The recently discontinued Panther platform Ford Crown Victoria had some serious staying power. The styling of the car you see above would last all the way to 2011 with only minor changes and the same basic platform dates to the fall of 1978, when the all-new 1979 Ford LTD was introduced.
The 1979 LTD was Ford’s response to GM’s downsized 1977 full-size cars. While it had similar dimensions, the ride and handling did not quite measure up, especially if your Caprice Classic had the F41 suspension. The Variable Venturi carburetor was not very well thought out, and even after that was corrected, they just didn’t have much power.
If not for consumers’ renewed interest in big cars by the early 1980s, the LTD may have been discontinued. Indeed, the 1983 Fox body LTD, a restyled Fairmont, was initially supposed to replace the Panther version. Fortunately, Ford stuck with it, and continued to improve the car. Still, by 1986, not much had changed, though fuel injection was a welcome addition.
An ‘aero’ restyling for 1988 LTDs resulted in smoother front and rear fascias, as this 1990-91 model I posted to the Cohort shows. A new instrument panel with driver’s airbag was added for 1990 but it was clearly not that far removed from the inaugural ’79 model. With smooth, modern looking vehicles like the Thunderbird and Taurus, the CV was looking seriously dated.
Finally, in 1992 a totally rebodied Crown Victoria made its debut. The boxy look was gone for good. In addition to the styling, the ’92 had more interior space and an all-new engine, the SOHC 4.6L V8 that produced 190 hp @ 4200 rpm. Fuel economy was improved too, to 18 city/25 highway. All in all it was a very modern full-size car.
Maybe a little too modern. Ford received complaints about the Taurus-like grilleless nose, so a proper chrome grille was shoehorned in on the 1993s. A mild restyling for 1995 brought a new grille, taillights and alloy wheels. In 1998, the Crown Vic was restyled yet again, and for the last time, as it turned out.
The 1998 Crown Victoria LX now shared its roofline with the Grand Marquis, resulting in a formal C pillar instead of the rear quarter window of the ’92-’97s. A new front end got a much larger chrome grille, while the back end got a redesigned trunk lid and smaller taillights. The LX model remained the luxury version, with alloy wheels, power everything and available leather.
A modular version of the 4.6L V8 was new, producing 200 hp and 265 lb ft of torque. All 1998s got bigger brakes and 16″ wheels. While the Crown Vic would receive major chassis upgrades in 2003 with a hydroformed chassis, Ford otherwise let the car atrophy and steadily de-contented it as they chased police departments, taxi companies and rental agencies instead of private owners who appreciated the extras.
This optioned-up Crown Victoria has been in town since new. I usually see it parked downtown, but hadn’t seen it in several years. While coming out of the library the other day, I saw it and had to get a photo. Crown Victorias are still everywhere, but this LX is unique with a white vinyl cabriolet top, navy blue paint and white leather interior. I really like the way this car looks, especially the color combination. It speaks to my inner Brougham. I’m not sure when white leather stopped being an option, but I know you could get it on Town Cars through 2002. This is the only CV I’ve ever seen with the white interior. The Crown Vic made Ford a lot of money, especially after the Caprice was cancelled, and we’ll still be seeing them for years to come. Probably not too many LXs, though.
The various Panthers really weren’t my cup of tea, but as a Ford employee I appreciated that they (along with pickups and Explorers) covered a lot of my bonus or profit-sharing checks.
The thing of it is that over the years the only people I knew who coveted them were my uncle (born in the mid-20’s), who owned a Panther Town Car bought used for a while in the 80’s-90’s, and my (much) older brother (born in 1939), who bought a Grand Marquis when he moved to Florida, bought a boat, and needed something capable of doing trailer-hauling duty.
Given the demographics of the buyers, I think Ford played this one exactly right. The idea of keeping them going until the market for them shrank so much that either a) there wasn’t enough volume to profitably occupy an assembly plant or b) it wasn’t worth investing the money to bring them into compliance with some future safety standard, but in the meantime raking in the profits. And leaving the CV for the fleets while pitching the GM and to a lesser extent the TC (TC volume was heavily dependent on airport liveries and stretch limos) to the general public also was a good idea, given that the impression one gets after a ride in a cab or a few days driving a (low-contented) rental is not a good one.
