2010 Crown Vic...

[LSFan00]

Didn't she actually drive the first one? I like the CV name, personally, and I am 32. GM, on the other hand, has an underwhelming abbreviation which causes me to think "low quality crap auto maker." I can't figure out why, though.

[falcon lover]

Sorry, but I heartily disagree with the saving of the name "Crown Victoria".

 

I've ALWAYS hated that name as a stand alone marque. It might have been okay as an option package on the LTD, but saying and hearing it conjures up this mental image for me:

 

Ewwwwwwww! *shudder*

 

I say bring back a heritage name like Falcon, Galaxie, etc. before 'CV'. The name "Crown Victoria" holds (IMHO) absolutely NO POSITIVE VALUE to anyone under the age of 60 in this country from an emotional or prestige value.

 

Absolutely NO ONE I know personally will look at something with the moniker of "Crown Victoria" and say:

 

"Oh yeahhhhh...... now I GOTTA get me some of THAT!" B)

 

Any suggestions out there for what a replacement model should be named? Cripes... I'd even vote for resurrecting the Taurus name for the next version. At least the term "Taurus" brings forth the image of a tough, possibly raging, masculine bull!

 

And if they were REALLY smart where the issue of mental imagery is concerned, AND the car had to be named for a female figure, why NOT try something like the "Scarlett J"? Hmmmmm? :lol:

 

 

I agree..... Ford must built 2 versions of the interceptor concept car... LTD , for retail and Galaxie , for fleet and police department. Crown Victoria, as Landau ,may be an upscale version of the LTD.

-Ovaltine

[Watchdevil]

Sorry, but I heartily disagree with the saving of the name "Crown Victoria".

 

I've ALWAYS hated that name as a stand alone marque. It might have been okay as an option package on the LTD, but saying and hearing it conjures up this mental image for me:

 

Ewwwwwwww! *shudder*

 

 

Absolutely NO ONE I know personally will look at something with the moniker of "Crown Victoria" and say:

 

"Oh yeahhhhh...... now I GOTTA get me some of THAT!" B)

 

 

 

And if they were REALLY smart where the issue of mental imagery is concerned, AND the car had to be named for a female figure, why NOT try something like the "Scarlett J"? Hmmmmm? :lol:

 

-Ovaltine

 

Victoria for me conjures images of stuffiness, stodgyness, old ladies panties, wrinkles and age spots, blue hair and post-menpause... An overweight woman... How fitting?

 

Well Ford could name it Diana, Evita, Martha, Ellen, Rosie, Cher, Jackie O., Hillary, Oprah, Mrs. King, Or how about this one...

 

Queen Latifah...

 

That reminds me.. There used to be a "Princess Grace" Thunderbird in the 60's...

 

My personal pick is Stevie though. She is the high priestess godess of rock and roll. It would have a leather and lace interior... And it would come in black with a gold removable hardtop... And high platform wheels...

 

Funny how Ford keeps naming cars after the top option packages of one model name.

 

The Victoria name originates from the 1920's. It is the oldest Ford model name and it is still used in production. It came back in use in 1951. Then in 1955, Ford used it on the basket handle roof Fairlane Crown Victoria complete with a brushed steel tiara. You can thank that car for inspiring the greenhouse design of the 1977-79 Thunderbird and 1978-83 Fairmont Futura/Mercury Zephyr Z-7 coupe.

 

1955 introduced the Fairlane name. 1957 introduced the 500 as a premium trim level of the Fairlane. 1959 brought the Galaxie and Galaxie 500 as a premium Fairlane. 1965 brought us the LTD as a premium Galaxie. The Crown Victoria came back in 1980 as a top trim level on the LTD complete with a brushed wrapover roof band over the B pillar. Eventutally the LTD name was dropped and it became just a Crown Victoria. Now we have the Five Hundred again. I guess the next Ford sedan will be called simply SEL. And beyond that.. Premium or Deluxe....

