The Sorry State of Affairs in Automobilia in the 1970s, 80s and 90s

[Max Rockatansky]

Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/

[GCrites]

'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.

Didn't a lot of those midwestern states outright ban studded snow tires and chains?  I could swear I remember told me a law like that passed in Michigan after I was gone for a couple years?

Probably. I've never seen chains in Ohio. I was thinking of unstudded ones like Blizzaks.

[Max Rockatansky]

'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.

Didn't a lot of those midwestern states outright ban studded snow tires and chains?  I could swear I remember told me a law like that passed in Michigan after I was gone for a couple years?

Probably. I've never seen chains in Ohio. I was thinking of unstudded ones like Blizzaks.

Apparently chains are still okay provided the weather is good enough they don't contact the road surface.  Apparently studded tires have been banned since 1949....guess the Michigan State Legislature didn't account for my high school automotive class and my Dad's garage with all their homemade winter tread bolts. 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dwg0ycv2asuanoxj41orkfex))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-257-709&relation=next

I wonder though...given some Canadian provinces require snow tires in the winter if the rubberized studs really cause that much excess wear that Michigan seems to think they do.  Regardless I find it greatly amusing when I have my family out here in California from the Midwest in the winter time.  I've popped the trunk a couple times and asked them to check for the snow chains....usually it's my little act of payback for all those unfounded implications that I can't drive in winter weather anymore. 

[billtm]

Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/

I read it, and agree on everything except for one point: Parking Ease. The words below don't explain the point very well. What exactly makes it more space efficient on the outside than sedans? Are hatchbacks typically shorter than their sedan counterparts? It seems to me that they basically repeated their point about more utility. BTW, I like sedans more.

[GCrites]

Ummm, also can we talk about the serious road pr0n in these early to mid '80s Motorweek retro reviews? I don't have the time right now to lovingly craft a thread about all the unopened I-68, US-48 and other Western Maryland roads that have probably been upgraded by now, but the pr0n is serious. I'll have to leave it to others. I'm in the process of moving.

[Max Rockatansky]

Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/

I read it, and agree on everything except for one point: Parking Ease. The words below don't explain the point very well. What exactly makes it more space efficient on the outside than sedans? Are hatchbacks typically shorter than their sedan counterparts? It seems to me that they basically repeated their point about more utility. BTW, I like sedans more.

Yeah I don't agree with them on that point myself.  Even the most car like CUV usually has a longer turning circle than a car does.  The only thing I can think they were referring too was maybe ease of seeing out of the hood?  Turning into the spot and backing out certainly is nowhere near as easy as it is in a sedan.

Ummm, also can we talk about the serious road pr0n in these early to mid '80s Motorweek retro reviews? I don't have the time right now to lovingly craft a thread about all the unopened I-68, US-48 and other Western Maryland roads that have probably been upgraded by now, but the pr0n is serious. I'll have to leave it to others. I'm in the process of moving.

There is really good stuff in those early reviews that show how far a lot of those east coast roads have come.  I'm amazed they have stuck it out with Roebling Road Raceway almost all these years...I want to know where the hell they were trying to do all those tests on whatever iced over course they were at in 1982.

[SteveG1988]

'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.

the Mod is a lot faster in that car, plus no automatic belts on the 1994+

I had an 02 Mustang GT with a 4.6L Modular in it.  The thing was way under powered which was likely due to it having only two valves per cylinder despite being overhead cam.  I always preferred the 5.7LT1 and 5.7L LS1 which the F-bodies were using at the time the SN95 platform was being since they had so much torque due to the displacement.  The SN95 had a couple hundred pound weight advantage which helped even the odds...I think my Mustang was a tick under 3,300 for curb weight while the non-convertible V8 F-Bodies were about 3,600 if memory serves.  Ford really shot themselves in the foot by sticking with the 4.6L Modular in 2010 when the Camaro came out with the LS3 which was producing 426hp versus the 315hp the modular was cranking out 315hp.  Granted Ford switched to the 5.0 Coyote for 2011 but they really let the Camaro get a bigger foothold than it should have had that first model year.

In my car it has the 3.27:1 rear, with the Ford 4R70W transmission. Which nets it a 0-60 stock of 7.9 for a 3,800 Lb Car. I have the later intake that people say is good for power, at least 5-10 horses. and a modified transmission valve body for faster shifts and less wear, that thing will take off despite being an early 4.6L 2 valve. The 4.6L is a bullet proof engine for the most part, as long as you take care of the 1996-2001 or so plastic crossover on the intake for the coolant, 1991-1995 ones have an aluminum one that is harder for the air to get through, for the entire intake, and also ahve a oil burn issue due to bad valve guide seals. Teething issues on the new design. Once you get used to how the 4.6L delivers power, you get a good bit of fun out of it. Plus getting 27mpg highway in my car with performance tires, not bad.