They got rack and pinion steering in 2003, too. Don’t know if the Grand Marquis warrants a separate post, but don’t forget the Marauder.
You could get leather in any Panther right up untill the ax fell. In fact begining with some time after the 90s restyle cloth was only availible in Town Cars that were destined for export to overseas markets.
I do like these cars and their rival GM B-bodys. Maybe it is a hankering for the traditional Detroit formula (V8, RWD, BOF. huge trunk) I only wish more of these cars had ended up with the handling package and heated leather. (It would make one that I truly desired that much easier to find on the used car market.) Of course given the target demographic I have seen some pretty strange cars on used car dealers lots, like a 2005 Crown Victoria with the handling package (dual exhausts and the cross lace aluminum wheels) that also had a fake convertible top and a chrome lugage rack. Definately a WTF moment.
> Definately a WTF moment.
A Grand Tourer perhaps?
How about Touring Brougham?
Scuse me, Mr. CarSalesman, You got any of those BRO-HAMS in stock?
That would be “any of them there Brog-Ham vee-HICKLES” educatordan!
Yes, leather was always available, but after the early 2000’s it was available only in tan and black, and I think at some point the black leather came only in the livery package. Also, not all leather is created equal. The leather in my ’92 Town Car Executive, i.e. the base trim level, was much more luxurious than the leather in my 2005 Signature Limited, i.e. an upper end trim level for ’05.
I liked these briefly – the aero models. The box ones, style-wise, were my favorite. After all, with vent windows as an option, what was not to like?
Still – in those days from 1977 -1980, I was in AMC’s camp. 1980 to 1998 I was a solid Chrysler fan.
I know a lot of you on here are fans of these, but I just never saw the attraction. Forget that this type of car wasn’t “meant” for me – I can appreciate the diversity of the automotive landscape. But I’ve never really liked any version of this car, from the beginning to the end. Maybe it’s because my only experience in them has been as a taxi passenger, sinking low into a cramped backseat (at least until the LWB version debuted). I never understood how such a big car had such a shitty back seat. The LWB version also had much better proportions.
Re: Backseat – With the exception of Town Cars and other long wheelbase cars like the Buick Lucerne or Vanden Plas Jaguars, I’ve never found back seats of cars to be all that comfortable since I reached my adult inseam of 34 in.
Having said that I like the back seat of a Crown Victoria or a Grand Marquis over many other “large” cars. With a taxi or police divider is it going to be tight? Yes of course it will be tight but so will almost any car. Here’s what I do like about the Panther. There is more legroom there than what it looks like, you just have to sit in a “dining room chair” position. This is doable because the back seat cushion in the Panthers is actually a decent height off the floor. For contrast the W-bodys that I’ve been in the rear seat cushion has always been too close to the floor for me to get comfortable.
If comfort for adult rear seat passengers is a priority, I’m choosing Panther over many other large cars.
Not sure about the Vic and the GM, but with the Town Car, get the 1990-97 generation if you want the best back seat. The 1998-2011 rear seat is not quite high enough. Of course, there’s always the long wheelbase L series Town Cars, which I think started in ’98 or ’99, which have plenty of legroom but the seat cushion is still a tad too low.
For everyone who remarks on what huge cars these are, remember that the 114 inch wb is the same as a 1949 Ford. Only this car is a lot lower, so there is less room for legs in the back. I always thought that FoMoCo missed the boat by not putting the MGM on a longer wheelbase and charging more for it.
Agreed. What should have been was 114 wheelbase on Crown Victoria, 117 on Grand Marquis, and 122 on Town Car. Period, end of story.
And I’ll never understand why they never offered a civilian version of the LWB Crown Vic that was exclusively built for taxi duty. Dumb, dumb…a LWB Grand Marquis would have sold well, IMHO.
They did put the Grand Marquis on a longer wheel base and charged more for it. It was the LSE version, and was sold only in the Mideast. Not what you wanted to hear, but it is a fact.
