Farewell Crown Vic - Page 3 - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


Lounge For casual talk about things unrelated to General Motors. In other words, off-topic stuff. And anything else that does not fit Section Description.

Closed Thread
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-02-2007, 11:56 PM   #21
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,816
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
GonneVille is on a distinguished road
Default

Umm, John, I don't know where you got those numbers, but they are WAY off. N/A Impy is a mid 16 car. CV is a high 16 to low 17 car. CVs are dog-slow. Even the 250hp version is no match for an SSEi.
GonneVille is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:26 AM   #22
Senior Member
Posts like a 4 Banger
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 131
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
DrCheeto is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Farewell Crown Vic

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjcollier07
Quote:
Originally Posted by vital49
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKammback
As of the 2008 model year, the Crown Victoria will only be sold to fleet buyers, according to Ford. As of June 21, 2007, the Crown Victoria was removed from Ford'* website, most likely to promote the 2008 Ford Taurus.

I always liked these
This is somewhat old news. Word has been out for about a year or so now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BonneMeMN
Crown vic is an OLD car. Body on frame isn't safter than new unit-body construction like the taurus, etc. The engines are junk, and trans aren't worldy nice.
Actually, no, you're wrong. The engine is one of Ford'* best engines. Ever. The 4.6 is a true work horse. It'* not uncommon for civilians and police cars to get well over 300,000 miles on the original engine. My brother had a 94 Crown Vic and recently sold it in September. The car had 340,000 miles on the ORIGINAL engine and rear end. The only thing replaced was the trans at 100,000. They're extremely solid and reliable cars. There'* good reason why they are used for police cars and taxi cabs.

We owned a 2000 Grand Marquis. Not an overly nice car, but served the needs very well. My wife didn't like it because it seems that people who are 60+ are the only ones to drive them. Since they're such a very solid car (full frame, heavy, etc.) the insurance was dirt cheap - $170 every six months for FULL coverage.

Don't dis the Panther.
x2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I LOVE Body on frame construction. I LOVE that they're reliable. Why does everyone always need to go so damn fast? I'd love to get one as a DD just because I know they're safe, reliable, and you can BEAT on em and they hold up to it extraordinarily well. Why is everyone always looking at the downside of things instead of the upside. Everything has its downside. Learn to look at the upside.

And hey peter...lets break this down real quick here...

you think its lame that is a Full size, body on frame, RWD, V8, 4 speed auto, **210 hp - 275 trq, 3950lbs, 0-60 in 8.32, 16.51 @ 87 mph

And your car is...

Mid-full size, unibody, FWD, V6, 4 speed auto, 200 hp - 225 trq, 3500lbs, 0-60 in 9.14, 17.01 @ 84 mph...

(**1998 CV LX Example specs used)

And....yet...you...think thats lame? Uhh... well. Its faster than your car! It may not handle as well...but its faster! And the LX in the 2007 model year came with an optional 239 hp - 279 trq 4.6 to move a 3900 lb car... Sounds like the same specs as an 00+ SSEi does it not?

Not to mention in 99 they got PI (Power increased heads) which brought them up to about 240 hp, (they detuned them again to 224 in 2004).....


The 4.6 is an INCREDIBLE engine, would run circles around a series II in the longetivity/reliability area, is cheap to maintain, and is probably the smoothest engine i've encountered.


Quote:
Originally Posted by petraman
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleKammback
You mean you don't like the RWD and V8? I can understand not liking the Body on frame though
a puny 4.8 liter stone age 2-valve V8 in a car that'* 4100 pounds hooked up to a 4 speed auto??? Hmm, no thanks.
Also, a "Stone Age" engine? You're kidding right? The 3800 has to be the biggest "stone age" engine still on the market... Designed in the 60'*, still using pushrods... (not to mention i've never heard of a 4.8 )
DrCheeto is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:36 AM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 0
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Bonneville92V688 is on a distinguished road
Default

1. Eagle, you are posting on a GM specific forum about a Ford car being discontinued. Don't be surprised if you get cracks on the car, as you ARE on a GM specific forum.

2. DrCheeto, lay off the 3800. After all, you are cracking on the engine that powers 98% of the forum members' cars, and most WILL NOT be happy with cracks on our engine.
Bonneville92V688 is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:40 AM   #24
Senior Member
Posts like a 4 Banger
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 131
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
DrCheeto is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonneville92V688
1. Eagle, you are posting on a GM specific forum about a Ford car being discontinued. Don't be surprised if you get cracks on the car, as you ARE on a GM specific forum.

2. DrCheeto, lay off the 3800. After all, you are cracking on the engine that powers 98% of the forum members' cars, and most WILL NOT be happy with cracks on our engine.
Nope. I didn't say anything bad about it. I just retorted to an uneducated comment about the 4.6

I've had plenty of 3800'*, I'm not going to deny its a great engine, it just is stupid and foolish to call the 4.6 stone age when you drive an engine with roots in the 60'*.
DrCheeto is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:43 AM   #25
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,816
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
GonneVille is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Farewell Crown Vic

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCheeto
Also, a "Stone Age" engine? You're kidding right? The 3800 has to be the biggest "stone age" engine still on the market... Designed in the 60'*, still using pushrods... (not to mention i've never heard of a 4.8 )
Actually it was designed in the fifties. It was debuted as the Buick "Fireball" 215ci.
I never made fun of the 4.6. It'* actually a brilliant piece of metal. But it'* hooked to a horrifyingly inefficient automatic trans, in a body that, while it is certainly tough, is also ridiculously heavy and out-dated. That and the fact that when you hit them from the rear, they EXPLODE. As in, burst into flame because the fuel tank is completely unprotected and pops like a baloon when hit, and as often as not, it ignites. Ask a fw Ohio Highway Patrolmen how many they've lost to that defect.
GonneVille is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:44 AM   #26
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 601
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ChilinMichael is on a distinguished road
Default

I'll state the few simple facts at hand.

