I had first seen the 1985 Grand Marquis LS in 2011 after friend Jim bought it from a neighbour down the street. It looked impressive in its Deep Canyon Red paint, alloy wheels and whitewall tires.
Jim drove the full-size sedan once in a while, pulled a trailer on a couple of trips, loaning it to the mother-in-law then giving it to a grandson. The grandson certainly didn’t appreciate the puffy cloth seats, smooth 351 V8 and deep trunk. After several months the Grand Marquis was abandoned at the side of the house enduring a couple of winters. I always liked the car and one day asked Jim what became of it. “It’s still around, why you want it?” he said. “Well, actually yes if it still looks as nice as when I first laid eyes on it.” Not far from my house I went to have a look and was disappointed at what I saw, but made an offer of $400. Even with garbage strewn about the interior, bags of dirt in the trunk, a faded and blistered half vinyl roof, I could see the sedan as a winter beater, or at worst a very good parts car.
When I showed up again at the house to pay Jim and drive the Grand Marquis home, I was relieved the engine idled with no knocking although there was an exhaust leak close to the engine making the sedan sound like a beater. Driving away from the curb with Jim in his car behind me, the Grand sedan wiggled its butt end back and forth. No clue what that was about. As I slowly picked up speed it was apparent pushing down on the gas pedal required much more effort than it should have clueing me in that the carburetor was going to need some attention. Among the warning lights on the instrument panel the Brake light was lit. Without the owner’s manual I wasn’t sure if I had no brakes or if just the parking brake was a problem.
The ride home (only 2 km’s away) was uneventful. The cars brakes worked fine but I would soon discover the e-brake had a frozen cable. That issue was dealt with using penetrating solvent and viola! The parking brake was back to normal. Once at my house and with a day off work, I got down to business. Jim had been a gentleman and cleaned out most of the crap from the interior. Together we emptied the trunk of sod and bags of garbage allowing me to begin vacuuming and discovering two new Munroe shock absorbers still in their boxes. Vacuuming revealed carpeting in very good condition. The puffy cloth seats had very few cigarette burns although the ashtray was stuffed full of butts. Overall an interior in good condition and even the carpeted floor mats looked like new. I couldn’t smell cigarette or any other strange odors. The interior was washed down, windows cleaned and anything else inside wet wiped. I found a warranty booklet under the front seat and a dealer service card in the name of the first owner who bought the Grand Marquis in March of 1985.
After over an hour of vacuuming and washing the interior and trunk I stepped back and admired the work noticing how these areas looked really good now. Next it was time to lift the hood and find out what needed attention. No surprise, lots of work was ahead. Oil and powdery grease covered many components.
From an earlier look I knew the air breather, air filter and PCV valve needed to be garbaged. The serpentine belt was fine, but what’s this? The air I conditioning compressor is disconnected. Okay so no air, that’s fine winter is coming so I don’t need it. Undoing the new rad cap I peered down into the radiator and saw the rows were very clean, “well that’s encouraging” I thought but why is the coolant so low?
The power steering hoses were covered in a thick layer of greasy oil so I assumed one or both of those hoses were shot, sure enough taking the cap off the pump revealed not a drop of power steering in the reservoir. In fact once topped up, there was never a leak of power steering fluid. Brake fluid was also down.
I soon made a to-do list and visiting my nearest auto parts store for all the necessary items. Later with fluids replaced, I pulled a spark plug and was encouraged by the light tan colour inside the plug. When I changed out the remaining plugs they showed the same coloration. The distributor rotor was also changed but not the cap. A bit of cost cutting on my part as I didn’t want to spend much on this beast. After all, the intent was to make it look pretty and get it running better for someone to use as a winter beater.
Spraying almost a can of carb cleaner down the throat of the dirty two-barrel I hoped would help the V8 run better, which it did–a little. Very little old gas was left in the tank and with the LOW FUEL indicator brightly lit I drove off to my nearest Petro-Can station and filled the tank with mid-grade. I don’t believe in using regular. The tires were pumped to their proper pressure and the drive around town felt better. But I had no spare and the lone blackwall tire which was the spare had to go back in the trunk. One of the whitewalls was in need of replacement, the other two not so much. Do I get used tires or try and find a couple of new whitewalls?