Likewise. I’ve rented a few and absolutely cannot understand this site and TTAC’s fascination with them. I’m firmly convinced these are the most overrated American automobiles ever made. Should have been put out to pasture and/or shot decades ago.
It’s not so much the site as many of our writers and readers 🙂 (I guess that’s the same thing)
I tend to agree that the packaging of the CV became increasingly obsolete, as CUVs and vans came along. I rather dread having to drop myself into one of these taxis, compared to a van or otherwise taller vehicle. The last taxi ride in one (a pretty clapped out one) brought back memories of taxies in my youth, and they were not good ones, for the most part.
I like them becasue they are cheap, tough, and replaceable. You can load them up with heavy stuff and crash them around without too much trouble. And the “box” versions could tow alright. Their driving dynamics and interior packaging is largely inconsequential to me.
They’re kind of like a truck, SUV, or full-size van. But, the Panthers have better fuel economy and less chance of rollover.
Never understood the fascination either, Syke. In NYC taxi form, I’ve always been surprised at the way the rear end manages to float in all axes at once (bounce, yaw, and a sort of corkscrewing motion), with minimal legroom to boot.
And to drive, I think the below C&D comparo captures the Panthers’ character quite accurately:
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2004-ford-crown-victoria-lx-page-2
I rented a 2010 Grand Marquis in Las Vegas last year to get an idea of what a traditional full-sized American car was like to drive, and I came away unimpressed.
The indifferent handling was expected, but I thought at least the ride would be cloud-like. Not really. It sort of clomped and crashed over bumps.
The 4-speed automatic coupled to a very tall final drive ratio made for lousy acceleration. I’ve rented four cylinder cars that had more verve than this thing, including modern Camrys.
The interior wasn’t all that big for the size of the car, and the bench seat meant giving up the useful center console that I enjoy in my own car and pretty much every other modern sedan.
I recognize that Panthers are loved because they’re very durable and cheap to maintain, but as a car, their vehicular dynamics are stuck in early 1980s Americana.
After reading so much stuff about how huge the 2009-up Honda Accords are, I finally a couple of weeks ago looked up their overall length. I didn’t keep the numbers, but the Crown Vic / Marquis cars are close to a foot longer.
Just looked up the length of the 2010 Accord at 194″ for the Mustang article while the SWB aero Panthers stretch for 212″ so a foot and a half longer.
The 1979-91 Crown Vics were very popular among middle-age/elderly buyers. But after the 1992 redesign, the number of “civilian” Vics started to dwindle in proportion to Grand Marquis’. By this time (late 90s) non-police Crown Vics were becoming quite uncommon.
I have always liked this style of Crown Vic the best, although I would skip the fabric roof. Of the 92-97 cars, the 92 (without the grille) is my favorite. I was sorry that my mother waited a year and got the 93 with that highly unattractive chrome grille. That I still have to look at every day. I will say, though, that the 93 in LX trim was and is a very nicely appointed and nice driving car. We just took it on a 140 mile trip over the weekend and it is still a smooth, quiet ride.
I have heard complaints about the ride of the newer ones. I wonder if the cost cutting had an impact on ride and handling, or if the complaints come from people who did not grow up in 60s and 70s era LTDs, which make one of these feel like a sports car.
I thought the roofline of the 92-97 Vics superior to the Marquis’. You had an eight-window design with exceptional visibility.
Another unfortunate shortcoming of the modern sedan.
Nice car, but oooooh how I do despise the cabriolet roof. On everything. And the more rounded the roof, the more grave and hellacious a sin it is. The other day I saw one on a two year old Malibu. There’s no stay in purgatory long enough to cleanse the stink of that off.
I’ve actually seen a 2007-08 Sebring with one. Now that was bad!
This is the only CV I’ve ever seen with the white interior.
My ’92 Vic LX has it; I find it adds to an already spacious interior.
Everything is white, I mean, everything. Dash, steering wheel, door panels, headliner, you can’t get that in a 2012 Taurus.
