SLegacy99 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 The Legacy has already had more warranty work than the Mustang did... Then you should take better care of it. Never had any problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodan Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Uh, OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 glad you took my advice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilh Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Then you should take better care of it. Never had any problems.Because you never had problems, anyone who does have problems must be abusing their car. Whatever. Let's see, I must have abused my LGT to have it in the shop for warranty work for 15 days in its first 7 months of ownership. What did I do to make the electronic throttle plate sticky leading to stalling? What did I do to the ECU to make the engine stutter? Sorry, but responses like the above are worse than worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobY Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I dont care if it was a 4.948 litre, it's not technicaly a 5.0. Ford lies and has put out some dangerous products knowingly. Ford is a deceptive, smoke in the mirror auto maker that is quite ludicrious compared to Ford of Europe. If you go to europe Ford has some seriously nice cars out there....yes,even the turbo Escort:lol: The 2.5 liter engine in our car is technically not 2.5 either. Its 2,457cc Its common practice for the manufacter to round up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodan Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Don't go challenging the expert... he's all knowing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NutBucket Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I dont care if it was a 4.948 litre, it's not technicaly a 5.0. Ford lies and has put out some dangerous products knowingly. Ford is a deceptive, smoke in the mirror auto maker that is quite ludicrious compared to Ford of Europe. If you go to europe Ford has some seriously nice cars out there....yes,even the turbo Escort:lol: Dude, get a life. If you want "accurate" engine sizing, go buy a quad/bike or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
941LE Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 The 2.5 liter engine in our car is technically not 2.5 either. Its 2,457cc Its common practice for the manufacter to round up. I was reading through this thread just waiting until someone brought that up. GM has for many years built a 350 (5.7L) and for many years Ford build a 351 (5.8L)...common practice to round off for marketing purposes or brand recognition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTuner Posted October 16, 2006 Author Share Posted October 16, 2006 The Legacy has already had more warranty work in 40k miles than the Mustang did in more than double that... I'm just curious, and don't mean to flame, but how old were you in the late 80's? I see so many folks bashing the 5.0s these days, and most of them were not old enough to even know the cars as anything other than a high-mile, beat to crap used car. You should thank Ford and GM for building cars like the Mustang 5.0, IROC Camaro, and Buick GN. This was the start of the performance movement that has brought us where we are today. 15 minutes of work (set timing, remove intake baffle and set tire pressures) would get the 5.0 in the 13s in 1987. Doesn't seem fast now, but at the time there was nothing like it. I broke the trans in my Mustang at 80k miles (it had been down the strip an uncountable number of times at that point). That was the only major failure I ever had in 105k miles with that car. It never left me stranded. It won drag races, it won trophies at car shows, and it made it into several magazines. Times have changed, and today a stock Legacy can dip into the 13s with the right conditions and good driving. But I'm old enough to remember the miserable crap that passed for performance cars in the early 80s, and cars like the 5.0 Mustang are what brought us where we are. You should give Ford a little credit for having the balls to build it at the time. I was 23 in 1989. My point was not to bash the "5.0" itself, but rather FOMOCO. I have a great deal of respect for the 4942cc OHV 4.9. Probably the best V8 from the eightys to hop up. Loved that motor! I just hate the corporation. Go onlineand search safety recalls for the Crown Vic. DaimlerChrysler just released the Hemi Charger pursuit vehicle this month. The police departments are flooding our dealer with requests for bid's. Most troopers and town officers are not exactly fond of the Crown Vic. Very few I talk to don't complain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Posted October 16, 2006 Share Posted October 16, 2006 Yeah - and with a price 1/3 more than the Crown Vic (P71's go for around $21k; Hemi Chargers cost $29-30k) they should be a better car! Oh, Ford dropped the ball and I admit it. It should have gotten the 3-valve 300hp engine and 5spd auto as soon as the Explorer did. They key here is that Ford could do that and still sell the car for the same price. I know all about the "safety recalls". The fix consists of a few flimsy parts that will have no direct bearing on what happens when the vehicle is slammed from behind at highway speeds. Again, no car can withstand that type of impact without risk of fire. It's media hype and nothing more but hey, it makes ratings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodan Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Crown Vics are about the best cars in our fleet. The only vehicles more desired are the new Tahoes, and the Crowns are among the lowest cost/mile, and least repairs. Every Chrysler product we've ever had was a POS. The mechanics cringe and groan every time anyone brings up buying anything Dodge/Chrysler. The new Chargers/300s etc. are cool, but I wouldn't want to own one with more than 50k miles... Re: Crown Vic safety... I'm with John on that one. I don't care what you're in, if you're hit at high speed from the rear, you're in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTuner Posted October 17, 2006 Author Share Posted October 17, 2006 So true. You don't buy a car to crash it. You buy it because you like it. No matter what your in, when it's your time, it's your time to go. Rodan, If u were using Intrepid's, I see why your dept cringes. The Chargers WILL be different.....trust me. It's been an awesome car for us here at the dealership, very few problems. Just a few niggling electrical issues on early models. However, the do suck in the snow. I think we should be going the extra mile to protect our troopers and local cops. Who comes to your house and runs in to save your family when some sicko has a gun to your head????? THE COPS! Keep em safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I think the biggest issue with the Crown Vic was removing the spare tire. As for the 5.0L - there was a '95 Mustang (last year of the 5.0s) next to me in traffic yesterday. I turned off my radio and rolled down the window. I love that engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodan Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 The Chargers WILL be different..... Just a few niggling electrical issues on early models. It's the electrical gremlins that seem endemic with Chrysler. All four of the Dodge/Chrysler products I've personally owned (from a '78 Ramcharger to '96 Sebring Convt.) had electrical issues at higher mileage (50-100k), and that's a familiar song among those who have owned Chryslers. I really like some of the products they're building these days, I came very close to replacing my F250 powerstroke with a Megacab Cummins this summer, but just couldn't justify the cost. The 300s and Chargers are nice, especially the SRT-8s. If Chrysler can prove to have solved their electrical history, I might consider one down the road a few years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 The 2.5 liter engine in our car is technically not 2.5 either. Its 2,457cc Its common practice for the manufacter to round up. Yes, I was shocked - SHOCKED - to learn that some sources state my 3.0 is actually a 2.999! Based on the dyno run of my H6 versus the 2.5 turbos, I believe Subaru is understating the power output of the NA 2.5 turbo, though. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitetiger Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Yes, I was shocked - SHOCKED - to learn that some sources state my 3.0 is actually a 2.999! Based on the dyno run of my H6 versus the 2.5 turbos, I believe Subaru is understating the power output of the NA 2.5 turbo, though. oxymoron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I think NA = North American in this case, otherwise it makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 How about the rest of that fact: that they "explode" when hit from the rear at 70+ mph while stationary. What vehicle wouldn't do so in that situation? An Abrams tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTuner Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 The problem is not so much the engineering or design of the electrical stuff. Right now, the main problem is vendors.......shitty quality ECU's built by Motorola, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerMan Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 The problem is not so much the engineering or design of the electrical stuff. Right now, the main problem is vendors.......shitty quality ECU's built by Motorola, etc. Sources for this statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.