As the 3800 may be pushrod, it was almost stopped in 99, due to popular demand and press (go look this up) it was continued to spring of 08, and is lined up for stop then (sorry guys, I wanna cry too)

Ford Crown Victoria has made it'* mark as a great fleet vehicle, while I'm partial to Chevy and WOULD pick one over it (just cause I'm like that) even I have to admit it'* damn reliable, I see so many of these driving around as beaten up taxis with suspension noise, but the motor keeps on going. The point is, as a vehicle for personal use it'* aging. It'* got massive exterior dimensions for today and the interior dimensions don't cut it. A 2005 Lesabre with 12 less inches on it and 500lbs less actually has more overall leg room, and only an inch or so less width, this goes to show what people are looking for...

They have a great ride and plenty of great characteristics, but all good things must come to an end. As far as comparing a 4.6 to a 3800, either way, whoever does it, is wrong to do so in my opinion. Why don't we compare a Lamborghini V10 to a Fiat motor while we're at it? Get my drift....?
ChilinMichael is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:46 AM   #27
Senior Member
Posts like a 4 Banger
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 131
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
DrCheeto is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Farewell Crown Vic

Quote:
Originally Posted by GonneVille
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCheeto
Also, a "Stone Age" engine? You're kidding right? The 3800 has to be the biggest "stone age" engine still on the market... Designed in the 60'*, still using pushrods... (not to mention i've never heard of a 4.8 )
Actually it was designed in the fifties. It was debuted as the Buick "Fireball" 215ci.
I never made fun of the motor. It'* actually a brilliant piece of metal. But it'* hooked to a horrifyingly inefficient automatic trans, in a body that, while it is certainly tough, is also ridiculously heavy and out-dated. That and the fact that when you hit them from the rear, they EXPLODE. As in, burst into flame because the fuel tank is completely unprotected and pops like a baloon when hit, and as often as not, it ignites. Ask a fw Ohio Highway Patrolmen how many they've lost to that defect.
That defect has already been fixed. Also, The comment about the transmission is untrue... the 4R70w , is regarded as one of the best RWD overdrive units on the market. It had some flaws in the early years, but now is known for its responsive shifting and reliability. (Research it, the word "bulletproof" is used quite a bit)
DrCheeto is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:53 AM   #28
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,816
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
GonneVille is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChilinMichael
As far as comparing a 4.6 to a 3800, either way, whoever does it, is wrong to do so in my opinion. Why don't we compare a Lamborghini V10 to a Fiat motor while we're at it? Get my drift....?
Yeah, you're right...that poor 4.6 just doesn't measure up does it?
Think volumetric efficiency here.
The pushrod n/a 3.8 makes 54hp per liter.
The hi-po CV 4.6 makes 54hp per liter.
The L67 makes 63hp per liter.
I'd say the 3.8 holds up pretty damn well against the technical wonder that is the 4.6.
GonneVille is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:58 AM   #29
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 601
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ChilinMichael is on a distinguished road
Default

Good point Gonneville..lol
ChilinMichael is offline  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:59 AM   #30
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,816
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
GonneVille is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Farewell Crown Vic

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCheeto
Quote:
Originally Posted by GonneVille
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCheeto
Also, a "Stone Age" engine? You're kidding right? The 3800 has to be the biggest "stone age" engine still on the market... Designed in the 60'*, still using pushrods... (not to mention i've never heard of a 4.8 )
Actually it was designed in the fifties. It was debuted as the Buick "Fireball" 215ci.
I never made fun of the motor. It'* actually a brilliant piece of metal. But it'* hooked to a horrifyingly inefficient automatic trans, in a body that, while it is certainly tough, is also ridiculously heavy and out-dated. That and the fact that when you hit them from the rear, they EXPLODE. As in, burst into flame because the fuel tank is completely unprotected and pops like a baloon when hit, and as often as not, it ignites. Ask a fw Ohio Highway Patrolmen how many they've lost to that defect.
That defect has already been fixed. Also, The comment about the transmission is untrue... the 4R70w , is regarded as one of the best RWD overdrive units on the market. It had some flaws in the early years, but now is known for its responsive shifting and reliability. (Research it, the word "bulletproof" is used quite a bit)
Fixed? No, sir it has not. Not unless they moved the fuel tank to a totally different car. The problem is that the back end of the CV is about as tough as a pop can. If it gets hit above the bumper, it just collapses. All of the strength is in the chassis. Miss it, and the car fails. The back folds up like tin foil, and the tank splatters. Unless they completely redesigned the rear end, the defect isn't fixed.
And if you're refering to those "Fire Shield" things, they aren't even close to being reliable.
GonneVille is offline  
 
 
Closed Thread

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
** NEW PROJECT ** 97 FORD CROWN VIC ** ( 3 PIC UPDATE ) 3/30 K-OtiK Lounge 22 04-01-2008 11:54 PM
Crown Vic Police Interceptor Sales? wjcollier07 Lounge 33 01-08-2007 05:28 AM
GXP vs. Crown Vic Vs. 300 C Shadow General GM Chat 9 05-17-2006 11:32 PM
Ford Crown Vic help needed vital49 Lounge 7 05-03-2006 08:43 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:36 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.