After scouring a trio of used tire shops, I called a reputable tire store and purchased two new Hercules whitewall tires. My total investment in this Grand Marquis was now over $800 and I was beginning the worry the car was going to cost me big time. That concern was alleviated to some extent when I washed down the exterior at a car wash. Using a sponge to scrub the soapy water on the body of the car, squeezing said sponge would result in a foamy blood red liquid; a mix of soap, water, dirt and yes paint. Washing also took off grime that helped preserve very shiny front and rear bumpers and side trim. Once wiped down and parked in the sun my $400 plus investment was looking very nice. Driving away from the car wash a burly man in a Dodge Ram took a long look at the grand Grand Marquis. Perhaps he was admiring it. He certainly wasn’t laughing or smirking.
As I polished the chrome pieces a day later, I kept telling myself not to spend too much time, effort or money on the car. The intent was to make some money and bank the cash. My wife had initially thought it out of character that I would buy a such a vehicle. Similar such purchases in the past never saw me make much money. But I felt good about this car and she took a liking to it but vowed not to “ride in that thing” until I shampooed the seats, which I did.
I did not polish the paint believing it was too much effort. Besides, the washing already made the car look better. A trip to my local garage resulted in the new shocks mounted on the rear, the new whitewalls mounted on the back, the best original whitewalls on the front and a brake inspection. The brakes checked out good and I was again relieved they would not be another expense. I asked the mechanic to get rid of the trailer hitch as I had no use for it and did not want any unnecessary weight. Replacing the rear shocks eliminated the funny acceleration wiggle.
I drove to my nearest Jiffy Lube for an oil change, lube and went in the pit to inspect the underside of the car for myself. To my horror I saw the engine and transmission covered in wet oil or transmission fluid. Well no wonder the engine was down two litres of oil. On the plus side, the car had been under coated by the first owner and there was very little rust to be found underneath. The exhaust system was solid with the exception of that hole in the right catalytic converter. My assumption is the Grand Marquis had probably been garaged most of its life.
There were a number of little things to be adjusted or replaced before I pulled the carburetor for a rebuild. Finding a rebuild kit was challenging but I scored one at a premium price and with a choke adjustment and timing correction the big Merc ran better and fuel consumption improved from 13L/100km to 9L/100 km on mid-grade fuel in combined city and some highway driving. I flushed the coolant, had a tranny shop flush the transmission fluid, change the filter and clean out the pan. They said the transmission was fine and the old fluid still somewhat clean. The diff fluid was also flushed. A muffler shop plugged the hole in the right side cat converter silencing the noise that bugged me from day one.
The Grand Marquis became my daily driver relegating the Mustang to the garage. It was a pleasant commuter car if a little big for my tastes. But everything worked with the exception of the AC. Another pair of new whitewall tires made highway driving even more pleasant as the big Merc drove straight never wandering. By this time my investment had reached close to $1,800. Again, in the back of my mind I wondered if the engine would blow up and my money would be wasted. I didn’t want to exceed $2,400 as I didn’t think the car would sell for much more than that.
It wasn’t perfect after all, with a small dent on the left rear filler panel and dull paint and the cracked vinyl roof. So I decided to enjoy the car into winter as my commute to work is less than 20 minutes and the car would enjoy eight hours in a heated parkade. The winter of 2014-15 was a mild one with not a lot of snow. The all-season tires were more than adequate as I expected since they had lots of tread. The Merc started fine in the cold and only had to be plugged in a couple of times when the temp dipped to minus 25C.
Through winter and into spring, the big sedan never let me down, burned hardly any oil and provided plenty of heat to keep warm. However, another expense was looming. Strange noises and an occasional wiggle from the front end began in early spring. A trip to the local garage confirmed worn front wheel bearings. The problem also meant the rotors had to be replaced. $400.00 later the decision was made to sell the Grand Marquis as I had reached my $2,400 investment level. A few weeks later the car was sold to a farming gentleman who had a similar Grand Marquis written off in a collision.
He offered $1,900 cash and I accepted. At least I got the bulk of my investment back and enjoyed a car I could never afford in 1985. Several weeks later I spotted an ad for a 2002 Mazda Protégé a young man was selling. Quite a contrast to the big Merc. The Mazda, at 270,000kms is still in my possession and will hopefully get me through this winter. But I still kind of miss the big Merc.
