Q "Project Chapman" Begins

[jimbyjimb]

Crown Cic and mercury gran marquis are NOT great cars! OLD tech,cheap nasty basic transportation. The only reason they survive is senior citizens see the size and think they are getting a large car for a small price{the old American thinking...bigger is better. they are shockingly noisy and hard riding for their size, pointing out the $ saved on poor sound insulation and outdated economy suspension.Big car shiny looks fool alot of "non car" type people

I'd like to know how many you've worked on/owned before I took that to heart. They have stellar maintanence records and their drivetrains can take twice the abuse yet still go the distance. They are built to punish, this is why 90% of police cars and taxis in the US are crown vics. It's the last full ladder-frame type vehicle made in the US, and as such probably the strongest car in the country. The unequal length A-arm setup is tried and true, the ball-type steering box will probably never break, and the solid axle will take alot more punishment than any independant suspension will and still never break an axle. It's not designed to be a 50k luxury car with 600lbs of sound-deadening material. The vic is designed to be a strong car that will run through ditches all day and still start and drive the next day. You're right, it is blue collar transpo, and that's what it's meant to be. That mis-quoted "economy" suspension is probably more than twice the strength of any modern luxo-yachts. Cops need a car they can beat hard all day and not have to change the transmission out every 70k, something dead-nuts durable and beatable. THAT is what the Crown Vic is. I'm pretty sure our countries municipal systems are what is keeping it afloat. It's the last of its kind. Just because something is old doesn't make it bad or cheap, in fact older stuff is usually much LESS cheap. Give us a LOGICAL reason that it is a bad car, not just that it isn't your Q45.

[qship96]

I didnt say it WASNT RELIABLE or DURABLE, I said it was cheap and nasty, kind of like a blown up cavalier or escort.Poor riding,mushy handling in civilian form,tons of noise from engine/road infilterating cabin, and cheap ill fitting interior trim and finishwork.My point was the shiny chrome and largeness of it fools the octogenereans into thinking they are buying a premium luxury vehicle at a discount {look honey its the same as the lexus and has the same power seats and leather as that LS Lexus for 1/3 the price, what a deal}, when in reality they are buying a old tech typical sedan America used to spit out by the millions in the 70`s disguised as a modern vehicle

[maxnix]

I'd like to know how many you've worked on/owned before I took that to heart. They have stellar maintanence records and their drivetrains can take twice the abuse yet still go the distance. They are built to punish,

Give us a LOGICAL reason that it is a bad car, not just that it isn't your Q45.

Well, there is the firebomb effect when they are rear ended, kind of akin to the Pinto and eighties mustang as the gas tank is between the rear bumper and axle.

Azhitman gave his up solely because of that danger.

The cops buy because they are big and cheap. The midsize Dodge is now being seen more frequently. The Crown Victoria is a good design for 1970. Kind of like the "new" Mustang.

[jimbyjimb]

As far as the fireball effect goes, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to blow that tank. And if you generated the force to do it you'd probably be dead from the crash anyway. I've heard all kinds of crap about rear-mounted tanks being "fireballs" but have yet to see a case that wasn't faked, like the one GM sued, and won against MotorTrend over back in the day. I'm probably one of the very few people on here that worked on the 300C, Magnum and Charger when they were brand new. These cars, while undoubtedly being much more modern, are definitly no-where near a Vic in terms of build quality when it comes to drivetrain/suspension. They have weak front-ends, the HEMI cars constantly break the rears, and Daimler sold Chrysler to some company that knows nothing about running a car company, so that means in ten-fifteen years there will be no more parts available since Chrysler is doomed to demise. Any Chrysler product is a very bad idea at this point. The only things the Charger has over the Vic is more power and a better interior, the latter not meaning much to a municipal system. The only Chargers we have here in Seattle are strictly traffic enforcement. They may be selling them now, but they'll probably wind up like the FWD Impala, outweighed by the vastly superior durability and reliability of the ages tested and true Ford. In fact, I was much much more impressed with the Intrepid's suspension and overall construction compared to the Charger. The Intrepid sold a few cop car versions, not many because of the FWD. The Intrepid was a great car, very well built.

