twisted Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=6&u=/ap/20050322/ap_on_re_us/crown_victoria_lawsuit Dont subaru supply cruisers to rangers in the US and police forces in UK/Australia etc.... well time to look into the US market. The scoobies are stylish fast awd reliable and safe!!! FOMOCO cant claim any of these categories:lol: for their crown victoria!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tytek Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 i have driven both crown vics and impalas (albeit civil versions) and think that both "cars" are a waste of natural resources, time, and money. how can cops spend so many hours in such POS? i spend bunch of my awaken hours driving and i am currently stuck in an impala... i can't wait for my l-gt to be given back to me (body work after hail damage). do the cops on the list care to spill the beans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodan Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Ford's got a point... if you're going to sue me claiming my product is dangerous, don't expect me to be selling you any more...and don't let the door hit you in the backside. FWIW, just about any car is going to have issues getting ass-ended at 60-70 mph, which is the circumstance in most of the cases where the Crown Vics caught fire. I'm approaching 100k miles on my Impala 'company car', and it is truly a POS. Many issues, suspension, front ends, transmissions, brakes, etc. We have the biggest fleet of Impalas in AZ, and we're switching to Tahoes. The Crown Vic is a much better car overall, more reliable, faster, handles better, more comfortable, etc. That's why Chevy has come out with a 2wd 'pursuit' Tahoe for '05...Ford was still kicking their ass in the police market. I wouldn't mind an Outback XT wagon for work, but fitting larger 'customers' in the back would be an issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f1anatic Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I just received an issue of DRIVE - the magazine edited to Subaru and sent to new owners ? Inside there is a picture of some cop holding his shotgun, half out thru the moonroof of his 2002-2004 Subaru Outback Police Cruiser. They cited some county in Washington State. Also somewhere in California, Subaru donated 10 Baja models for beach patrol. Somewhere where there is a military base also...cause the civilian life guard received 5 red ones and the military coast guard that patrol also received 5 yellow ones. I know I should be more specific...but until I drink my coffee and wake up...I cannot move a millimetre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f1anatic Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 The old Impalas (1992-1997) were ass-kickers..and made great squad cars. I have also seen Taurus Intrepids, Maximas, Explorers, Expeditions, Trailblazers, Windstars and Caravans as squad cars here...along with the special chase units of our brave IL troopers: Mustangs and Camaros. I can even give you the license plates of a few of them (decked in Civilian colors of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red beast Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 another pinto....kaboom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Why should Ford sell cars to people that fully intend to sue them over the very vehicles they wanted to buy so badly? The Crown Vic isn't reliable? Bwa ha ha ha. You'll see plenty of 4.6 liter CV's with 400-500k+ miles without a rebuild - if somebody bothered to change the oil along the way. The police versions handle much better than a rental civilian version. They're also faster than the 2.73-geared granny models. Just like any other car, if you ditch the stock tires and upgrade the shocks to Bilsteins you'll get much more handling ability than you ever thought possible from a big sedan. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the gas tank either. There's no way any manufacturer can guarantee the tank's safety in a rear collision of 70+ mph. It just defies the laws of physics. A cop's duty requires them to park in situations that invite this very type of accident. There's nothing inherent in the car's design that makes it any more unsafe than any other car out there. Ask any officer out there and they'd much spend all day in a CV than an Impala or Dodge offering. Oh, and slow? My Grand Marquis could run down stock WRXs after about 50 mph quite easily. All I had was a K&N and Superchips programmer. If I hadn't been so insistent on AWD I would have just supercharged it and enjoyed my 13.0-sec sleeper sedan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodan Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 The old Impalas (1992-1997) were ass-kickers..and made great squad cars. You're thinking of the Caprice, only the SS was called an Impala. And you're right, they were kick ass cars. I had a '94 with the LT1 motor, and it was a mover. FWIW, the seat sucked. As much as I hate to admit it, the seat in the new Impala is much better...LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC100 Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 Imagine how hard it would be to stick a 280 pissed off suspect into the back seat of a Legacy... Or the back of any Subaru, unless your