Nice car for the price.
I always liked these for their boxy design. I’m sure there’s plenty of head room in the rear. This was in the day when a sedan was a sedan:-}
Today, most 4 doors have a fastback roof line making exit and entry to the back seat a head busting event and most taxis are SUV’s or Minivans and a few old Crown Vics.
This for me perfectly answers yesterday’s QOTD – “What new 1987 Car Would You Have Bought?”
It would have been one of these, in this colour scheme, 1987 was the last year of production for this shape and model before a mid-cycle redesign. Only differences between the 85 and 87 were that multi-port fuel injection was introduced on the 5.0 L engines to replace the older throttle body injection systems, along with a high stop brake light and a few other detail changes
The interior is very reminiscent of that of my Australian 1976 Ford P6 LTD, and even uses a number of the same parts, the seats look extremely similar too. Its a car I regret selling, more than any other
When I arrived stateside in 1986 the Grand Marquis and Crown Victoria struck me as anachronisms on wheels. I hardly could believe they were available as new cars. A number of years later a sister in law owned one of these and I enjoyed a ride in the passenger seat. She is a damn good driver too and I loved the plush interior and the feel of navigating a barge as a contrast to driving a go-cart like car as the Mazda 323 I had at the time.
Maybe in a few years I am in a position to do similar wrenching/driving projects as you do. I am looking forward to it and I hope you’ll write up your experience with the Protege next spring. Well done, GARRYM!
Nice car and a nice story. There are still some of these low mileage Marquis out there. They seem to attract those older buyers who treat their cars well and do not accumulate much mileage.
I think they are excellent value for money, reliable cheap and easy to fix. I don’t suppose anyone’s going to swoon over the collectable magnificence of this style, but it does have sttong virtues.
What a great story. Thank you for sharing it.
I can relate, I had an ’85 Colony Park wagon I used as a winter beater for a couple years when I was in college. Also had to do shocks, belts, plugs, hoses, tires, etc and then it was good to go until the water pump went.
It was a great road car and it was actually pretty fun driving a car I didn’t care about. It was surprising what it could make it through. I’d drift over into snowbanks around town just to scare my passengers. Loved the door locks that lit up when you lifted the handle. That 302 sure wasn’t anything like the HO version in my Mustang though. But it was adequate. I sold that car for almost what I had into it.
It cleaned up really nice Garry. Love those turbine alloy wheels. Nice to see the period Ford touches like the front vent windows, illuminated rectangular keyhole on the driver’s door and that high-pivoting steering wheel with the severe angle at the topmost position.
I remembered the tilt release was on the right side of the column and can see it there in your pic. But on the left side there are two stalks. I know one is for the turn signals but what does the other one do? I would say cruise control but I see the buttons on the steering wheel in typical Ford fashion. High beams on its own stalk maybe?
The other stalk is for the windsheild wipers.
Very interesting. I seem to remember the horn was at the end of one of those stalks around this time at Ford.
My C/V has the same set up. One stalk for signals, the other for tilt steering, and the horn on the steering wheel centre. Lobster is strictly optional.
I have the same sort of car, and it had the same issues as yours. It’s an ’85 Crown Vic with the 351W and factory duals. The car was bought in 2005 and is still around with 270km on the clock.
Nice two-tone, it always suited the boxy lines well.
nice story–those old”boats” had a lot going for them//–full perimeter frame–safety-comfort-excellent 9lt / 100km fuel economy
Nice write-up. Personally, as well as it cleaned up and with the new tires, I’d have kept it – I trust a used Panther over a used Mazda any day as far as unexpected expenses go.
Paul, I flip-flopped back and forth on whether the Grand Marquis should stay in the family. My inner debate was what do I really want to have as a collectable car in the fleet? I really liked the Merc but feel its too big for commuting, running errands in the summer. Although once upon a time as a much younger guy I owned a 71 Ford Custom and later a 75 Custom 500. Both used cars.
My 03 Mustang is now going to sit out a third winter in the garage and for me, smaller is better. My wife prefers bigger and loves our 03 530i. That one is staying with us for a while yet. Runs great.
I would really prefer a Fox Mustang as the collectable car. That day may come, but what a challenge finding a decent one in western Canada that isn’t beaten up, grossly modified or badly rusted.
