Jump to content

Talk:Ford Crown Victoria/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Retail discontinuation in Canada

I noticed Ford no longer sells the Crown Vic' to retail customers in Canada, but I can't find out when this happened (I'm guessing 2003). It's still available to fleets however. I read also that Ford is expected to make the same move soon in the US with the introduction of the Five Hundred. -- stewacide —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 10 March 2004.

Ford, I believe, sells the Mercury Grand Marquis as a Ford in Canada instead. I wouldn't be surprised; the Grand Marquis is really the retail customer version of this car anyway, hardly any private individuals buy a Crown Vic new. —Morven 18:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
They do, which is doubley strange since they phaysed out the Mercury brand and dealership network otherwise (other than the Grand Marquis/Marauder no other Mercury's are availabe in Canada).
Anyways what I was wondering is if anyone knows when the Crown Vic' stopped retail sales in Canada so I could add it to the article. I tried searching goodle but didn't come up with a date... -- stewacide
As I added to the article, the last year for the Crown Victoria to be available at dealerships for the general public in Canada was 1999. Although the Lincoln Town Car and Mercury Grand Marquis remain available at dealerships, the Grand Marquis is officialy a "Ford" vehicle in Canada in all litterature and resources, despite it's still badged as a Mercury. Since the Marauder's demise in 2004, the Grand Marquis is the only remaining Mercury vehicle sold in Canada. -- S3BST3R

Police usage question

I think you're right to question this about the CV no longer being sold as police cars, Morven. If that happened, there'd hardly be any market for them, I think. I also wonder about the part of the article that says a gas tank upgrade is being offered to all owners. I understood that this was only being offered to police forces. RivGuySC 01:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I could find no references to such. It's notable that Ford just won a lawsuit about this topic, too; given juries' common prejudice against deep-pocketed defendents, and sympathy for dead police officers' families, the case against Ford must have been a long way from compelling.
Most of the incidents in question involve collisions between a high-speed vehicle and a stopped police cruiser; this is not what would in general be considered a survivable accident. The Crown Vic's gas tank is definitely by far in compliance with the federal 30 mph collision integrity requirement.
Ford's recent moves to offer an automatic fire-suppression system on their police vehicles is, IMO, not the admission of guilt some take it as; merely a realisation that police vehicles are much more likely to be involved in high-speed collisions in which gas tank integrity cannot be assured no matter what its placement. —Morven 21:43, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Is there not a stretched wheelbase Crown Vic' sold for taxi use? I've heard about this somewhere but I wouldn't know... -- stewacide 20:41, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there is. It's code P70. P71 is the Police Interceptor, P70 is the Long Wheel Base, P73 is the base Crown Victoria, and P74 is the Crown Vic LX. I'm not sure of the correct term for the P-codes, but they're encoded in the VIN. An example VIN for a Police Interceptor made after 1992 would be 2FALP71W0TX000000. A civilian base Crown Vic of the same year would then be 2FALP73W0TX000000, and a Crown Vic LX would be 2FALP74W0TX000000. (Yeah, I know I need to get a Wikipedia account. If you have any more questions, email me. abuse-at-divefox.net.)

Does anyone know what kind of miles per gallon a 92 might get? 64.246.148.135 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The 92 Crown Vic was EPA rated at 18mpg city/25mpg highway. Those ratings depended on driving style, vehicle condition, traffic patterns, altitude, fuel quality, time of the year, etc. For a 1992 in good condition, properly tuned up and driven with a light foot, 15mpg city is a safe bet. If you keep your speed down on the highways, accelerate slowly and don't pass people, you could probably do better than 25mpg on the highway.

I just got a '92 Crown Vic on Saturday, and I've been playing with the gas mileage counter on the dash. With a light foot I can just beat 18 MPG on cross-town trips. Even setting the cruise at 55 and only measuring the part of the trips between onramps and off-ramps, I can barely beat 25 MPG. I managed to get up to 28 MPG in one section of Cleveland highway, but I was going very slow, probably cruisng closer to 45 than 55. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.167.168 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Tank

WTH is this?

Earlier paragraph indicates that the fire caused by rear end crash seems to be a typical high speed crash. There is an article point out defending the Crown Victoria... THEN on the last paragraph whoever wrote it it portrays Ford like being O.J. Simpson who got away from murder. Re-wording some of these nformation may be needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.83.153.249 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC).

It needs to be rewritten. Clearly someone has come along and re-added a lot of the material that was previously removed / NPOVed. I've researched this issue a little and what appears to be the case is that the Crown Victoria is about as safe as other cars in its market segment - and it clearly passes DOT regulations with regards to gas tank impact resistance. However, production consumer vehicles are not designed to survive being hit from behind with an 80+ mph speed differential, and neither is the Crown Victoria.
Whether they should be is another matter, of course, but I have not heard any major cry for consumer vehicles to survive such a crash - partly because they are comparitively rare. (This is why it is suggested to get out of a broken-down vehicle on the side of the freeway, rather than stay in the vehicle, by the way). Police cruisers are much more likely to get hit in this fashion, however, because they are frequently stopped at the side of the road on freeways and the like.
If such survivability was a requirement for a police vehicle, then police departments are if anything more at fault than Ford, since they have never specified such a requirement from their supplier. Going after Ford in this instance has more to do with the way the US legal system works than any real-world culpability, IMO. It's easier to go after the deep-pockets, unsympathetic defendent than the police department itself. It's also commonplace these days in the US (and it has been ever since the Pinto lawsuit) to argue that if ANYTHING could have been done to prevent a tragedy, it should have been - even though vehicle designers in the real world cannot do that. There's never one way to improve safety - there are thousands and thousands. Implementing them all at a price point that purchasers will accept, meeting government standards (e.g. CAFE fuel consumption requirements) would be impossible, let alone dealing with the fact that a design that improves safety in one way may decrease it in another. All things that plaintiff's attorneys don't have to address, it seems. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The whole section should be deleted from this article, as there is a separate page for the Interceptor that mentions the issue, and tells it from a neutral standpoint. Sable232 22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As it stands today it is both OR and violates NPOV. It needs to be re-written. It reads like a Ford press release.--Cerejota 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how it violates NPOV. Explain? --Sable232 23:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I just added a link to a page with a lot of criticism against the Crown Vic fuel tank. Please note that nowadays the accepted position for the fuel tank is forward or over the rear axle, outside the rear crumple zone and inside the survival cell. Advanced cars from the 1970´s like the Volvo 200 or the Mercedes-Benz 450 used this safer location four decades ago.
But, alas, the Crown Vic "Family" (Ford Crown Victoria, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car, all with the same faulty fuel system: This is NOT a "Police Crown Vics" only problem)) is based on the aging 1979 Ford Panther platform: In these cars the gas tank is aft the rear axle, just as in the Ford Pinto or the Ford Mustang. A bad, bad location for the gas tank in case of rear end crash.
And no...
  • ...the issue is NOT if the Crown Vic Family performs well in the crash-tests (she does, at least in the less demanding US tests).
  • The issue is if the gas tank is located in a bad place (it is).
This is the crux of the issue:
Ford's own statistics presented to Arizona in 2001 show the 1992-97 Crown Victoria has a fatal rear crash fire rate 3.6 to 4.8 times higher than the comparable 1985-96 Chevrolet Impala/Caprice.2 People survive crashes in Caprices when they burn to death in Crown Victorias.[1].
Why americans still manufacture and buy ,in the year of the lord of 2006 ,a car based in a dangerous 1979 design is far beyond my understanding. The existence of luxury Mercury and Lincoln versions using that same platform only makes the enigma only more impenetrable.
Matthew Brown wrote: It's also commonplace these days in the US (and it has been ever since the Pinto lawsuit) to argue that if ANYTHING could have been done to prevent a tragedy, it should have been - even though vehicle designers in the real world cannot do that. There's never one way to improve safety - there are thousands and thousands. Implementing them all at a price point that purchasers will accept, meeting government standards (e.g. CAFE fuel consumption requirements) would be impossible
With all due respect, you are wrong, Matthew. The design is bad. Period. It was bad in 1979 (Volvo and Mercedes Benz used back then the correct design), but is totally unaccepptable in 2006. My daily driver is 14yo euro clunker (Renault Safrane), but the gas tank is safely located below the rear passengers butt. There´s a healthy distance (more than 50 inches) of steel from the rear bumper to the gas tank. The death by charring so common to rear ended Crown Vic passengers is unthinkable in my car. A worst case rear end crash should be required to puncture the gas tank.
And yes: The four pot Safrane sips fuel to american standards, albeit it´s a bit thirsty to european standards. To blame the CAFE for the bad design of the Crown Vic gas tank is to evade reality.
I suggest you to visit a junkyard with a flashligt and have fun seeing where is located the gas tank in diferent cars. You will have a surprise seeing how much moderately priced cars from the 1980´s (specially from Europe and Japan) used back then the correct design placing tha gas tank: Forward or over the rear axle. If you find a Pinto or a 1960´s Mustang in the junkyard, a picture of the gas tank would be an excellent WikiCommons contribution.
But I agree with you that charred Crown Vic users should not be able to sue Ford: They should know what kind of outdated design they are buying with their money. Randroide 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This whole article is SILENT on the CNG alternative fuel version of the vehicle. FOR THIS REASON all of the contributors have crafted a TOTALLY INADEQUATE ARTICLE on the FCV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.149.102.186 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed...?

Under the section Change of Canadian availability, there is a citation needed tag beside the sentence "The civilian Crown Victoria is only available when ordered as a fleet directly from Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited and is not available through Ford dealerships." — I originally wrote that paragraph. The information is supported by two facts: 1- The Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited website does not have the Ford Crown Victoria in its lineup of vehicles. Only the Ford Fleet of Canada website does. 2- I go to a local Ford dealership in my area (I live in Canada) regularly and update myself on information regarding their vehicles. The dealership I go to has verified that they do not sell new civilian Crown Victorias, nor does any other Ford dealership in Canada. Can this citation needed tag be removed or is this not enough confirmation? —S3BST3R 07:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been almost a month. Is an Administrator or anyone else going to respond to this issue or what...? —S3BST3R 02:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fuel Tank Fires

I went to a Ford dealership maybe a year after Good Morning America covered a story about Crown Victoria fires. While I was there, I found what looked like a salesmens guide to all the models Ford makes, and included in the Crown Vic's section was a couple of pages about the Interceptor Package. If I remember correctly, the guide made some mention of the fuel tank 'problems' and it showed a diagram of the new fuel tank layout, which I guess is suppossed to fix the problem. It showed that instead of having one main tank, the fuel load was split into three or four smaller cylinderical tanks that were moved deeper into the body of the vehicle. I definently remember the diagram, and I seem to remember some mention that they were of a flexible rubber and not a rigid plastic. It was a good while ago and I wanted to take the binder but my conscence prevailed. Does anyone else knew anything about this, perhaps somebody who works or worked at a Ford plant or dealership? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAWGunner89 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 November 2006

Ford Mustang Sedan

According to AutoWeek [2], a Mustang sedan and station wagon are reportedly in development for the 2011 model year. It will replace the aging Crown Victoria sedan as Ford's rear wheel drive full-size car. It will also underpin the next Mercury Marquis and Lincoln Town Car. So the D2C platform will replace the Panther body. -- Bull-Doser 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is fairly certain that an enlarged version of the D2C will replace the Panther. However, the Mustang idea is unlikely. The Ford fullsize could be called Galaxie (or maybe Falcon) and Mercury indicated earlier that Marquis would continue on a new platform. I still hold out hope for a Continental built off this chassis. --Sable232 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Source

Why is there a link to the "Center for Auto Safety" which was founded by Ralph Nader of all people (I would love to see that degree in mechanical engineering) who thinks that all cars are unsafe? 67.142.130.46 04:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Only Dodge Charger as a option for cops ??

What about the Pontiac G8 ?? or Chrysler 300C ?? --144.137.207.45 23:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, because the 300C is a luxury car and the G8 hasn't been released yet? --Sable232 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Most police stations require (either via policy or state/provincial law) that the vehicles they use as cruisers to be classified "police vehicles" by the manufacturer, meaning vehicles that were specifically designed for use by police fleets. Examples of this are the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, the Chevrolet Impala 9C1 & 9C3, and the Dodge Charger police version. There is no word yet from General Motors as to whether they will make a "police package" for the yet-to-be-released Pontiac G8. DaimlerChrysler doesn't make a police version of the Chrysler 300/300C because it is the luxury twin of the Dodge Charger, which already has a said police version dedicated for law enforcement use. —S3BST3R 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Discontinued?

No longer listed on the Ford Website. --MichaelGG 14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The 2008 model is available for fleet sales only. --Sable232 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Detroit Free Press has an article here confirming the discontinuation: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/BUSINESS01/711010358 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.228.181.183 (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The above mentioned article only references to Ford discontinuing Crown Vic retail sales. The car remains in production and available for fleet customers (both in Police and civilian versions). The car presently remains in production with no confirmations to the contrary. The infobox on the article page states production period as "1992-2007 However the P71 is still in production." which is absolutely false. I'm re-editing the article back to its true values. —S3BST3R (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

First-gen "Aero Vic"

The article states that the "Aero Vic" was a six-window car. The Aero Vic was an eight-window car, the 1998 facelift was six-window. If nobody objects, I'll make the change. 24.123.59.146 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statement about other police cars

I think the below section may need revision or citation: Since the exit of General Motors from rear-drive full-size cars with the Chevrolet Caprice, it has held a near-monopoly as a pursuit vehicle in North America, despite front wheel drive offerings such as the Chevrolet Impala. Only the new Dodge Charger is being seriously evaluated as a replacement at this time by police departments. <----- That last sentence seems dodgy. I think we need a cite for that. The Michigan State Police test a number of vehicles every year in their pursuit vehicle testing, and I regularly see Chevrolet Impala police cruisers in a number of major cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.228.181.183 (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Culture" section

Please, folks, don't let's debate over whether we should have a "Culture" section just because the Wikipedia guidelines say "Please don't" rather than "Do not". We can head off this argument if we can agree that while the section itself is discouraged, the information itself can be considered relevant to the discussion of the vehicle. So, let's do it up right and have have the info indexed and linked with one click. I've put the relevant link at the top of the "External Links" section. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's long been established policy of the Wikiproject:Automobiles group that 'Trivia' and 'Pop-culture' sections are inappropriate for articles about cars. However, it has (for some unaccountable reason) never been added into our official guidelines. Well, it's there now. We've talked this through a bazillion times on a bazillion different car article Talk pages - and on the Wikiproject page, the guideline is well established - we'd just never felt the need to write it down. Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions. SteveBaker (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

replaced

Ford Crown Victoria got replaced by Toyota Prius in New York city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How is what a few taxi drivers are buying in one city have anything to do with this article as a whole? If anything it was replaced by the Grand Marquis for taxis since companies don't always need to or sometimes cannot buy large fleets, so they buy Grand Marquis's one by one when ready. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Transmission Slipping

Has anyone who has or works around 2006 Crown Victoria's Police vehicles had any problems with the transmission slipping while the vehicle is accelerating turning corners? Your responce and information would be a great help to this city service writer.

Thank You,

FTR

At my old job, I would routinely drive Crown Vic Police Interceptors from many years ('92, '95, '99, '01) and they have the worst transmissions I've ever experienced. We constantly had problems with them slipping on a daily basis, (not serious, but noticeable) and we even lost a 2001 because of its transmission frying. Please note for the future that Wikipedia is not a message board or forum. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Discontinued after 2011 model year

It has been confirmed that the plant in Ontario Canada is closing in Sep. 2011, therefore spelling the end of this model. I am updating the article to reflect this. If you disagree, please post here. Someone mentioned that as the car is still in production, it should still read "- present". I disagree. By putting "-2011" it is inferred that the vehicle is still in production, but will cease in 2011. What's more, it lets people reading the article know that the vehicle is going to be discontinued. By leaving it at 'present', it adds confusion.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/719059--ford-to-close-st-thomas-assembly-plant

I am also updating the Grand Marquis and Towncar pages as well.

Davez621 (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not 2011 yet, so present is still valid. By putting 2011, you are implying that production has already stopped, but in the future. It's fine if you want to reword the article to say production will stop, but the infobox should still say present since they are currently still in production. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it isn't 2011 yet. 2011 means the vehicle is being produced through to 2011. With 'present', I assume that to be mean 'into the forseeable future' without any confirmed end date. The fact is, BOTH are correct, but 2011 tells us more information and clears up any possible confusion. Davez621 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact that it is not 2011 yet is very important. "present" says that the cars are currently being produced, which they are. Adding a future end date would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL because how do we know that they will carry through with this plan? Lots of things could change in two years. I mean I can think back maybe two years ago when Ford announced 2010 and 2012 as end dates. Things change. The way I think about it is if you edit a page and no one else touches it for years, will it still be right? Can you guarantee that? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

St. Thomas Vs. Oakville

I just noticed that there was an addition to the infobox that said the Crown Victoria is produced at Oakville Assembly (with a reference to a Ford website). Currently, I have to wonder if the Ford website used that name referred to its Ford LTD production there. In other words, perhaps additional references on the subject on potential continuation of production would be nice. --SteveCof00 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They built the LTD at Oakville through 1982, that's the "Crown Victoria" the Ford site was referring to. I'll revert it. --Sable232 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Updating the page

I've just made a few changes to the page layout that should make things easier to navigate; I also think that things are a bit better grouped together now (export-related things, the LWB and police car are grouped together in a section). However, as it is, there are some things that probably need some work.

  • As it is, some of the content (especially in the 1998-present section) is a bit out-of date when regarding the "future" of the car, considering that 2009 has come and gone. (There's other examples like that)
  • The introduction is a little bit long, but I wouldn't cut out the content so much as see if some of it can be used somewhere else (talking about PIT manuevers might be most relevant in the section about the police car, for example)

Anyone else have any ideas? --SteveCof00 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about Sales Figures

Adding the year-by-year sales figures was a good idea, but I have a question: do those numbers include fleet/police car sales? I'm thinking it does, as the article itself gives a figure closer to 3000 in 2006 vs. the 62,000 in the table. Just a point of clarification.--SteveCof00 (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Australia

Can someone put in that the Crown Vics are available in Oz. I saw one today but i cant find a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabookofayr (talk • contribs) 08:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

NY Taxis

Can someone put that they are replacing NY Taxis with yellow Nissan vans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.240.195 (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Discontinuation

As always, people are treating predictions and future planning as present fact.

As far as I can ascertain production of the Crown Victoria has not yet ended. It would be reasonable to assume that it will be all over every automotive news site when it does happen. There was a recent report that police agencies were making big orders for the last CVPIs so it stands to reason the production line is being kept open longer than planned; I've seen rumblings that the date is now mid-September.

At any rate, until a reliable source confirms the end of production, this article shouldn't say it's ended. --Sable232 (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not as clear when the Town Car ends/ended production, but by the 15th would be safe. --Vossanova o< 17:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The deed has been done and the newspapers have announced it. The lead did not reflect this. Are my changes proper?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's ok to say it now

As mentioned above, the date no longer needs to be reverted (although I would suggest the use of a stable source for references). There are a couple of missing pieces of information that can eventually be added in: total production figures and the model year of the final car. This photo is of the window sticker of the final car; when enlarged, it shows 2012 as the model year. According to the source used for the St. Thomas factory article, the last cars (those built after August 2011) were all exported because they no longer met safety standards in the U.S. or Canada. I just want to make sure of this before adding something that is constantly reverted back and forth. --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Someone reverted me when I said "was" in the lead. Eventually we're going to have to say "was". After all, I drive a Mercury and those are no longer made; that article says "was".Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, good catch! I would never have guessed there would be a 2012 model year.. although it apparently only applies to the Middle East, not the US or Canada. They do use model years, right? --Vossanova o< 18:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I changed "was" back to "is". Crown Victorias still exist, they are just no longer in production. If you compare the opening sentences of the CV and Grand Marquis articles you can see why it works on the Grand Marquis', but not the CV. As for the model years, I remember there being a separate field for "model year" in the infobox. It seems a little misleading to say production ended in 2012 when it ended in 2011 and 2012 was just the model year. Where did you read that they no longer met US safety standards? Was that because the standards have changed recently (have they?)? I'm not challenging you, I'm just interested. Grk1011 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Nvm about the last part as I see it written in the article. Needs a source though. Grk1011 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why "was" isn't acceptable yet, but I do see a problem. The hatnote says "current civilian model car". It hasn't been a civilian car in years. Shouldn't that be fixed?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and fixed the hatnote. I don't think it really matters.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Taxi drivers are civilians, and I'm pretty sure rental fleets could still get the cars too.
Now, "current" is incorrect either way, but some notation of age needs to be made since the hatnote also distinguishes from the 1979(83)-91 model. --Sable232 (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was about to revert the change to 2012 in the hatnote but I checked and the article does say there was a 2012 model year.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Theres nothing in the article about why this model vehicle is so widely used in fleet applications(police, cab companies, etc)

I came to the article to try to figure out what it is about this model vehicle that makes it so widely used for so long in fleet applications. It doesnt get good gas mileage, its oversized for a sedan, and I can't think of one good reason why it would of been picked for such wide use by police departments and cab companies almost everywhere. Can somebody please add a section that can explain the reasoning behind the choice, and near exclusivity it has/had acheived. Now that its finally been discontinued, agencies will be forced pick more sound alternatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For the most part, adding such a section is one of opinion, which is relatively frowned upon here in WP articles. However, your question can be explained through several reasons that are mentioned in the WP articles already.
  • The Crown Victoria's large size is advantageous when it comes to rear passenger space; while it gets poor fuel economy compared to smaller, more modern cars, vehicles with similar passenger space are typically SUVs or purpose-built limousines that perform far worse in terms of fuel economy.
  • The Crown Victoria has been produced nearly unchanged since 1992 on a platform introduced in late 1978; this allows for a massive degree of parts commonality, desirable among fleet operators.
  • The body-on-frame layout of the Ford Panther platform used by this car (and several others) is essentially a truck frame with a car body on it; all but abandoned by the automotive industry for unibody construction, this allows for greater durability and the ease of including rear-wheel drive.

For the most part, this has been explained already... --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is tinypic.com a scam?

I uploaded my pictures to TinyPic, and I gave the links to Wikipedia. But they keep getting deleted. Is tinypic.com a scam? Should I use it for Wikipedia?

75.43.46.154 (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The EPA considers this a mid-size car

Just like the Volvo S80, Chevy Impala, and Dodge Charger, this is a mid-size, not a full-size car.

111.2 cubic feet = a mid-sizer

166.137.208.34 (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Technically, no. According to the EPA, vehicles sold in the U.S. are classified by the combined interior and cargo volume (trunk space, in a sedan). A "Large" car is any vehicle with over 120 cubic feet combined, and the various Ford Panther-chassis cars have trunk space varying from 19-20 cubic feet, based on the year and model. While some models are large cars only because of their trunk space, this is obviously not the case here. --SteveCof00 09:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

???

I think the Crown Victoria was a midsize premium car--comparing with the Buick LaCrosse, Hyundai XG, Chrysler 300C, Lexus ES & GS, Infiniti M, Cadillac CTS/DTS & STS, Acura TL & RL, BMW 5 Series, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Audi A6, Volvo S80, and Saab 9-5. The Taurus has been a full-size car since 2000. The pre-2000 Tauruses were no midsize--that was the Contour. The Taurus before 2000 was an upper-midsize car. --198.228.216.30 (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not sure what the Taurus has to do with this request, but I'm going to have to go against considering going along with this edit request. In terms of marketing, the Crown Victoria was marketed more as a family car than a premium luxury car, with the vast majority going to fleet sales. While the similar Mercury Grand Marquis was marketed as a premium car, almost none of the cars above posed any competition in terms of size (aside from the Chrysler 300C), let alone price. The German and Japanese-built luxury cars on the list had list prices nearly TWICE as high as the Ford Crown Victoria as well. --SteveCof00 09:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


Source: Motor Trend magazine. October 2009 issue --198.228.216.38 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Please excuse my IP. It's my cell phone automatically switching IPs. --198.228.216.38 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Found a rare concept version on Midnight Club Wikia

It is a 2009 Shelby Crown Victoria Concept. Can I mention the Shelby on the article? 166.137.208.39 (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No, YOU SHOULD NOT. Not everybody knows a Shelby Crown Victoria. 119.252.27.68 (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Platform

Wasn't the Ford Panther platform based on Ford Australia's EA26 and EA169? The Crown Victoria might actually have been a LWB Falcon. --166.137.208.16 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't some anonymous troll, the answer is no. The Panther platform was developed in the late 1970s for the 1979 model year; the EA26 Falcon went on sale in 1988. While larger than the contemporary Ford Taurus, the EA26 Falcon is still much smaller in size than the LTD Crown Victoria of the same era. The only shared part in common was the 5.0L V8, which was added to the Australian cars for 1991 and dropped from the Panther-body cars after the same year. --SteveCof00 (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

While assuming those platforms are all RWD, yes, it's not like you're relating a FWD car to a RWD one some awkward troll keeps claiming on. Heck, a Ford Fiesta doesn't even compare to a Smart Fortwo. 119.252.27.68 (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC). Edited by 119.252.27.68 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Successor

The Tesla Model S is the one that succeeded the Crown Victoria, not the Taurus. Have half a million more people buy Teslas, and Tesla will be 10x the net worth of GM or Ford. Yeah, Teslas are expensive cars. 166.137.191.21 (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming this isn't some spam, it doesn't work that way. "Successor" means cars from the same manufacturer that replace the specific model in said manufacturer's lineup. In other words, a car from Tesla is not a successor to a car from Ford (nor is a Porsche, as some people are trying to edit in). --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Tesla Model S is not a successor to the Ford Crown Victoria. 19:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altimgamr (talk • contribs)

Direct Repacement

Well, you could say that the fifth and sixth generation Taurus replaced the Crown Victoria, but no Taurus (except the SHO from the 90's) has ever been equipped with a V8, nor is any Taurus rear-wheel-drive. Those are called indirect replacements. The official, direct replacement will be called the Ford LTD. It will compete directly to the Chevy SS, with both coming standard with 6-speed automatic transmissions and V8 engines producing over 400 horsepower. The new LTD will replace both the already-discontinued Crown Vic and the currently-in-Australian-production Falcon. The LTD has been approved for production. The LTD's indirect competitors are the E-segment, rear-wheel-drive sedans in the 8-10 pounds per horsepower range (besides the SS). The SS already replaced GM's B-bodied cars, Pontiac's G8 sport sedan, and Buick's Lucerne flagship sedan. The new LTD will swift from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds and pass the quarter mile in 13 seconds. It has been approved for production and will cost not as cheap as the Chrysler 300 SRT8 Core, not as much as a Chevy SS, but in the middle. Altimgamr (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the LTD and the fourth generation Lincoln Town Car will be built on the same platform as the 2015 Ford Mustang. Altimgamr (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The SRT8 Core costs MORE than the SS. But yes, let's hope that the LTD costs no more than $45,000. 174.141.208.117 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO, Chevy is tough. But because Ford is focusing more on fuel economy, they told us that the LTD will not be approved for production. 166.137.208.42 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Full-size or near-luxury?

Full-size I can understand the Crown Victoria competing with the Chrysler 300/300C/Dodge Charger, while the Chevy Impala/Buick LaCrosse/Pontiac Grand Prix/Bonneville/Oldsmobile Auora/Buick Lucerne, Hyundai Azera, and Toyota Avalon or fully-loaded Camry XLE V6 were/are FWD.

Near-luxury AOL Autos has the BMW 325 and Mercedes-Benz C-Class competing with the Ford Crown Victoria LX. 166.137.191.36 (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd believe it if there was a link...otherwise it's just words. --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Tada! --198.228.222.59 (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Crown_Victoria/Archive_1&oldid=1136733663"