talking about the Baja. Never going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VXCL Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 i just cant see a cage in my legacy. maybe the wagon there is more room. the legacy is a small sedan which is why i like ti so much. same size as my old acura cl coupe. MAYHEM #122/22 STS NNJR SCCA AUTOX4U.COM XENON RETRO GUIDE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tytek Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 when i wrote that crown victoria sucks i meant more than just handling and acceleration. it is an old concept that was developed more than 25 years ago - in production from 1979 (designed around 5 yrs earlier). the basic design, which was not too revolutionary years ago, is outdated and would have been scrapped years ago if not for police departments/taxi cab companies buying them in bulk. this is the only 'new' car that has not been redesigned (outside of exterior/interior improvements) for so many years. the wheelbase is short, leading to a crappy/jittery ride quality (which they tried to fix with soft suspension settings); there is hardly any space in the back (for such a long vehicle); the interior is simply fugly... neither comfortable, nor ergonomic. the seats are soft, and flat. the tranny probably the best piece of engineering in that automobile. compare it to anything in that class (or size) and you will see that it is a waste of resources. the engine is dated and sucks gas like crazy (plus the car is heavy as hell). it lacks top end (due to inherent engine design) and is definately not environment friendly. ford has access to much better technology! why not use it? why fix something that ain't broke - is the answer - if it sells, than it must be ok. what a shame... coming back to the gas tank design, it is placed behind the rear axle and under the seat/trunk in an almost vertical position, which was fairly common decades ago. most, if not all, modern cars have gas tanks in the mid section - in front of rear wheels. but since it does not make sense to redesign the crown vic, ford came up with a fix by mounting a protective plate between the axle and the tank to prevent an axle bolt from puncturing the tank shell. the plate will help, but only to an extent. it is yet another half ass job done by ford. also, any car that gets rear ended at high speeds will crumple significantly to dissipate the energy and reduce occupant acceleration/deceleration (hence crumple zones) and that is the main reason why modern cars have their tanks in the mid section of the car. you can like the car or not, but there is no way anyone could say that crown vic is up-to-date. ford should have killed it years ago (or is it decades now?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodan Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 For the job, it's still the best sedan currently available, both functionally and from a cost/mile perspective. BTW, gas mileage is about the same between the CV and Impalas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustinw Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 when i wrote that crown victoria sucks i meant more than just handling and acceleration. it is an old concept that was developed more than 25 years ago - in production from 1979 (designed around 5 yrs earlier). the basic design, which was not too revolutionary years ago, is outdated and would have been scrapped years ago if not for police departments/taxi cab companies buying them in bulk. this is the only 'new' car that has not been redesigned (outside of exterior/interior improvements) for so many years. the wheelbase is short, leading to a crappy/jittery ride quality (which they tried to fix with soft suspension settings); there is hardly any space in the back (for such a long vehicle); the interior is simply fugly... neither comfortable, nor ergonomic. the seats are soft, and flat. the tranny probably the best piece of engineering in that automobile. compare it to anything in that class (or size) and you will see that it is a waste of resources. the engine is dated and sucks gas like crazy (plus the car is heavy as hell). it lacks top end (due to inherent engine design) and is definately not environment friendly. ford has access to much better technology! why not use it? why fix something that ain't broke - is the answer - if it sells, than it must be ok. what a shame... coming back to the gas tank design, it is placed behind the rear axle and under the seat/trunk in an almost vertical position, which was fairly common decades ago. most, if not all, modern cars have gas tanks in the mid section - in front of rear wheels. but since it does not make sense to redesign the crown vic, ford came up with a fix by mounting a protective plate between the axle and the tank to prevent an axle bolt from puncturing the tank shell. the plate will help, but only to an extent. it is yet another half ass job done by ford. also, any car that gets rear ended at high speeds will crumple significantly to dissipate the energy and reduce occupant acceleration/deceleration (hence crumple zones) and that is the main reason why modern cars have their tanks in the mid section of the car. you can like the car or not, but there is no way anyone could say that crown vic