I’m jealous, what color exterior do you have? I’d love the white with the dark blue from that year or a good old lipstick red which of course was never offered. My wife’s 01 GM has a nice cream leather interior with it’s Deep Wedgwood Blue which is why I authorized it’s purchase despite it being a non-HPP car since the wife really liked that color combo and as anyone who’s been married long term knows if mama ain’t happy no one is happy and I can fix the handling much cheaper and easier than the color.
The rare triple-coat Medium Amethyst Frost “pearlescent”.
http://www.crownvic.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1216876&page=1
http://www.crownvic.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=1852430
It now has whitewall tires because blackwall is boring and it suits this car.
By the way, deep wedgewood blue is a very nice colour.
I like that color, definitely a rare one, much better than the silver of my current 92 and the Dark cranberry of my first 92 which I did like.
I like both of your colors better than mine – dark cranberry metallic. In direct sunlight it is a mite too purple for my taste. Also, I have no leather, but cloth in mouse gray. In mom’s defense, when she was looking in 1993, you were lucky to find 1 or 2 CVs in any Ford dealer lot, and most were white, silver or that mocha/sand.
Mine has only about 125K on it. I am picking it up from the mechanic today with a second new drivers window regulator and to replace a bad leaking O ring in my new steering gear. Mine has to last two more years, which is when my youngest kid graduates high school. I just hope that the R-12 a/c holds on.
The one plus with the 93 is that was set up with all R134a compatible parts when it left the factory so that one will give better performance if it gets converted. I haven’t forgot about the other, I’ll get an article up on that subject, hopefully soon, I’ve just been too busy with Robotics, helping step up our game after a disappointing performance at the Oregon event. It did pay off with a win at the Seattle event. That win qualified us for the World Championships so the season will go on for another 4 weeks for us!
The reason for so many miles on the driver’s seat of my current 92 is that it came with cloth so I swapped the seats from my totaled 92.
As most of you know I’m a Panther lover so a few points.
The Chassis did not stay the same, far from it as there is nothing in common between a box and an 03 and up other than the wheel base and body mount locations, wheel bolt pattern and some internal transmission parts.
The first aero cars did get a revised, much stiffer frame, partially new front suspension with revised geometry, and a new rear axle housing.
98 brought an entierly new rear suspension as well as more changes to the frame. Unfortunately it brought some decontenting too as a rear sway bar was no longer included on some of the base models.
03 brought that new hydroformed frame with an eniterly new front suspension, one that is turning out to be the Mustang II for a new generation. The rear axle and rear suspension also got some tweaks to accept the new FWD offset style wheels.
Despite the improvements to the later cars there are definitely a bunch of negatives over the first aero generation. As the retail cars kept loosing sales many of the retail specific parts were replaced by the fleet grade stuff. So yeah the later ones end up with the weird hard but soft ride. Stiffer police spec bushings in many places but way too soft springing on the non HPP or Rear Air suspension cars. Combinded with the loss of the rear sway bar and a car from the late 00’s does not ride and handle as good as even the base early 90’s versions despite it’s more advanced suspension and steering systems.
The 2.73 gears stuck in the later cars definitely did them no favors. I’ve never got any better MPG with my 3.08 cars on the hwy in flat terrain but bring on the hilly/mountainous terrain and the 3.23 car did better as it would stay in OD with the converter locked much more of the time. I still haven’t done any real long distance driving with my 3.55 car (Marauder) but in my normal driving it returns only slightly worse MPG, mid 18’s vs mid 19’s despite the fact that it gets a whole lot more full throttle runs.
In many ways I do prefer the overall look of the true aero 92, and the 92-7 CV greenhouse which was good for about 1MPG on the hwy compared to the GM shell. Which is why I keep hanging on to my 92 CV despite it’s failed clear coat, ratty carpet, and drivers seat who’s leather is finally looking worn after 160K of carrying my butt around and a little more than 100K carrying the previous owner’s.