[jimbyjimb]

I didnt say it WASNT RELIABLE or DURABLE, I said it was cheap and nasty, kind of like a blown up cavalier or escort.Poor riding,mushy handling in civilian form,tons of noise from engine/road infilterating cabin, and cheap ill fitting interior trim and finishwork.My point was the shiny chrome and largeness of it fools the octogenereans into thinking they are buying a premium luxury vehicle at a discount {look honey its the same as the lexus and has the same power seats and leather as that LS Lexus for 1/3 the price, what a deal}, when in reality they are buying a old tech typical sedan America used to spit out by the millions in the 70`s disguised as a modern vehicle

I'll agree about the newer Vic interior, it is squeaky and cheap. It's no surprise since Ford's cars in general are this way, probably a side effect of selling so much of their production to fleets. I don't see how the Ford fools anyone, though, since anyone lined up to spend dough on a Lexus would be looking at a Lincoln and not a Ford. The Lincolns are only a re-bodied and re-interiored Vic with much softer personalities to suit a more Lexus minded person. I have never seen the Vic marketed as a premium luxury vehicle, ever. Were I buying a luxury vehicle I would skip over Lincoln anyway since they're rather drab and boring, unenergetic, like a Crown Vic. Were I practically minded I would buy a Vic since over it's life it will need much less maintanence, has a large aftermarket with many parts cars around since it's as common as your local presinct, and is without a doubt one the the most reliable and versatile cars on the market today. The late model Vic is ugly, has terrible legspace in the back and has a terribly hideous interior. It's practical, unlike our Q's which may be energetic and fun and exciting in comparison, but have no aftermarket and few parts cars out there since it never did sell well. It is what it is, like a turbo-charged methanol-injected Q45. They all have their place in some niche somewhere. Usually a good indicator of what is a good car is how many there are on the road. I did buy the Q over a Vic since I can now afford to deal with a more expensive car that is more energetic and fun. With gas prices the way they are I wish I would have bought another 2.3 Accord with a 5-speed. Thankfully the Q is rather forgiving on the mileage, especially for a 4,000 pound V8 powered brute.

[elwesso]

clearly you like your crown vic's quite a bit...no one ever said they werent good at doing what they do (cheap, durable, and maintenance free-ish), theyre just nothing compared to a Q45. Then again, a Q does roughly the opposite well what a crown vic does..

in the end, its apples and oranges.

[jimbyjimb]

Really, ignorance is bliss, and there is much of it when it comes to the golden oldies. There good and bad things about new vs old, and some people edge one over the other which is fine, I just hate people dogging something that shouldn't be dogged for no good reason. My opinion of a good car is one that hardly ever needs to be fixed that you can beat the crap out of all day, therefore I prefer older vehicles. My Honda was actually quite beatable, and it restored my faith in auto makers. Fact is, best all around these days is Japanese tech, but still the most durable is good ol fashioned American iron. I like iron and steel more than aluminum and plastic. With gas prices as they are the old girls are losing big, but I'll cut off a nut before I give up my 69 F250. Been in the family since 71 and we use her like a truck should be, and it ain't the purdiest thing out there but man, they knew how to build a truck then. The late model Rams I used to fix are chinsey compared to my old Ford. That goes for the new diesel trucks too. I've had 2 Vics in the family and both were stellar autos. Very sturdy and well made. The 89 had a vastly better interior build quality compared to the 02, no squeaks/rattles, more metal and less pastic, more cloth and less vinyl. It may not have been leather wrapped but it did the job and held up for 16 years w/o wearing anything out or getting loose. This is a Q45 site, but I just would like to spread a voice of reason over a community where some people think the only good cars required slaughtering a herd of cattle to upholster and being made of aluminum and electronic everything. There are many other options in the world, new doesn't mean better, and old doesn't mean better either. Constructive criticism goes a long way. I like gizmo's and dead animals as much as anyone else here, but it doesn't make it practical. Gives and takes, grapefruits and pineapples. Comparisons and intelligent discussions breed learning and understanding.