is up-to-date. ford should have killed it years ago (or is it decades now?). If the car didn't sell they should put it out to pasture. But guess what, it sells. Why should Ford update the car when there is no reason to do so? Are you insisting that Ford (a capitalist company) should do it simply out of the goodness of thier hearts? Give me a break. There is no competition in the market, the car sells as-is. There is simply no justifiable (from an actual business perspective) reason for Ford to do anything to the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red beast Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 the protective plate was the same fix they had for the pinto/bobcats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tytek Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 impala mpg 20/30 crown vic mpg 18/25 what i am talking about is more less social responsibility (or lack of it) on ford's part. there are a bunch of other cars that could be just as good if not better. nissan altima is almost the same size inside! look up some of the bigger cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustinw Posted March 23, 2005 Share Posted March 23, 2005 I don't understand where "social responsibility" comes into play in the first place. This is a business. So the car gets a couple less MPG than a car with a smaller body and engine. How exactly is that a such a big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timbuktu Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 when i wrote that crown victoria sucks i meant more than just handling and acceleration. it is an old concept that was developed more than 25 years ago - in production from 1979 (designed around 5 yrs earlier). ... you can like the car or not, but there is no way anyone could say that crown vic is up-to-date. ford should have killed it years ago (or is it decades now?). I used to think the exact same things about the CV, and ask the same questions. Why would Ford keep making them? Why didn't they do a whole new chassis. Why do police depts and taxi services still buy them? And then one day I realized I do not buy cars in fleets, I buy cars individually spaced out by years. I came to understand the fleet managers mentality. Finally, I understood the economics of building cars. As a fleet manager, its extremely difficult to simply give up on a car and switch to another one. You probably have a few contracts and at least a year's worth of parts to maintain the fleet you already have. So switching to a new fleet is not simply changing the car, its keeping an inventory of parts of two fleets. This is additional work for a fleet manager, so he'd rather not give himself more work. Further, he's not going to replace his entire fleet, only a handful of it at a time. So keeping track of inventory is that much more difficult. One year its 80/20, the next year its 70/30. So, its his job to make sure he has parts available for the whole fleet. What a pain. On top of that, he's been using the same vehicle so long, he already knows when things need replacing, what the weaknesses of the vehicle are, and what parts from what manufacturer are going to last a long time. The new vehicle brings a whole other can of worms to the table that you'll have to figure out. This takes time and money. Yeah, it sucks, but most people do what they do out of habit and because they fear change. Whose gonna stick their neck out when what they have has worked so well for so long? As for why does Ford keep producing CVs/GMs/PIs? Because the stamping is paid for (for the frame anyways), the engine is derived from engines used throughout the corporation (4.6L V8 used in the F-150, Explorer, Expedition etc), and you don't have to update the sheetmetal/interior frequently. So, you're using an engine that's paid for by another program, a frame that the stamping was paid off years ago, and you only have to refresh the sheetmetal ever 8 years? Talk about high profit margins. Even if you only sell 20,000, its mostly profit because most of the expensive machinery was paid for. So why not keep selling it to a willing public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neelnug Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 A Ford 500 wouldn't be a bad replacement. AWD option would be nice in some areas. Duratech with 6 speed auto.. plenty of room for bad guys in the back, nice safety. New v6 coming out (250hp) would be nice for pursuit vehicles. http://www.blueovalnews.com/2004/lincolnmerc/05ford500.