 

The Interceptor is more retro than I thought... I was looking at pictures of the early 50's Fords and I can see where the Interceptor even gets inspiration from these, mainly the inverted bathtub roundness, High beltlines, prominent taillamps that have a decklid that drops down between them, big truck-like grilles... Even the V8 emblems on the front fenders. It's kinda like the marriage of the later squared off Fords with the early rounded one... Hence a complete squircle theme. It's almost like modeling a 1953 model with 1969 taillamps...

Edited January 23, 2007 by Watchdevil

[SysEng]

Prepare for the wrath of the Panther Mafia...

 

(For the record, I agree with everything you said)

 

So, should I put out a contract on him or you?

 

In one sense I cannot disagree with the criticism. There really isn't much difference between a 1998 or a 2007 "panther" to look at. That alone is the key problem. Its real easy to dis someone trying to sell a car that hasn't changed in 10 years.

 

OTOH, sad as that fact is, whats sadder? The fact that you can buy a new Lexus, BMW, etc... and not be sure its worth the premium over a "panther"??? :shades: Truth is the whole industry is getting pretty pathetic.

[NLPRacing]

So, should I put out a contract on him or you?

 

I guess both of us. But as a former Panther driver (I used to have a 2000 Grand Marquis as a company car, real nice, fully loaded), please have mercy.

 

In one sense I cannot disagree with the criticism. There really isn't much difference between a 1998 or a 2007 "panther" to look at. That alone is the key problem. Its real easy to dis someone trying to sell a car that hasn't changed in 10 years.

 

OTOH, sad as that fact is, whats sadder? The fact that you can buy a new Lexus, BMW, etc... and not be sure its worth the premium over a "panther"??? :shades: Truth is the whole industry is getting pretty pathetic.

 

For the record, I agree with you too. It's aggravating to see Ford orphan a car like the Panther (and the Ranger, Taurus, etc.), but it's equally frustrating to see it still around as is. Ford needs to replace it or kill it! My vote is for the Interceptor, unit body and all.

[P71_CrownVic]

Yay, more panther nonsense. I can honestly say, without reservation, that I am ashamed to be a Ford fan because they still make the panther cars. There, I said it. I cannot understand why so many people on this message board are infatuated with such antiquated, uninspiring and down-right embarrassing vehicles. Sure they run for hundreds of thousands of miles, they’re cheaper by the dozen and they’re tooling was paid for during Regan’s first term, but come on! They should’ve been put out to pasture YEARS ago. As I see it, the panthers have numerous downsides. Let me state my case.

 

* Fit and finish - Absolutely abhorred. There isn’t a vehicle on the market today that has worse fit and finish than the CV/GM. Ragged mold part lines, canyon-like panel gaps, crooked light fixtures, pop-bottle plastic interiors, etc are the hallmarks of these cars. Thank God the elderly clientele that buy these vehicles can’t see too well, they miss all the glaring quality flaws.

 

Yeah just like every other Ford sold today.

 

* Ergonomics - Shameful. That’s all I’ve got to say.

Do you even know what you are talking about??? Clearly not.

 

* BOF - Yes, they’re rugged and easy to fix, but even the best frames flex more than a comparable unit-bodies. That must be (part of the reason) why panther handling is ocean liner torpid, and the ride necessitates Dramamine.

 

Its a 4000 pound car. How do you expect it to handle???

 

* Live Axle - They’re rugged, cheap and great under the F-150 and new Mustang, but their inherent side-to-side shimmying (in the panthers) is unacceptable. Who wants to drive the automotive equivalent of Michael J. Fox?

Two words; Watts Link.

 

* Appearance - The CV/GM have a confident stance and a road presence that’s second to none.

 

Hey, you got one right!!! Congratulations!

 

* 2-valves, 4-speeds - Hurray for Ford. They’ve managed to do nothing significant to panther power trains since the introduction of modular power for the 1992 model year. Perhaps it’s okay to have your 4.6-liter V8 out-powered by countless V6s that displace a liter or more less! Yes, I know, “It’s all about torque, and the area under the curve!” I’m sorry, torque or not, asthmatic, 2-valve, 4.6s just don’t cut it anymore (and they’re just as shameful in the E-series). More power was needed. More gears were needed. But now, those are non sequiturs.