[qship96]

Dude, you are 23 years old, makes you born in 1985.....you missed the detroit bigger is better land yacht, poorly put together era of the 60`s and 70`s......

Someone born in 1985 doesnt know **** from shinola about "the golden oldies" Hell you didnt turn 16 and be eligable for a drivers license until 2001

[jimbyjimb]

Dude, you are 23 years old, makes you born in 1985.....you missed the detroit bigger is better land yacht, poorly put together era of the 60`s and 70`s......

Someone born in 1985 doesnt know **** from shinola about "the golden oldies" Hell you didnt turn 16 and be eligable for a drivers license until 2001

You're totally right. I guess the fact I started working on cars with my dad at 9 doesn't mean anything, or the fleet of vehicles I've helped maintain over the years for friends either. The 70's Luv pickups count for nothing, the Chevelles: Zippo. The Torino, nada. I would suppose the 68 Lincoln and 59 Catalina didn't count, not to mention my 64 Stude, 69 Ford F250, 70 Chevelle, or the 66 Mustang either. Not to mention the 70's-80's Dodges I fixed for the dealer. The list goes on. I suppose the fact that many were not especially well cared for, yet still in running condition after 40 years meant nothing either. My entire automotive education means nothing, trade school or field work or hobby work. I may as well just shoot myself now.

Don't presume to know me, or my experience. Question me if what I say is a farce or a lie. You can prove nothing I've said wrong. Fact is I have more knowledge and practical experience in autos from the 50's onward than my 85 year old Grandfather. I learned how to turn a wrench on my Ford, how to rebuild an engine, time it, inatsall it, and tune a carb before I was out of middle school. The oldies are what I've primarily owned, driven, and fixed. Most people my age don't even know what a Studebaker is, and most people my Grandpa's age don't know that Studebaker made covered wagons in the 1800's. Personal attacks show lack of originality, or lack of knowledge on any given subject. I was born in 84, not 85. I am also literate.

[qship96]

Sounds like you would have alot of job security in Cuba
Modified by qship96 at 6:52 PM 5/9/2008

[jimbyjimb]

Haha, yeah, probably would. There was a really neat movie about the rodders of Cuba and the extremes to which they must go to keep their classics running since parts are unavailable from the US through normal means. I can't remember it's title, but rather moving. The Swedes also have a bunch of our old iron around.

[Haitian_King]

You're totally right. I guess the fact I started working on cars with my dad at 9 doesn't mean anything, or the fleet of vehicles I've helped maintain over the years for friends either. The 70's Luv pickups count for nothing, the Chevelles: Zippo. The Torino, nada. I would suppose the 68 Lincoln and 59 Catalina didn't count, not to mention my 64 Stude, 69 Ford F250, 70 Chevelle, or the 66 Mustang either. Not to mention the 70's-80's Dodges I fixed for the dealer. The list goes on. I suppose the fact that many were not especially well cared for, yet still in running condition after 40 years meant nothing either. My entire automotive education means nothing, trade school or field work or hobby work. I may as well just shoot myself now.

Don't presume to know me, or my experience. Question me if what I say is a farce or a lie. You can prove nothing I've said wrong. Fact is I have more knowledge and practical experience in autos from the 50's onward than my 85 year old Grandfather. I learned how to turn a wrench on my Ford, how to rebuild an engine, time it, inatsall it, and tune a carb before I was out of middle school. The oldies are what I've primarily owned, driven, and fixed. Most people my age don't even know what a Studebaker is, and most people my Grandpa's age don't know that Studebaker made covered wagons in the 1800's. Personal attacks show lack of originality, or lack of knowledge on any given subject. I was born in 84, not 85. I am also literate.

Whoa. Sick burn.