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodan Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 impala mpg 20/30 crown vic mpg 18/25 That's the EPA rating. In the real world where the Impala is full throttle to do what the CV does at part throttle, they both get 18-21. I've driven both extensively and that's been my experience. timbucktu is correct about the fleet mentality. It's all about cost/mile. You'd be amazed at the abuse that CV's take without problems. The Impala breaks if you look at it funny. New ball joints at an average of 40k miles, they eat transmissions on a regular basis, the brakes warp very easily, and so do the wheel hubs. There are very few vehicles out there that are actually built for heavy duty use, and the CV is one of the few, and functionally it is very good. It may be old and low-tech but it works, which is why it sells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDubbs Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Ever try to wear a garrison belt in bucket seats? Would hate to see what my cuffs that hang in a strap would do to my leather... No, the name has nothing to do with bragging about 20 inch wheels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 the basic design, which was not too revolutionary years ago, is outdated and would have been scrapped years ago if not for police departments/taxi cab companies buying them in bulk. this is the only 'new' car that has not been redesigned (outside of exterior/interior improvements) for so many years. Yep, today's models are similar to the 1979 models -- at least where they're both 4-doors and they're both RWD In 1992 it was the first domestic sedan (maybe even the first American car!) to offer an OHC v8 (except for its Town Car sibling which got it in 1991). Sure, they should have gone to the DOHC when it became available but then (and even now), Ford was convinced people buying sedans didn't care about power. Look at what your other choices were then and tell me what was a better sedan? Contrary to your main point, there have been continuous powertrain and suspension upgrades throughout the 90s and early 2000s. In 97 it picked up an even better transmission than the previous AOD-E. In 98 came the body freshening and fatter brakes. In 01 it gained the "PI" engine, really opening up the top end of the rpm band. 03s got a completely new suspension setup, steering, and most importantly, gained the ability to easily install the DOHC 4.6 if Ford decided to expand past the Marauder. 04's got even more power from an improved intake design. the wheelbase is short, leading to a crappy/jittery ride quality (which they tried to fix with soft suspension settings); there is hardly any space in the back (for such a long vehicle); the interior is simply fugly... neither comfortable, nor ergonomic. the seats are soft, and flat. the tranny probably the best piece of engineering in that automobile. compare it to anything in that class (or size) and you will see that it is a waste of resources. The wheelbase is that way so that you can have a 20 gallon gas tank *and* a huge trunk. I happen to like the interior. They didn't try to make it too trendy with bulbous shapes and fake aluminum trim. If you know what model to buy you'd have nice buckets instead of the flat seats you disparage. I've also never had any issues with the ride quality at all. the engine is dated and sucks gas like crazy (plus the car is heavy as hell). it lacks top end (due to inherent engine design) and is definately not environment friendly. ford has access to much better technology! why not use it? why fix something that ain't broke - is the answer - if it sells, than it must be ok. what a shame... It sucks gas, huh? My 01 got the same mileage as my Legacy. It lacks top end? Hah! You obviously haven't driven an 01 or newer model, and especially one with even basic mods. Try one with the handling & performance package, or the P71 police package, instead of the pedestrian rentals you obviously have experience with. I swapped the police 140 mph speedo into my Grand Marquis and it had no trouble reaching the 130 mark. 60-120 it'd walk right by a WRX no problems. Oh, I guess they're slow sedans too though. I should have bought something with real quality like a Buick Century. You can still tow with a CV too - real loads, not just a jet ski. The air suspension makes sure the rear isn't dragging the ground while doing so. It also makes quick work of anything you can heave into the trunk. coming back to the gas tank design, it is placed behind the rear axle and under the seat/trunk in an almost vertical position, which was fairly common decades ago. most, if not all, modern cars have gas tanks in the mid section - in front of rear wheels. but since it does not make sense to redesign the crown vic, ford came up with a fix by mounting a protective plate between the axle and the tank to prevent an axle bolt from puncturing the tank shell. the plate will help, but only to an extent. it is yet another half ass job done by ford. In FWD you may find the gas tank ahead of the rear axle but in the rest of the AWD cars I've owned for the past 12+ years the gas tank is right out back. Note that not every police car hit bursts into flame, and a LOT of police cars are involved in colisions. Its a risk of the occupation. Again -- what car *can* you slam into at 70+ and not risk a fire? You want cops to drive Mercedes? They made the Ford 500 to see if it could replace the CV. It's a decent car except for that crappy 200 hp v6 and weak CVT trans, and the Ford version looks like ass compared to the Mercury. As long as they keep making choices like that, people will keep lining up for a rock solid RWD v8 with a proven track record. Cops drive more than almost any other profession. Ask them what sedan they'd rather be driving in all those circumstances. The old fogey marshmallow sedan just may surprise you after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twisted Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=465030 even