Thinking out loud, large cars
 

I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this--if not, correct me.
Some time back I got advice here on getting a large car for comfort and safety to be used on long trips. For best FE, GMs with the 3.8 engine, and the Avalon, were recomended.
I would drive the car 5000 miles per year at most. In searching this site, I've looked at posts by bluegoat06, mevinwy, 99couch, Will and McCool, among others, and these have been very helpful.
I'm now thinking of a 2001-2003 Crown Victoria. Reviews by owners claim as much as 30 highway mpg for the base model with 2.73 gears. For me, the size is a safety advantage and while the FE would not be as good as other large cars, I feel the high depreciation and ruggedness make a Crown Vic much cheaper to get in to.
I'm considering a grill block, partial or full belly pan, and possibly rear skirts (though I don't want to change the appearance much).
Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen anything on here about FE mods to a Crown Vic.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks, Ray Mac.

I suppose it's not impossible to regularly get 30 MPG in a Crown Vic if you're going easy on the throttle and doing a lot of highway driving. Having had an '00 Impala for a long time, I can say that conserving momentum and avoiding city driving really was key to decent MPG in that car. The EPA says an '03 Crown Vic will get 16 city/23 highway.

Have you driven a Crown Vic before? It's always been my experience in those cars that unless you get a sport suspension (or police suspension,) they are very floaty and don't handle very well. Comfortable to drive, but in my mind, less safe, because I've always been of the school of thought that says that it is better to have a more nimble vehicle and avoid the accident in the first place instead of driving a bigger vehicle.

Personally, if I wanted another big sedan and wanted to go cheap, I'd definitely go with a FWD platform like the GM "W" body 3800 V6. The Impalas especially have depreciated a lot, and considering how many are still being used as police cruisers, I think you'll find that the cost of purchasing and maintenance is in the same ballpark as the Crown Vic.

if you can find an olds, they handle very well
 

they are comfy:D and pretty:p oh and did i mention they get good mileage? they are well built in my opinion. a lot of people around here are selling them at the ends of their driveways because they bought something newer, wish i could afford a few for parts....never know when you might smack a deer or get hit or wear something out.....

and of course for those that pull trailers....they don't mind 1,000 Lbs or 2

Well, there was the time I half-jokingly suggested a 2.3L Ranger engine with a 5MT would be an excellent power plant for a Crown Vic (which it would be). Strip out every semblance of comfort and luxury to save weight, fit low rolling resistance tires, simple aero mods, and an engine kill switch, and you might see MPGs in the 30's, and not just on the highway.

As for safety, there are small and mid-sized cars that do very well in laboratory tests representing one-car collisions, the most common type of crash. Yeah, a heavier car has an advantage in two-car collisions, but that advantage is gained at the expense of the occupants of the other car. Are you going to tell me your life is worth more than that of a random stranger's?

I don't need much comfort or luxury, hence cars like the Crown Vic and LeSabre don't make sense to me.

the crown vic police cruiser. p71.
16/23 is the maximum a v8 can suck down, oe never maximizes thier own v8s. one can risk the engine into much higher, but fuel injection is a hopeless slob and it may not be changeable. The modern power steering rack is a bonus. I seek them randomly all the time, the auctioned off beaten police car.
Never went through with any...but would. I am one that bent broke and magled all my cars just by existing. I am sure me inmy locale could throw out the great safety of a crown vic with the perfect omen I have. For side hits, I would keep the cop car taxi looking window seperating the front and back seats and bumper bar. And the when the fat lady in the pt cruiser decides to hit and run, I can chase it down ...:thumbup:

I doubt a Vic would average anything north of 26 without lots of hypermiling. Might get lucky and hit 30 on a long trip. Downhill. With a tailwind.

7.3 IDI fits under the hood of a C-Vic'. Well, not exactly "under" the hood, but it fits in there. You have to use a diff type of air cleaner on it, since the IDI has a 8" tall element (exaggerating) on it. You can use a modified pan from a 302 or 351 to clear the hood.