 

Why does the Panther line need to be fast?

 

Ford, KILL THE PANTHERS!

Yes, Ford kill the Panthers. Kill off one of the ONLY things that are actually making you money. And then, after you kill the Panthers, why not go for the E-series van. Another huge fleet model that rakes in gobs of money.

[Watchdevil]

People, the Crown Victoria without modern styling updates looks as antiquated now as a brand new Checker cab looked in the 1980's...

 

I am so desperate for Ford to change it that I would rather look at the more Taurus-styled Crown Vic of 1992 with the six-window design, body-colored nose and horizontal linear headlamps and taillamps. The Crown Vic as it stands now looks like a companion to a 1985 Tbird where the original 1992 model looks like a companion to the 1990's Tbirds...

[Traveler]

I think almost all the Panther enthusiasts here would probably agree that the Crown Vic and siblings are aged, but have done so gracefully.

 

Structurally, they have a better 'feel' to them than many newer vehicles. As I've stated before, the Crown Vic in my observations was certainly on par with the Five Hundred in terms of body construction. Super quiet and super tight. It feels buttoned down. The interior is either screwed together pretty well on my car or for the life of me, I can't see any problems with it. The materials seem to be of good quality and the dash design acceptable. Today you have a choice of soft, grainy plastic or hard, flat plastic. The engine accelerates good from my view point...even at interstate speed. It'll kick down and pull pretty strongly from 70-90 mph. Do most rational people need more pull up to triple digits?? I've owned several Mustangs and I can attest that the CV's powertrain does surprisingly well. The four speed auto is well-built and reliable. Even with the HPP 3.27 rear, the car can get 28 mpg at 65 mph. I disagree that there are many automatic V6s that will out accelerate HPP/Sport Crown Victoria. I also believe that most critics have not driven a late-model HPP Vic. Its handling is actually pretty flat and offers fair road feel. Its been documented that it can handle a slalom as good than many newer, lighter cars.

 

As for the sway on the road...there honestly can be a tendency to get a sensation of that, but one has to remember that these cars have speed-sensitive steering. Ham-fisted drivers need not apply. At higher speeds, less steering input is needed to control direction.

 

I don't argue against the need for a new replacement, but I strongly disagree that these cars are subpar and inadequate. Frankly, they will show a lot of the youngins' a thing or two that get out of line. I've put down a few from the stoplights already. One young guy decided to try me in one of the older 240 hp M3s. I pulled him off the line, entered into a backward S set of curves and he couldn't pull up on me. It wasn't until we straightened that he floored it with apparent embarrassment. There's been a few others that were suppose to, I guess, show up the old-school Ford, but when the bell rang, it was they who had been given the education.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Traveler

[Repetitive Strain Injury]

I think almost all the Panther enthusiasts here would probably agree that the Crown Vic and siblings are aged, but have done so gracefully.

 

Structurally, they have a better 'feel' to them than many newer vehicles. As I've stated before, the Crown Vic in my observations was certainly on par with the Five Hundred in terms of body construction. Super quiet and super tight. It feels buttoned down. The interior is either screwed together pretty well on my car or for the life of me, I can't see any problems with it. The materials seem to be of good quality and the dash design acceptable. Today you have a choice of soft, grainy plastic or hard, flat plastic. The engine accelerates good from my view point...even at interstate speed. It'll kick down and pull pretty strongly from 70-90 mph. Do most rational people need more pull up to triple digits?? I've owned several Mustangs and I can attest that the CV's powertrain does surprisingly well. The four speed auto is well-built and reliable. Even with the HPP 3.27 rear, the car can get 28 mpg at 65 mph. I disagree that there are many automatic V6s that will out accelerate HPP/Sport Crown Victoria. I also believe that most critics have not driven a late-model HPP Vic. Its handling is actually pretty flat and offers fair road feel. Its been documented that it can handle a slalom as good than many newer, lighter cars.