I agree with others that there should have been something done with the wheel base of the standard car. Rather than adding 2 new wheelbases along with the new sheet metal in the middle to accommodate them they should have made all the CV and GM or at least the GM the long wheelbase. Then chop off some of the front overhang to keep similar overall length, Near a foot could be lopped off the front and still allow enough room for every thing to fit. With the switch to the electric fan the radiator could have moved 3″ closer to the radiator and still left more access to the accessory drive system than many cars out there. The AC condenser is a good 8″+ behind the grille.
Which is why I keep hanging on to my 92 CV despite it’s failed clear coat, ratty carpet, and drivers seat who’s leather is finally looking worn after 160K of carrying my butt around and a little more than 100K carrying the previous owner’s.
I can’t find any compelling reasons to get rid of mine, either. I truly think they put better materials into those early aero cars than later “whale” models.
Agree that the Aeros are overall better than the Whales.
My Aero is a 97 Grand Marquis GS, and corners nicely. Enough g-force to easily tip over a half full coke can in one of the can holders in the ashtray, for example, not even getting near breakaway cornering. And it barely leans.
Wish I had the 3.27 rear and dual exhaust, but I will fix at least the exhaust situation soon. And the car loafs in overdrive just above 1500rpm at highway speeds, around here 70mph or a bit more.
And I too have seen a few with failed clear coat, three of them near me in Philly suburbs, but that is out of hundreds I have seen in this area. Most still look showroom quality or close to it. I know mine does. Just the beginning hints of vinyl wear, seats, body, headliner, etc. all in great shape.
The ’92 CV does have a relatively slippery 0.33 Cd and 8.7 sq. ft. drag area. Ford really did engineer as much efficiency as they could into that car, given the constraints of the platform, engine technology of the time and the market.
I seriously wonder if it’s possible to get 40 mpg highway with hybrid electric technology. No reason EVs have to be small you know, it just costs more. Panthers have plenty of room for batteries and a small gas-powered generator. I wonder how much horsepower it takes just to roll that car down the highway at 65.
I grew up with big American cars and I love them. Nothing wrong with a big car if it’s efficient.
I have gotten 26 mpg out of my 93 without much trying, as long as the speed is kept to 65 or under. This is a pretty good baseline. Throw some elecricity into the mix and 40 should be easy.
My original 92 CV would pull down a consistent 26.5 MPG on the freeway no matter if the speed was 60 or 90 given a diet of pure unadulterated gasoline and not E10. The 90 was of course done in MT back in the days of the R&P speed limit 😉
Is a new Camry hybrid really any significant amount less roomy inside compared to a CV? And I’m sure it would be easy enough for Toyota to make a hybrid Avalon.
Good question. It’s close, but not quite. Here’s what fueleconomy.gov (a good source of old car specs by the way) has to say:
1992 Ford LTD Crown Victoria
20 Combined 17 City 24 Highway
EPA Size Class: Large Cars
Passenger Volume 111 ft3 (4 door)
Luggage Volume 21 ft3 (4 door)
2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid LE
41 Combined 43 City 39 Highway
EPA Size Class: Midsize Cars
Passenger Volume 103 ft3 (4 door)
Luggage Volume 13 ft3 (4 door)
2012 Toyota Avalon
23 Combined 19 City 28 Highway
EPA Size Class: Large Cars
Passenger Volume 107 ft3 (4 door)
Luggage Volume 14 ft3 (4 door)
I haven’t been in a new Camry, but I was in a CV taxi last week and it sure felt roomy.
PS: Added the Avalon.
Fun fact of the day: The early 90s aero Crown Vic was too economical to qualify for Cash for Clunkers by a single mpg.
If they weren’t I probably wouldn’t still have my 92 CV, because it certainly isn’t worth anywhere near what I would have got with C4C.
Better yet, 1992 Town Car, passenger volume 118 cubic feet, trunk volume 22 cubic feet, same MPG as the ’92 Vic. The Avalon has a tiny trunk by comparison and MPG isn’t very impressive considering theoretically it has the benefit of 20 years of technological improvements. (Consider that 20 years separates a Model A from a ’49 Ford).
Looking at the specs (comparing 2011 models) the main difference is interior width where the CV has an extra 3″, and an extra inch front headroom. Obviously trunk space is vastly different due to a large portion of the Camry trunk being given over to batteries. I drove one of these for a couple of weeks, the hybrid aspect actually made it interesting, and after the novelty wears off you still have the economy albeit with a mushy ‘don’t push me’ drive. If they could just sort out the trunk and in Australia the tow rating (zero versus 1200kg braked).
I don’t get the Avalon – it is a bit wider than the Camry, but actually has less legroom and a smaller trunk in its 8 extra inches!
And the Avalon is not even a hybrid.
When I saw the first picture on my smartphone this morning I thought it was a real convertible. Brought me back to the ’61 Sunliner we had when I was little, black with a white top. Happy memories of sitting in the back with an ice cream cone on a summer Sunday family cruise. Back when people would just go for a drive on a nice day.
Too bad there never was a Panther convertible from the factory. Mercury did tease us with a Marauder convertible concept car, just as they once did with a Sable convertible. There’s nothing quite as wonderful as a big American car with the top down.
PS: When was the last Mercury convertible? (Capri doesn’t count.)
I believe it was the 1973 Cougar. The last big Mercury convertible was (I believe) 1970. Although the 71-72 Ford LTD got a ragtop, I do not believe that the big Mercury did.
I think J.P. is correct — other than the Cougar, the last one I see is the 1970 Monterey. It sold fewer than 600 units, which might be why they didn’t bother after that.
That Marauder convertible keeps showing up on E-bay from time to time. Not sure how it escaped the crusher as it lacks a title and can’t be driven on the street. IIRC it’s at a Ford Lincoln (formerly Mercury) Dealer.
Probably because people kept looking at it and saying “You can’t crush that!” I’ve seen a few stories of concept/prototype cars that were supposed to be crushed but saved.
If I were to revamp the CV for efficiency I’d give it the 4.5L V6 Powerstroke. Given a newer 6-8 speed automatic it would be good for 30mpg+ Highway.
Give the P71 version a mild hybrid system with electric A/C and enough battery capacity to allow the running computers, lights and the HVAC system for 60-90 min when parked.
I still think they are fools to discontinue it. They could have refreshed it to meet current safety standards and hiked the price for fleets. As long as the hard points for radios, bumpers, seat divider etc mated with the old they would have had a HUGE incumbent advantage versus GM and Mopar.
I jumped to the conclusion they killed it to free up the valuable factory for more profitable products. Then I found this in the Wikipedia, “Ford’s discontinuation of the Panther platform cars led to the closure of the St. Thomas plant in Canada and the loss of over a thousand jobs, as well as job losses at suppliers in the USA.”
Damn, they could have sold these cars for a profit, kept the platform alive for future possibilities and kept those people employed. I agree with you, they were fools.
With the recent emphasis on the Eco Boost models, I have to believe the Panther finally died the same death the bubble did back in the mid 90’s. A car that ancient probably was not going to make it’s safety and fuel economy goals. Thank you CAFE.
I’m sure Ford got to the same Hobson’s choice GM did 15 years ago: More big profitable trucks or some big kinda profitable cars. Other folks will argue with me, but it seems to me that CAFE is the killer.
I can imagine a 119″ wheelbase GM (I grew up in Mercurys) with an Eco Boost 3.5 V6 or turbo diesel with a 6 or 8 speed autobox, would be pretty wonderful. Equip that GM with the modern version of the Breezeway window, and I would be a happy guy.
You’re right, it’s the fuel economy. Plus civilian sales really did peter out.
An engine+tranny transplant like the “Eco-Boost” Edsel would be super. The ’92 Crown Vic and the ’59 Edsel are both about 3800 pounds. A modern EcoBoost 1.6L four would be ideal. The 180 hp version in the UK Focus matches the ’92’s V-8 power.
What the Panther really needed was modern suspension calibrations, a serious interior refresh and maybe the V6 Mustang’s powertrain under the hood. 3.7 liter V6 with 305 horsepower and a 6-speed auto. Good for 31 mpg highway in a Mustang. Can’t imagine a Panther would do much worse.
And give it all the gee-whiz interior goodies found in the Mark S (I refuse to say “Emm Kay”).