Make sure, if you get one, you get the transmission adapter plate with it. It will bolt straight to your OEM transmission. Although, you probably should upgrade that to deal w/the torque.

find the smallest car with gm's 3800 that is comfy enough, 2000 impala should be pretty reasonably priced. then if you feel its necessary, add a roll cage, 5pt harness and put a helmet on

Funny you mention that. I was dreaming of putting a 3800 in a CRX the other day! :eek:

better just bite the bullet and get a displacement on demand aluminum V8, you could probably gear one to run near idle speed at 70mph in a CRX, and only on 4cyls. 40mpg and 0-60 in 4sec

As far as I know, the smallest GM to come with the 3800 was the Skylark. Gut one of those and it should haul the mail! :eek:

Well, what got me thinking about a large car again was when I went through some old Consumer Reports mags that I kept.
Not sure if the newer ( aka whale) Crown Vic bodies did as well as the aero bodies that started in 1992, but I think the FE figures should be about the same.
Anyway, CU used to list mileage in several ways, one being "expressway" which I guess meant a steady 55mph, level ground.
In the Jan. 1992 CU issue there's this for expressway mpg:
Pontiac Bonneville 3.8l.--35
Crown Vic 4.6l.--31 (and that was with a 3.08 rear, not 2.73)
Olds 88 Royale 3.8l.--35
Buick Roadmaster 5.7l.--31
Some smaller cars tested around the same time were rated above 40 mpg expressway.
Ray Mac

If you really think size equates to comfort & safety... Well, you could probably pick up one of these M60 Patton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on the surplus market. You could even ecomod it a bit: for instance, you won't really need the 105 mm gun on the highway - the 50 cal machine guns should suffice for dealing with road-rage cases - so that's a couple of tons off the weight right there :-)

Edited to add: I checked eBay, but there aren't any M60s being offered at the moment. However, there is this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Briti...=p4506.c0.m245 which is probably better than a tracked vehicle for highway driving. And this one is even street legal, at least in Florida :-)

You can see here for an idea of what people on Fuelly.com are averaging in their Crown Vics:

Browse All Ford Crown Victorias | Fuelly

Thanks for the positive/helpful replies. As for the replies that ridicule the idea of someone wanting to ecomod a large car--I don't see why it's not just as valid to do that with a large car as it is with a pickup or van. And those on this site who are doing that haven't caught flak about it.
Anyway, my plans are on hold for now. I don't see anything becoming available in the near future at the price I'm willing to pay (under $4k).
Ray Mac.

I have a Volvo 960 (big Volvo) 15-16 in town 28-29 highway at 65 mph.
A crown Vic is the same deal. Any around town driving is going to put a dent in over all fuel mileage. I have to say a newer Impala or LeSaber 3.8L would at least have much better aero numbers than a Crown Vic.

Mid 90's Caprices did fairly well (relatively speaking). A high torque/low RPM cam, often called RV cams, are readily available & would help. They are rear wheel drive so you could swap gearing.

The Impala SS had a decently sloped rear window, I think the Caprice was the same, but I'm not sure.
They also had half wheel "skirts" as part of the sheet metal.

They're no Honda Civic, but you don't want one of those anyway.

Don

Whatever car you own can and should be ecodriven and ecomodded. It is perfectly valid, and all the more necessary when you own a vehicle that's thirsty to begin with. A 10% improvement in a Crown Vic will save twice as much gas as a 10% improvement in a Civic.

However, if you currently drive a reasonable car, and you tell me you want a large car, SUV, or personal-use pickup, I will argue with you and explain why that's a step in the wrong direction (using my own priorities and values as a compass).

The biggest thing you can do to save gas, maybe even bigger than driving style, and much bigger than any mods you can make, is to select the smallest, thriftiest car that will get the job done.

I feel I should throw you a helpful bone after posting what you may believe was a bit harsh. So, yeah, 30's would be achievable if you get extreme. Though 60's are achievable if you get extreme on a Civic.

I think you missed the point. What I, at least, was ridiculing was the idea that large car = comfort and safety. Now if you want to drive a large car because you like them, that's your privilege, and if you think they're more comfortable, that's personal taste. But thinking that they're safer is wrong, just as thinking that smoking is good for health is wrong - even though a lot of tobacco companies were pushing that idea half a century ago.