they replaced the RE92 LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tytek Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 i stand corrected on some issues and now see that there are people that get excited by this so called car. it has some advantages, no doubt, it has a large (but shallow) trunk, drives, and serves a purpose; plus you can tow stuff. it is a niche car - for sure. and interceptors cost around $20-22k, which is a steal (but a lot if you are comparing it to market price of 4040lb of scrap) are there better vehicles out there? i have no doubt. would it take a lot for buyers to accept the change? for the target audience - most definitely. that is how you guys have proved my point: as long people feel happy and keep buying it, not much will change, and ford will still be cranking out outdated and technologically inferior (to the main stream) cars. i would not buy one, because i have no reason to. direct or indirect, the competitive offers are plentiful. you can improve the cv all you want, but keep in mind that the basic design is what is going to limit what you can do. and that is why manufacturers go back to the drawing board every so often. if the customers don't push for it, then what is the incentive? it seems to be a vicious circle. that is where social responsibility comes in. improve and innovate to gain market share and improve brand image and perception. also, long term outlook is what is going to warrant a firm's existence (look at toyota's mission statements and future outlook). but maybe ford has been doing that by releasing the Volvo S80/Mondeo based Ford 500 (which except for the engine's ouput is superb)... a sneaky plan, nonetheless. the cv is fairly quick, for its size. with 3.73 gears it will do around 1/4 mile in 15 sec at almost 90mph. not too shabby. i was not trying to compare cv to impala (other than mpg) nor the wrx, because i think that the impala is mighty crappy too - which is inherent in its design and features. the rex is showing its age too, and guess what - subaru is working on the replacement! change is good, but as long as there is demand, the amount of change will not be enough to warrant a major move. that is all i was trying to say. such customer mentality is unfortunately an auto market characteristic for the US. cars are a mode of transportation for most of us. so as long as they take people from a to b, many could apparently care less what is under the sheet metal. and that is where it makes me sad. you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but at the same time, when you live next to the cemeteryyou cannot weep for everyone. flame suite on! j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daNattyFatty Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Ever try to wear a garrison belt in bucket seats? Would hate to see what my cuffs that hang in a strap would do to my leather... damn straight! it's uncomfortable enough with me just wearing my fobus holster. here's why the crown vic's are good for us. 1) no bucket seats. 2) shifter mounted on steering column. 3) plenty of dash space for the laptop. 4) the cage takes up a HUGE amount of space. it's hard enough to fit the people i arrest back there. i couldn't imagine doing it in something with a smaller backseat. 5) trunk has a decent amount of space for what we need to have in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Don't get me wrong - I also think it's past time for the Vic to get a full redesign, and I don't mean replacing it with the Ford 500 either. The new car should get the new 3 valve Mustang GT engine (300hp). It should have 6 more inches of rear legroom regardless of what method they use to get it -- different packaging, extra wheelbase, etc. The success of the Chrysler 300 should show them that big cars are not dead (and I do know the 500 is supposed to have the same size interior as the 300). The 300C shows that there is a market for 345hp rwd cars when Ford was so content to deliver 100 hp less than that for a decade. They also need to realize what kept the current platform going for so long without change: choices. An elderly person can buy one in standard form with 2.73 gears & single exhaust and float down the road. Others can opt for the sport package and get 17in wheels, firmer shocks, and blacked out chrome. If they made one with the Cobra's engine it'd fly off the showroom as fast as they could make them, especially if the rest of the car was similarly improved. They finally changed the Mustang from its old Farimont platform. Everyone will agree it's a far better package than the one it replaced. If they do the same for what was the last rwd American sedan, it'll sell well for another 20 years. Oh, and I've never seen a car with a bigger trunk. I fit a 27in TV, box and all, in the trunk and closed the lid with no problem. I've had a full load back there plus a couple of dollys, and just a single dolly wouldn't fit in my LGT trunk or even in the backseat! Any LEO's here who drive Crown Vics at work should join http://crownvic.net Yes, they have a board just as active as any other, and the mods are plentiful. Watching a completely stock-looking but blown Crown Vic run 12.50s is always fun no matter who you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.