 

As for the sway on the road...there honestly can be a tendency to get a sensation of that, but one has to remember that these cars have speed-sensitive steering. Ham-fisted drivers need not apply. At higher speeds, less steering input is needed to control direction.

 

I don't argue against the need for a new replacement, but I strongly disagree that these cars are subpar and inadequate. Frankly, they will show a lot of the youngins' a thing or two that get out of line. I've put down a few from the stoplights already. One young guy decided to try me in one of the older 240 hp M3s. I pulled him off the line, entered into a backward S set of curves and he couldn't pull up on me. It wasn't until we straightened that he floored it with apparent embarrassment. There's been a few others that were suppose to, I guess, show up the old-school Ford, but when the bell rang, it was they who had been given the education.

 

 

 

 

Good post Traveler!

 

 

DD

Edited March 1, 2007 by Repetitive Strain Injury

[630land]

The Crown Victoria name has been in continuous use since 1980, 27 years! Longer than LTD {1965-86} and Galaxie's {1959-74} time! Who'd have thunk that in the mid 80's?

[7Mary3]

Are these vehicles really 'cash cows'? Since the majority are purchased by fleets, I doubt it. One of Ford's problems has been that they rely on too many low margin fleet sales. Chevy dropped the Caprice when fleet sales accounted for more than 50% of total sales. BTW- the '65 Galaxy 500 lived on in Brazil until 1983 with little more than a new grille and tail lights.

[Watchdevil]

Are these vehicles really 'cash cows'? Since the majority are purchased by fleets, I doubt it. One of Ford's problems has been that they rely on too many low margin fleet sales. Chevy dropped the Caprice when fleet sales accounted for more than 50% of total sales. BTW- the '65 Galaxy 500 lived on in Brazil until 1983 with little more than a new grille and tail lights.

 

 

It is always interesting to see how discontinued US models lived on in other countries and had changes applied to them to make them fresh.

 

One of the most hilarious changes is the Falcon of Argentina which was the original 1960 Falcon body moified in the 1980's to look Euro Ford chic (I call it the "ESS" look) with black trim, wraparound bodyside and bumper moldings, black louvered grille with composite wrap-around head/turn lamps, ribbed tri-color wraparound taillamps, euro road wheels and updated interior.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2007 by Watchdevil

[Watchdevil]

Oops.. mysterious double post...

Edited March 13, 2007 by Watchdevil

[matthewq4b]

Are these vehicles really 'cash cows'? Since the majority are purchased by fleets, I doubt it. One of Ford's problems has been that they rely on too many low margin fleet sales. Chevy dropped the Caprice when fleet sales accounted for more than 50% of total sales. BTW- the '65 Galaxy 500 lived on in Brazil until 1983 with little more than a new grille and tail lights.

 

 

Oh they are cash cows Even at fleet pricing. They are priced the same as the much newer Charger in PI and fleet trim. The CV GM cost almost nothing to build compared to many of Fords other Vehicles.

 

If I remember right current production will just about halve before they hit the break even point. With the addition of the TC to the Stap Plant it is only going to increase margins on all 3 Panthers.

 

The Panthers are still accounting for almost a billion dollars a year in profits.

 

This is why Ford has been so reluctant to kill them. It is also the reason they have been reluctant to stuff a hundred's of millions in to them to up date them, as there is no real guarantee that it will increase sales any sizable amount. They are a paradox at best. Too profitable to cut, updating them (they will need ground up redo's now and a massive advertising campaign) will cut profits hugely with no guarantee of recovering the money with increased sales. So they sit in limbo. The Panthers have been ignored now for the longest period in there lives there have been No significant upgrades at all for several years now.

Prior to this every few years they received some sort of significant upgrade.

 

It is possible that the plaform has hit it's zenith and any other improvements may require massive surgury. The only improvemnt left that I think could be done on the cheap is the 3V 4.6 and the 3 Link axel. But then again would the investment spent doing this show enough of a return with increased sales with out massive body work as well ?. I seriously doubt it could and all it would most likley do is cut profit margins.