Get what you want.
 

Hey, get what you want.

But, unfortunately, there are no free lunches.

I drive an 04 jetta, with diesel. In my opinion, which is all I have to work with, the brakes and the steering/suspension/handling on my car are superb. It has air bags all over the freaking place. I feel safe. Getting ~50 mpg is just icing on the cake. The ride is firm, but not silly or aggressive/harsh.

Last time I visited my parents, I drove their Buick around for a bit. I felt like I was wallowing in a tug boat. But they report that they routinely get 30+ mpg on the back roads of missouri. And it is a somewhat bigger car. They feel safe.

Statistically, who knows who is really safer over all??

Oil and fuel are both going to get scarce whether you drive the Crown Vicky or the flyweight econo-honda.

The bottom line is, whatever you decide to drive, your driving habits and economodder tricks will make it as fuel efficient as possible.

I have reservations that you will ever achieve 30, but it's possible if you do all the tricks.

Knock yourself out.

Finest regards,

troy

I averaged 24 mpg (80% freeway) in a 2003 Town Car with three passengers and a trunkload of cargo. That was with the cruise at 72 and A/C blasting the whole time. The freeway portions were typically 26-28 mpg. The Crown Vic, being a smaller aero target and without the luxury bits, could probably average 26 overall.

That said, you really can't beat those 3800's. A Buick Century would probably be a good compromise in the luxo/size/mileage race.

hoping for 30mpg, i think you'll have alot more luck with the 3800's than the crown vic

city/hwy for '01 buicks
crown vic 16/23
regal 17/28
lesabre 17/27
park ave. 17/27
century 18/26 the century is not available with a 3.8, but only a 3.1 i'm guessing it has shorter gears hurting the hwy mpg

on the highway the 3800s have a 4-5mpg head start, if you could squeeze 30 out of a crown vic, you could squeeze 35 out of a 3800 about as easily

I'd prefer a Regal over the Century, just because they came with more luxury features (more likely to have leather, etc.) Certainly, it's far more likely for any Buick to have been owned by the proverbial little old lady who only drove it to church, which is another point in that marque's favor.

Note, though that the Regal LS has the 3800 naturally aspirated V6. The Regal GS will have the 3800 supercharged V6, trading a little less fuel economy for a little more HP (and a lot more TQ). The supercharged application will have a little more in the way of maintenance requirements, too. RegalGS.org is one forum to look at for info on Buicks.

By the way, I in no way intended my earlier posts to be taken as ridiculing the idea of getting a larger vehicle. All I was questioning was whether or not the Crown Vic was the best choice in terms of full sized cars (especially when fuel economy is a factor,) when the slightly smaller (but still full sized,) GM "W" bodies with the 3800 V6 tended to have better performance, handling, and fuel economy.

At the end of the day, as the guy above said, buy what you want, drive it, and be happy. :thumbup:

Thanks again for the time you've taken in making these replies.
Your info in favor of the 3.8's is very persuasive. Actually I would prefer a pushrod engine anyway, and after some more searching I've learned that there's a proneness to premature wear on timing chain tensioners and guides on the OHC 4.6 Ford engines, particularly from 2000 on. Can be a serious problem since the 4.6 is an interference engine. It's scary to see a cutaway pic of the timing chain setup on the Fords and the tortuous path those long chains have to follow.
Back to the drawing board. My Crown Vic interest is waning as much because of possible maintenance/repair costs as because of FE factors.
Ray Mac

There are two maintenance issues with the 3.8L W bodies I can think of off the top of my head.

(1) The lower intake manifold gasket tends to leak as the car gets older. Expect to pay ~ $400-$800 to have a shop replace it.
(2) The intermediate steering shaft has a tendency to make a tapping noise if it is insufficiently lubricated. You can pay $5.00 for a lube kit from GM, and it'll go away for a while. Eventually, when this stops working, expect to pay ~ $200 to have a shop replace it.