I think they need a flexible/modular rwd architecture that will support the Mustang, Crown Vic, Falcon and a flagship Lincoln. Not necessarily a lot of common sheetmetal (referring to structure, not skin) as the different requirements are too different between a pony car & large sedan, but the major systems could be shared.
What it needed is wider availability of the older suspension calibrations, IE the HPP package not the consolidated versions at the end. The right year’s HPP package still had a nice smooth ride and handling that beat the FWD sedans on the market. I do agree that the Mustang’s V6 and 6sp would have done wonders all around and it wouldn’t have been that hard to slip it in there. Add some new front sheet metal to make it shorter with a LWB than the SWB cars and yeah 30MPG hwy would be easily obtainable.
In ’92 they killed the Panther’s towing capacity and put the camshaft in the wrong place. But at least the CV looked cool.
Then in ’98 the Town Car got very bloated.
Nothing wrong with overhead cams, the twin-cam V6 in the 2011+ Mustang is a sweet engine. Ford has done well with the Duratec V6 family. Their modular V8s were always kind of underachieving until they went to twin cams and 4 valves per cylinder.
They did offer the same tow rating on the early aero cars as the boxes of 5K. Despite mine not having the true tow package I towed near 5K many times w/o problems. The HPP cars had the mechanicals of the tow package it just lacked the factory wiring and had a lower ride height and less steering boost.
Did they actually kill the Panthers’ towing capacity, or just start rating it lower to encourage the sale of higher margin trucks for towing? I don’t see anything that would have changed that would have caused the capacity to drop from well over two tons to about a ton or less, as I recall.
A relative’s husband had one of these as a work lease car. I’m a Brit, so cars were a big part of my teenage experience in the US.
I had a soft spot for the Crown Vic, although its ride wasn’t exactly sophisticated beyond the smothering quality. Still, less rolly-polly than the Buick LeSabre that was their other car.
But the thing that always amused me was the comically small interior for the overall size of the car. Sure, huge trunk. But vast hood for only high 100s BHP. And the rear seat was amazingly cramped considering its barge-like outer dimensions.
Panthers only survived because of the fleet business. If it weren’t for the lack of competition for police vehicles during most of the 2000’s, and the lack of BOF cars for the livery set, the Panther would have bit the dust right about the same time the Continental ceased to be.
For awhile Ford did offer an “LX Sport” version and I think up until about 2005 or so and you could get ’em with buckets and a floor mounted auto shifter. Those are actually pretty neat. And talk about rarities, how about a ’92 only CV “Touring Sedan”? I’ve only ever seen a few of those…
BTW, Mercury did offer a long wheelbase Grand Marquis up til the end for the middle-east markets.
This is a pic of a 2003 LX Sport interior…………
Just a minor comment – the article mentioned “a modular version of the 4.6 V8.” While the 4.6, 5.4, and 6.8 engines are often referred to as “modular engines,” that name comes from the plant they were produced at, not the engine design itself (although one will notice a few shared dimensions upon close inspection).
re: modular, yes it referred to the factories, but not in the sense of Windsor, Cleveland or Romeo. It referred to the fact that the engine building line was modular and could be reconfigured easily to build different variations of the “cammer” engines.
Last year I bought a beautiful 2002 Crown Victoria from the family of my very sweet, deceased next-door neighbor. It is the quintessential low-mileage, little old lady driven car. Superb inside and out. It had 40,032 on the odometer when I took possession of her–now she reads 49,800 or so. It is safe to say I’m having a DISGUSTING love affair with this car! I LOVE it! So far, I’ve added a P71 rear stabilizer bar, converted it to a factory style dual exhaust, and next on the list, a cold air intake. That item should arrive early next week. I don’t intend to go buck-wild with modifications–it’s my commuter car, so it has to be comfortable and reliable, but the changes to it have dramatically improved its handling and performance. I’d like to add a set of “snowflake” wheels around the time the good-for-now Michelin Symmetry tires wear out. I’ve seen a few equipped with those wheels and they are sharp.
I included an image of my “baby.” Feast your eyes!