 

Chevy bowed out of the Traditional RWD market expecting a shift to FWD with the traditional buyers of the RWD sedan. It never happened and GMC has payed the price since and has stated that leaving the RWD sedan market was mistake. It was this goof up that allowed Ford to steal the market in RWD sedans and the Luxury market in the late 90's.

 

There is a 100K a year of Fleet sales for these cars and that has remained pretty constant at that figure now for a few years now . For cars that cost little to build have some of the highest reliability and owner loyalty ratings in the industry and pretty much have guaranteed sales figures with no advertising & basically no R&D costs for years now. Ford is pretty much bound to making them for a while yet.

 

When they are cut (3 to 5 years from now) they will most likely still be turning a profit.

 

The Panthers will probably end life as one of the few Ford Platforms that was profitable it's whole production life. 28 years now and counting. It blows me away that platform designed in the mid & late 70's can still be even remotley viable in todays day and age.

 

 

Matthew

[Moby Vic]

The only improvemnt left that I think could be done on the cheap is the 3V 4.6 and the 3 Link axel. But then again would the investment spent doing this show enough of a return with increased sales with out massive body work as well ?. I seriously doubt it could and all it would most likley do is cut profit margins.

 

Well, they're due for a nose and tail job (with a Fusionesque grille for the Crown Vic), aren't they?

 

I'd love to see them get the 3V and three-link axle.

 

If an Americanized Aussie Falcon arrives or something like the Interceptor concept is built, I imagine Panthers will be killed or go fleet only in short order, though.

[SysEng]

If an Americanized Aussie Falcon arrives or something like the Interceptor concept is built, I imagine Panthers will be killed or go fleet only in short order, though.

 

I have to wonder at some of the marketing geniuses here ( let alone at Ford :rolleyes: ).

 

Simply building an RWD platform isn't going to make it. The Lincoln LS was a fine example of an RWD car. It flopped against the TC and most other Ford platforms. THIS IS NOTHING NEW! Remember the mid '90s T'Bird/Cougar? Those were very nice RWD platforms as well. THEY ALSO FLOPPED. Guess what!(?) In a little while, I expect the Charger/300 to flop as well!

 

Why? Damned good question. We could prognosticate 'til the cows... but I doubt we'll ever fully nail that one down.

 

The bottom line here is the bottom line. The "panthers" make a profit ( hell they make more profit alone than Ford reports in total some years ) and they sell without so much as a "hey look at me". In 5 years time, I'll bet that every platform in the 180-200" overall length will be gone ( except maybe the Taurus if they can clean up the 500 fiasco ). Meanwhile the "panthers" will still be there...

[taxman100]

My brother is about to turn in his 2005 Chrysler 300C off of it's three year lease - he said he doesn't want to buy the lease out because the car is starting to deteriorate, and he doesn't want to have to sink money into it. Plus, the poor visibility gets old.

 

I have to admit my 2002 Grand Marquis just suffered it's first repair. The blower motor resistor on the autotemp control went out - my mechanic said he replaces them all the time on numerous makes and models, but the odd thing about mine was it wasn't burnt, just quit working.

 

The cost? $145 including parts and labor - would not have happened if the car had manual air conditioning controls. Not too bad for a total repair cost to date - car even still has original brakes and tires.

[stapking]

My brother is about to turn in his 2005 Chrysler 300C off of it's three year lease - he said he doesn't want to buy the lease out because the car is starting to deteriorate, and he doesn't want to have to sink money into it. Plus, the poor visibility gets old.

 

I have to admit my 2002 Grand Marquis just suffered it's first repair. The blower motor resistor on the autotemp control went out - my mechanic said he replaces them all the time on numerous makes and models, but the odd thing about mine was it wasn't burnt, just quit working.

 

The cost? $145 including parts and labor - would not have happened if the car had manual air conditioning controls. Not too bad for a total repair cost to date - car even still has original brakes and tires.

 

 

Yeah I know this guy who has a 2001 or 2002 and the same thing in regards to his Vic had it serviced once and the problem was minor. If only Ford would realize how good of a car the Vic is and start advertising all the good feedback from customers and awards it usally always, the competition would :poke: .