#1 upper intake/TB gaskets are the most common. also the egr can burn up the upper intake by the coolant passages for the TB heater. lower intake gaskets, coolant elbow, water pump ... i wouldnt say any more common than the next vehicle. redesigned upper intake and TB gaskets came out several years ago that hold up better than originals.(on my moms 03 lesabre i replaced the upper + TB gasket at 35k mi, under warr. with over 110k now theyre still holding)

thats the series II, series III got an aluminum upper intake, i dont believe i've seen a coolant leak on one yet.
series I didnt have the upper intake issues of the series II either

#2 steering shafts... GM sucks here trucks vans cars. common on W body, more rare on H body, very rare/non issue on C body. do lube the shaft if the cheapy kit is available for your car. if the noise is not stoped, or returns in less than 5000miles. repeat...but follow provided directions. (wifes monte carlo was purchased w/110k , shaft was horribly loud, lubed, still quiet at 158k roughly 5yrs later)

You're right, my bad. The 3.1L I drove was pretty nice as well.

I'm not sure I would safety and Crown Vic in the same sentence. A lot of people have died in police Vics, from fires when rear ended. Ford did try and mitigate the issue. And, it isn't likely you will be on the side of the road writing tickets either.

It is fun to watch folks slow down with a P71 CV in the rearview mirrors...

(most of)Those rear-end fires you mentioned were from people rear-ending the patrol cars while the officer was parked on the side of the highway. Also, more rear-end collisions occurred that did not result in fires than those that did. It's more of an issue of vehicle use rather than vehicle design.

No, it isn't

It certainly is... :cool:

Also, I am less likely to be hit, from any angle, in the P71. Most people respect a Crown Vic more than any other car on the road. They slow down and drive right. All-in-all, it's a great car and I'd recommend a Crown Vic to anyone wanting a good car.

Those police Crown Vic fires were caused by being hit by pickup trucks at a high rate of speed - one at over 100 MPH.

Does a vehicle have to be resistant to a tank gun to be considered safe?

It's a good place to start.

Sherriff John Bunnell is probably responsible for giving these a joke reputation this (Eastern) side of the pond. His endless "speeds of OVER EIGHTY MILES AN HOUR" commentaries made us all giggle. That combined with the fact they do about 130 flat out and the standard UK motorway police traffic car was a Volvo T-5 or a T5R with a top speed of 150+ made us giggle more.

That said I was disappointed last time I went to the US to find out that ordering a "full size" car via Avis got me a FWD GM Porridgemobile and not the RWD Crown-Vic / Caprice land bardge I kind of fancied.

Its the difference between 8USD gallon vs 4USD gallon pump prices...

Glad to see the old queen honoured though. ;-)

Lol, Bunnell is laughable over here too, it is like Richard Simmons and Erik Estrada had a love child...

Oh, EEEWWWWWW!!!! That's gonna give me nightmares!:eek:

Troy,
Bought a 2004 jetta for my daughter. She t-boned a olds 4 door. Basicly totaled the jetta. But she walked with uot a scratch. The ins estimator raved about the 6 airbags. said the jetta was the safest car under 50k

A Crown Vic would make a great road trip car. It would be ridiculous to spend money on LRR tires or welding up a belly pan or whatever if you are only going to drive it 5,000 miles a year. You will never get a return on investment. If you happen to go with a Caprice, note that the CD goes UP if you remove the mirrors.

Can't help thinking that one with the 2.5 TDi engine and 6 speed from an Audi A6 would be cool. Especially if chipped to 320 lb/ft....

:D

I don't think a Jetta is anywhere near the safest car under 50k...then again that's not my field either.

Haven't been able to get on here for a long time but will give the thread a last gasp.
I would've liked to get a Crown Vic and do some mods but things have changed.
I'm now thinking about a Gen 2 Dodge Caravan or Plymouth Voyager. which will better suit our needs. That will call for a different thread.
In the meantime, guys over at crownvic.net are talking more now about FE mods. One man went from 18 to 24 mpg in mixed driving in his CV just by changing his driving habits.
The word is getting out there.
Ray Mac