Agree with Paul!
Having driven rear drive cars in west Michigan lake effect snow through the 70s, I would have been inclined to leave the bags of dirt in the trunk 🙂
Seriously, nice that your beater worked out so well for you. It does look quite nice cleaned up.
My beater for this winter is an elderly Focus that drives surprisingly well, all things considered. It will be interesting to see how effective the Chinese tires it wears perform in snow and ice.
Steve, I bought some Chinese all season tires for my youngest daughter’s 02 Jetta a few years ago. They worked really well in snow and the tread wore down very little over the years. The price was right and I have to say the quality better than I expected.
You should find much better traction, as my a/s radials were terrible on my Focus, and I had to fit Winter tires and rims even here in Southern Ontario just to make it a safe commuter. The Winters on the Focus are also cheapskate Chinese tires that are quiet and grip well. Oddly enough, the ’85 C/V was much better than the Focus with a/s tires in the snow.
The “Headway” tires, which were on it when I bought it, felt really loose at first, which I put down to their origin. One day, I dug out my tire gauge and found they were only carrying 26lbs, vs the 32 specified on the door post sticker. Pumped them up to 36, vs the 44 max specified on the sidewall. *wow* what a difference! As R&T would say, it “corners as if it was on rails” now.
I’ll never understand why people do this. Unless you’re driving the Explorers that state on the door sticker 26psi (you should run 32 psi cold no matter how tank like it rides at that point), always follow the manufacturer’s recommendation and never go by the tire itself! 36psi will make almost anything ride like a basketball.
So wait, nobody should ever reject a pressure recommendation on the door sticker unless it’s a Ford Explorer, in which case they should exceed it by 23 percent? That seems arbitrary.
As for why people do this: could be they prefer sharper handling over a cushy ride. Could be they prefer 24 mpg @ 33 psi versus 23.3 mpg @ 26 psi. Could be because the pressure recommendations were based on the original-equipment tires, not currently-available ones.
The manufacturer’s recommended pressure is usually someone’s judgement call of the best balance between ride and handling. If you want crisper handling, pump it up a bit.
VWs have a reputation for crisper handling than Fords. The recommended inflation pressure for my Jetta wagon is 35psi.
Back when full size sedans were running on 14″ wheels and, by today’s standards, skinny tires, Consumer Reports, from time to time, found that, at the “manufacturer’s recommended inflation pressure” the tires were overloaded. I can’t recall which make and model, but I remember reading one test where CR said the car was so undertired that, forget the car maker’s recommendation, even at the maximum inflation pressure stated on the tire sidewall, the tires were overloaded.
I had a 1982 Marquis wagon…basically, a Colony Park minus the woodgrain. It called for 33psi in back, and only 25 in front on that huge station wagon…on tiny 215/75R14 tires! (I ran 33 all around.)
My owners manual (for a 2014 CTS) says to put 41 PSI all around if you will exceed 100 MPH.
My ’88 Grand Marquis had a limited slip diff and all I ever ran were decent all season tires. It always performed well in the winter, and this is an area that gets some serious winters. That said, the posi made a big difference over the open rear end cars I also owned.
My ’88 Grand Marquis had a limited slip diff and all I ever ran were decent all season tires.
My VW fiddles the brakes to mimic a limited slip diff, as well as having all the traction control, stability control and ABS finery. Does exceptionally well with cheap OEM Bridgestone tires. The Focus has none of those electronic assists, so this winter might be a flashback to my 90s econobox.
Nice GM, Garry. So I take it that the 351W was a retail option in Canada?
Yes, we could get the 351 all the way thru 1991. Curiously, I remember from the CV brochure of about 1987 that if you got the 351, you could delete the AC.
Who’d wanna do that?, I thought. The RCMP, that’s who. They managed to avoid giving the luxury of AC to their people all the way to the early 90s, until it became standard and they had to take it.
Eric, It was an option and I would expect many built had the 351 under the hood over the 5.0 litre.
I was wondering if anyone was going to mention the 351W anomaly. In the US, I don’t think you could get a 351W in the Grand Marquis until 1986.
You couldn’t get that engine in the Crown Victoria at all, unless it was a fleet (i.e., police) vehicle.
As Roger stated, you could get the 351W here in Canada until 1991. It was the same engine used in the US police spec Crown Vics, the 180hp 351W with a 2-bbl VV carb. They weren’t super common here in Canada, the majority of the Panther’s I ran across were 302 powered. The 351 VV engine had a reputation as being really hard on fuel compared to the 302, especially the 1986+ 302 MPFI. The 302 MPFI engines were pretty close in performance to the 351W. That said, I am very impressed with the mileage of 9L/100 km for the car of this thread. That was better than I ever got with a 302 Panther and certainly far better than most got with the 351W.
Bill, the Merc tires were pumped to 35-36 psi, after I rebuilt the carb I had a mechanic adjust the choke, check the timing and what ever other adjustments. So it had a complete tuneup including of course new plugs, PCV, air filter, breather filter. The AC being disconnected meant they compressor would never put an additional load on the engine. The drawback, moisture fogging up the windows under certain conditions.
Getting rid of the trailer hitch saved weight, the alloy wheels saved a few pounds, I never carried unnecessary weight in the car and my daily commute would average between 60 and 80 km/ph. I would only use O/D above 80. I drove her easy and rarely on the highway so I don’t know what my meterage would have been. Cruising at 110 on the nearby ring road was a pleasure.
And yes I used Petro Can mid-grade all the time. Also worth noting then winter I drove the Merc we had less snow than normal meaning a lot of bare pavement and very few really cold days or nights. Petro-Canada does use an ethanol blend in their fuels. They raise it somewhat at the onset of winter. Just a few things which helped me achieve better fuel consumption than I should have got in the big sedan.
I had been wondering about the 351 option also. Would have been nice to have in the US–I had a ’91 Crown Vic with the 302 and even with the benefit of FI, it was no race car. I think the factory HP rating was 150, though I don’t know how close the torque figures were.
I have owned it’s siblings in 1985 and 1986 Lincoln town cars. The biggest reason I’m not driving one now is the lack of four-wheel-drive. They did everything else I ask of them and were very comfortable on trips. I believe they were unkillable.
Nice car for the money. The neighbor down the street took good care of it, maybe he (or she) were the original owners. Did it have fairly low mileage for it’s age?
I don’t know what it is about full-size American cars, but I immediately went to this article amidst other vehicles that could be probably be scientifically proven to be more interesting to read. CC has done it again — I’m satisfied. If I smoked I probably would at this point.
Er…what? Why on earth not? “Belief” doesn’t enter into this question. Mid-test and high-test are not superior to regular, they’re just higher octane. There’s no reason, need, or benefit to buying gasoline of higher octane than your engine requires, and the engine in an ’85 Grand Marquis runs just fine on regular. It does not run better in any way on mid-test or high-test. All you’re doing is giving unnecessary money to the oil company. I believe that’s quite foolish, me.
Not exactly sure where he is. But I don’t believe in our high altitude regular either as it is 85 Octane, not 87. I usually either use mid grade or mix 85 and 91 to get at least 87+.
Octane, grade by grade, is lower at high altitude because engines’ octane requirements are lower at high altitude. Lower air density –> lower cylinder pressure –> less propensity for knock. Your disbelief in regular gas is misplaced.
What you say was true for carbureted engines from the 60’s (perhaps even the 70’s) because if the carburetor is set up at low altitudes to function properly, it probably was running a bit rich at high altitudes reducing the octane requirements.
Todays computer controlled port or direct injection fuel systems can use 87 octane to a much higher elevation. Probably 85 octane is OK at 12,000 feet, and 86 might be fine at 6000 ft, but at 3000 ft I don’t think so.
On the other hand, most engines have knock sensors and are able to detune the engine (and burn more fuel) to reduce knock to safe levels.
The Fuel Economy.gov site does not contradict me. see the link below
Here in western Canada regular is 87 octane, mid-grade 89, premium 91 and you can get 94 octane from Petro Canada stations. Figure that last one out!
The 94 is ethanol. And from what I can gather the lower octane fuels may be/probably are ethanol.
+1 Waste of money.
High altitude gasolines with lower octane were allowed in exchange for a reformulation of the gasoline to be less volatile to reduce vapor lock. What are now old cars (from the 1960’s era) needed about 2 octanes less for each 3000 ft rise in elevation.
See this LINK
Nope. Octane ratings at high altitude have been lower than at sea level since long before the phrase “reformulated gasoline” existed.
That USA Today article doesn’t rise to the level of a slow 3rd-grader’s book report for veracity or accuracy, but that’s no surprise; consider the source.
Low-octane fuel — rated 85 or 86 as opposed to the 87 for regular gasoline — is common in the Rocky Mountain states, said General Motors fuel specialist Bill Studzinski.
The practice goes back to the days of carbureted engines, when lower octane helped vehicles run smoothly at altitude. The electronic engine controls that have replaced carburetors make the lower octane unnecessary and potentially harmful.
Oy. Please read more carefully what you just quoted. Note what the GM engineer is actually quoted as saying: Low-octane fuel — rated 85 or 86 as opposed to the 87 for regular gasoline — is common in the Rocky Mountain states. That is true and correct no matter who says it.
Then the article goes on to say The practice goes back to the days of carbureted engines, when lower octane helped vehicles run smoothly at altitude. The electronic engine controls that have replaced carburetors make the lower octane unnecessary and potentially harmful. We’re not given a source or any quotation marks for these made-up factoids, which means the article’s writer—who probably doesn’t know octane from an octopus—either garburated what an expert told him, or he pasted it together from bits and snippets he thought he understood from the bulk wrap lawsuit he mentions, or he just plain made it up.
Lower octane fuel (per se) does not make carbureted cars run smoother. It never has. It never will. That’s just not a thing. And the octane requirements of an engine are not determined by whether it’s carbureted or fuel injected. That’s not how any of this works.
Most fuel-injected cars do have a knock sensor the ECM monitors to retard the spark when ping is detected, which gives some margin of protection when fuel of insufficient octane is used. But that doesn’t exempt fuel-injected engines from the laws of physics; a fuel-injected engine that runs as well as can be on 87 at sea level runs as well as can be on 85 in Denver. It’s down to the laws of physics, which stubbornly refuse to bend—even for the 3rd-grade-level USA Today.
There is some truth to what you say but I want a little more power and a cleaner burn in the combustion chamber.
So why does BMW for example recommend premium fuel in my 0h 3 530i? Because the fuel burns cleaner in the combustion chamber. A little more power too, whether that’s true is debatable but in the newer cars we’re led to believe those engines recommended for premium should be run on such fuel. Can you say carbon deposits? And I might add I go for fuel from a gasoline company that makes quality gasoline. I will not buy gasoline from a brand that does not have an R&D dept. Yeah my current rusty ride doesn’t warrant anything more than regular. But then it gets a run now and then at 110 km/ph on part of a ring road. Good way to blow that carbon out the tailpipe.
In a word: compression. I have owned a car at explicitly said (in the owners manual) to NOT run premium fuel!
[b]In a vehicle that does not require high-test fuel[/b], there is no benefit to running it. High-test gasoline does not give you a cleaner burn or more power in the combustion chamber. That’s not debatable in new cars or old, foreign or domestic.
BMW recommends high-test because of the compression ratio of the engine in that car. That engine needs and benefits from higher octane. I don’t see anyone in this thread recommending regular for engines that call for high-test.
That really and truly is all.
I agree with you here, that an engine designed for 87 does not benefit from a high octane fuel. Compression ratio is only one part, timing of the ignition also plays a role in octane requirements.
I don’t know about the author’s location, but in my area all regular is E10 gas. While the premium in many stations is ethanol free.
Here we have some stations with pure premium gasoline, and some also have pure regular(? 85 octane) gasoline. Some stations have 87 octane regular and 88 octane mid grade with ethanol, while premium may be either ethanol or pure. Some stations may have 85 octane ethanol (not sure about this).
Agree 100% Daniel Stern. Wasting your money for higher octane product. Not needed.
Scientifically proven or not, the ’82 Malibu I owned once ran like crap on 87 octane, and noticeably better on 89. I had that car for two years and the effect was observable across different brands of gas and in different weather, despite its 229 V6 definitely not calling for anything above 87. Not sure what might have been done to that car in the 20 years between its production and my purchase (fiddling with the timing maybe?) but it definitely wanted 89.
Of course, I didn’t extend the logic to my other cars, and since then, they’ve all gotten the recommended octane whether it be 87 or 91.
Nice car – not that I would have chosen it in 1987 (harking back to the earlier question) – but certainly better than the 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme that dear old Dad chose. Fuel injection would be the decider for me.
Honestly, if I was looking for an 80s MGM, I would look at a pre 87 model. Sure, I know that the earlier panthers were more brittle than the later ones, but I never did care for the end of cycle refresh to the Grand Marquis. The more blunt front end never worked with the more angular lines of the body style.
I’m surprised you drove a big car like this as a winter beater, it just seems at odds with what the term winter beater evokes in my head. Granted, currently living in SD, a winter beater isn’t needed. But, I would’ve picked something more modern and something I didn’t care about exposing to road salt. That’s just me though, and that Grand Marquis still looks pretty sharp.
My former in-laws bought a brand new ’85 Grand Marquis, dark blue. I never drove it, but was a passenger in it several times. It seemed very nice-smooth and quiet.
I have no idea what ever happened to it. I know they kept it for at least 10-15 years if not longer.
My parents bought a new (hailed on) 84 Grande Marquis. It had throttle body fuel injection. It is still running, not well. My mother drove it until it was time to quit @90 something.
I wonder how hard it would be to get it running well again. One of my friends growing up had a paternal grandmother who had a FI Grand Marquis.
Since she only drove it to the grocery store and church there would be periodic issues with carbon build up. My buddy and his Dad would load it up with high test gas and injector cleaner and burn up and down the highways (avoiding the famously strict Ohio Highway Patrol) but they could always get it running smoothly again.
It is my brothers car now. They have not licensed it or insured it I think, so was used to run through a pasture last. From what I understand the engine seemed to be at high idle (like when it is cold).
I bought something similar in the spring. 1991 Crown Vic. Cleaned up nice. Turned some heads. Not too many issues. But when the front brakes heated up, one would seize up. Not fun. Recently sold it as my plans changed and needed something newer for a long commute.
I saw the references to carbs and the 351 and figured this must have been a Canadian thing. I wish those had been available here in the US. That AOD might have been easier to live with with those extra cubes.
You have described my downfall. Whenever I have bought a cheap old car that I like, I start treating it like a real car instead of as the short term beater that I had intended it to be. Which means that I put more money into it that I can ever hope to get back out.
Whenever I have bought a cheap old car that I like, I start treating it like a real car instead of as the short term beater that I had intended it to be.
Yup, same here. The Focus ran OK, but the maintenance schedule said it was due for plugs, fuel filter and coolant, plus the power steering fluid looked gnarly so flush and fill there too….then the clutch interlock switch wouldn’t work about 1 time in 10 and the ignition switch would make a poor contact and get hot about 1 time in 20, so more replacements. The hold down bolt for the jack was missing. All my efforts with duct tape and foam rubber to quiet the sound of that jack bouncing around were for naught, so another $9 to the Ford parts guy for a new bolt. The car has several dents, scratches and chips. Surprise! The “Merlot” touchup paint left over from my Taurus X matches the Focus’ “Toreador Red” perfectly. I even washed it the other day, and gave serious consideration to waxing it.
Inevitably, a beater turns into a “project car”.
Looks like a nice Grand Marquis, and not bad for a $400 initial purchase price. Even though the overall investment came to more than you paid for it, you sold on a car that was much improved from the one you bought, and most likely extended its life by quite some time. Hopefully the farmer who bought it will treat it well, since he was seeking a very specific car to replace another that he had obviously liked.
The money does add up over time, and the question inevitably comes up as to what to fix and when to let go. I may be nearing one of those inflection points on my current Crown Vic; over the almost 4 years I’ve owned it, I’m into it for less than $1500. Greatly helped that the initial purchase price was $0 since my parents gave it to me when they upgraded to a newer model. So it’s been incredibly cost-effective so far. However, the yearly safety inspection is due soon, and I’m fearing it will take at least $500 in work to pass the inspection this year, plus I’m dealing with an electrical gremlin that has deprived me of the services of the radio, dome light/trunk light, and a few other small functions. Seems to be worthwhile on the face of it, plus the A/C works quite well (a major plus here in the mid-Atlantic). But I do have a 60 mile per day commute now, which adds up at 22 MPG highway, and these 4R70W transmissions generally don’t last forever. Decisions…
That’s a beautiful car, Garry – even with the light wear.