[Watchdevil]

The problem with the Corwn Vic is not it's platform. It has been refined quite a bit. There isn't any difference than people buying a BOF truck or SUV than a full-sized car. The problem is Ford doesn't believe it's worth it to make the Crown Vic appealing on a retail level. They don't mind pouring all their funds into making the trucks and SUV's updated and fresh to continue to sell. However Ford just keeps missing the opportunities to capture all possible sales. If you can impress someone on a retail level with great styling, better interior and content even with a BOF car then people will talk about how good it is. Perhaps some people would like to step down out of the SUV or truck image. However, it's no so appealing to do so when it looks like every cop car, taxi and rolling casket for the elderly. If they insist on still making the Panthers without a complete restyle then they at least need to do some facelifts to bring it in line with the styles going on now. They certainly didn't mind sticking that godawful ugly nose on the new Econoline van..

[iluvnascar]

The problem is Ford doesn't believe it's worth it to make the Crown Vic appealing on a retail level. They don't mind pouring all their funds into making the trucks and SUV's updated and fresh to continue to sell. However Ford just keeps missing the opportunities to capture all possible sales. If you can impress someone on a retail level with great styling, better interior and content even with a BOF car then people will talk about how good it is. Perhaps some people would like to step down out of the SUV or truck image. However, it's no so appealing to do so when it looks like every cop car, taxi and rolling casket for the elderly. If they insist on still making the Panthers without a complete restyle then they at least need to do some facelifts to bring it in line with the styles going on now. They certainly didn't mind sticking that godawful ugly nose on the new Econoline van..

 

Make no mistake about it..........Ford will not be investing anything substantial in the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis. They want sales to slowly wither away......so that they can close the only plant that makes the car. At one time, the CV/GM made big money......now, with reduced volumes, fleet sales, marketing incentives, and recalls.......I suspect it's losing money. Which is another reason that Ford wants sales to wither away.....in Ford's strange way of thinking, less volume means smaller financial losses......but taken to the extreme, it simply means they are winding down the company.

 

I have yet to see Ford make any "BOLD" move that suggests it will be a viable entity in the long run. Their vision seems to be less and less capacity......less and less sales.....less and less employees.......and a spiral into the black hole of former auto companies. Sad but true.

[taxman100]

There is no question Ford plans on letting the platform die out - the only question is whether the Panther dies before or after Ford declares bankruptcy.

 

The nice thing we can still buy a new one, although after looking at new family trucksters for my wife, I'm considering buying a 2003 Lincoln Town Car Signature with 39,000 miles for $13,000. It would get about the same gas mileage as the crapwagon small SUV's she wants, but will run for a much longer period of time.

 

I'd buy a new Panther over a used one if Ford gave me a reason to do so. The fact they decided it was a better idea to develop the 500/Taurus shows you why it is a race between Ford and Chrysler to see who wins the "deadpool" for American automakers.

[SysEng]

I have yet to see Ford make any "BOLD" move that suggests it will be a viable entity in the long run. Their vision seems to be less and less capacity......less and less sales.....less and less employees.......and a spiral into the black hole of former auto companies. Sad but true.

 

I'd say this part of your comment is both true... and applies to all Ford product... at this point!

 

In the Information Age, lack of innovation and lack of a consistent product improvement strategy is the kiss of death... even for an old line industrial company like Ford.

[suv_guy_19]

You're all being a little negative aren't you. I'm sorry, but despite the recent problems, the executives at Ford still know a great deal more about running a company than you. Many analysts are saying that Ford is at the point of tuning around. Why can't any onf you be positive for a while.

[Topgun]

You're all being a little negative aren't you. I'm sorry, but despite the recent problems, the executives at Ford still know a great deal more about running a company than you. Many analysts are saying that Ford is at the point of tuning around. Why can't any onf you be positive for a while.

Nice of you to call Bill Ford an executive. He surely did well for the company.

[Moby Vic]

I have to wonder at some of the marketing geniuses here ( let alone at Ford :rolleyes: ).

 

Just because I think something will happen doesn't mean I endorse it. :rolleyes: