modern vehicle. [...] I would look at the DUI that usually end up hitting them.


Do you have a source for your claim about the fire rate being no higher than any other modern vehicle?

Reading up a bit more on this, isn't this increased risk of fire in a high speed rear end collision due to the fact that the fuel tank is placed behind the rear axle and within the crumple-zone of the rear end?


Have you observed where it is situated on a Honda Odyssey van? There are a lot of other vehicles with much "poorer" tank placement. They just aren't used for law enforcement.
 
I did. I lost all the PDFs I had on this awhile ago. That CAD rendering of a Vic is the only thing I have of them.
They figured out it was the police equipment. Thats why they offer a kevlar trunk pack. It forces the equipment to be placed sideways instead of pointing directly toward the tank, and has some kevlar in the front (tank) side.
Often times a police upfitter would inadvertently screw equipment through the trunk shelf into the tank. This would not only cause an emissions concern but it would compromise the tank in the event of a collision. Ford published a map of the trunk area shortly after this became a concern showing acceptable mounting spots and maximum screw length.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: Onmo'Eegusee

The fuel tank thing was blown out of proportion. The fire rate is no higher than any other modern vehicle. [...] I would look at the DUI that usually end up hitting them.


Do you have a source for your claim about the fire rate being no higher than any other modern vehicle?

Reading up a bit more on this, isn't this increased risk of fire in a high speed rear end collision due to the fact that the fuel tank is placed behind the rear axle and within the crumple-zone of the rear end?


Have you observed where it is situated on a Honda Odyssey van? There are a lot of other vehicles with much "poorer" tank placement. They just aren't used for law enforcement.

The Odyssey and Sienna fuel tanks are forward of the rear axle. That "tank" you see is the floor where the seats fold into. The Fit has its fuel tank beneath the passenger's seat.

Toyota and Nissan placed fuel tanks in the "crush" zone on the Cressida, Supra, Maxima and 300ZX. Jag had 2 fuel tanks flank the quarter panels in the older XJs.
 
Originally Posted By: nthach

The Odyssey and Sienna fuel tanks are forward of the rear axle. That "tank" you see is the floor where the seats fold into.


Just verified this to be correct on a 2007 Odyssey. So I repeat: Reading up a bit more on this, isn't this increased risk of fire in a high speed rear end collision due to the fact that the fuel tank is placed behind the rear axle and within the crumple-zone of the rear end?
 
Originally Posted By: gd9704
I would guess that the police interceptor CV's get lower mileage due to the rear gears being more "sporty."



I got 25 IMP MPG (about 21 US MPG) with a (then) new 2007 CVPI that had approx 10K on it, on a highway trip with three people in the car. This was driving at an average of 65 MPH in 70 degree weather on dry roads. Almost zero city miles on that trip and I was driving for fuel best fuel economy. This car had the 3.27 rear gears.
 
Originally Posted By: moving2
Originally Posted By: nthach

The Odyssey and Sienna fuel tanks are forward of the rear axle. That "tank" you see is the floor where the seats fold into.


Just verified this to be correct on a 2007 Odyssey. So I repeat: Reading up a bit more on this, isn't this increased risk of fire in a high speed rear end collision due to the fact that the fuel tank is placed behind the rear axle and within the crumple-zone of the rear end?

The worst thing that can happen is the fuel tank gets shoved into the rear axle and it gets slashed by the suspension shackles or the diff pumpkin. Ford has issued a guard kit for the tank. Cop cars are statistically more at risk for high speed rear end collisions but a few taxi cabs have caught on fire as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
2006 Grand Marquis GS setting up for 5 years
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
addyguy
R
Tires & Tire Pressure for 2004 Mercury Grand Marquis
Replies
12
Views
529
Sequoiasoon
R
Jeep Grand Cherokee L motor mounts!!
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
jkasch
R
Which oil grade to use?
Replies
14
Views
919
ATex7239
S
Why oil burner only smoke on initial acceleration?
Replies
13
Views
730
dumkid
Back
Top