[Max Rockatansky]

'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.

the Mod is a lot faster in that car, plus no automatic belts on the 1994+

I had an 02 Mustang GT with a 4.6L Modular in it.  The thing was way under powered which was likely due to it having only two valves per cylinder despite being overhead cam.  I always preferred the 5.7LT1 and 5.7L LS1 which the F-bodies were using at the time the SN95 platform was being since they had so much torque due to the displacement.  The SN95 had a couple hundred pound weight advantage which helped even the odds...I think my Mustang was a tick under 3,300 for curb weight while the non-convertible V8 F-Bodies were about 3,600 if memory serves.  Ford really shot themselves in the foot by sticking with the 4.6L Modular in 2010 when the Camaro came out with the LS3 which was producing 426hp versus the 315hp the modular was cranking out 315hp.  Granted Ford switched to the 5.0 Coyote for 2011 but they really let the Camaro get a bigger foothold than it should have had that first model year.

In my car it has the 3.27:1 rear, with the Ford 4R70W transmission. Which nets it a 0-60 stock of 7.9 for a 3,800 Lb Car. I have the later intake that people say is good for power, at least 5-10 horses. and a modified transmission valve body for faster shifts and less wear, that thing will take off despite being an early 4.6L 2 valve. The 4.6L is a bullet proof engine for the most part, as long as you take care of the 1996-2001 or so plastic crossover on the intake for the coolant, 1991-1995 ones have an aluminum one that is harder for the air to get through, for the entire intake, and also ahve a oil burn issue due to bad valve guide seals. Teething issues on the new design. Once you get used to how the 4.6L delivers power, you get a good bit of fun out of it. Plus getting 27mpg highway in my car with performance tires, not bad.

For it's displacement it was a decent producer, especially considering most of them before 2005 only had two valves...which when you think about it was really strange given it was overhead cam.  I want to say the 05 Mustang GT had a three valve version which really helped increase power when it came out but Ford was capable of getting a lot more out of it with four valve versions that pulled 320hp.  The problem for Mustang guys was that GM could say that the LS1 was only getting 305hp all they wanted, it wasn't detuned at all from the Corvette where it was pulling 350hp.  In the early 90s the modular was cutting edge but it was completely outpaced by 98 when the F-bodies were getting the LS1.

[Max Rockatansky]

New today....can't believe he snuck a Gary Johnson reference in there, almost nobody is going to get the joke. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Not exactly on-topic but I had to post this here:

I remember reading about this car about 10 years ago in I want to say Hemmings Muscle Machines.   There was also a Crown Vic that CHP had with a 5.4L Supercharged engine out of a Ford GT.

[SteveG1988]

'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.

the Mod is a lot faster in that car, plus no automatic belts on the 1994+

I had an 02 Mustang GT with a 4.6L Modular in it.  The thing was way under powered which was likely due to it having only two valves per cylinder despite being overhead cam.  I always preferred the 5.7LT1 and 5.7L LS1 which the F-bodies were using at the time the SN95 platform was being since they had so much torque due to the displacement.  The SN95 had a couple hundred pound weight advantage which helped even the odds...I think my Mustang was a tick under 3,300 for curb weight while the non-convertible V8 F-Bodies were about 3,600 if memory serves.  Ford really shot themselves in the foot by sticking with the 4.6L Modular in 2010 when the Camaro came out with the LS3 which was producing 426hp versus the 315hp the modular was cranking out 315hp.  Granted Ford switched to the 5.0 Coyote for 2011 but they really let the Camaro get a bigger foothold than it should have had that first model year.

In my car it has the 3.27:1 rear, with the Ford 4R70W transmission. Which nets it a 0-60 stock of 7.9 for a 3,800 Lb Car. I have the later intake that people say is good for power, at least 5-10 horses. and a modified transmission valve body for faster shifts and less wear, that thing will take off despite being an early 4.6L 2 valve. The 4.6L is a bullet proof engine for the most part, as long as you take care of the 1996-2001 or so plastic crossover on the intake for the coolant, 1991-1995 ones have an aluminum one that is harder for the air to get through, for the entire intake, and also ahve a oil burn issue due to bad valve guide seals. Teething issues on the new design. Once you get used to how the 4.6L delivers power, you get a good bit of fun out of it. Plus getting 27mpg highway in my car with performance tires, not bad.

For it's displacement it was a decent producer, especially considering most of them before 2005 only had two valves...which when you think about it was really strange given it was overhead cam.  I want to say the 05 Mustang GT had a three valve version which really helped increase power when it came out but Ford was capable of getting a lot more out of it with four valve versions that pulled 320hp.  The problem for Mustang guys was that GM could say that the LS1 was only getting 305hp all they wanted, it wasn't detuned at all from the Corvette where it was pulling 350hp.  In the early 90s the modular was cutting edge but it was completely outpaced by 98 when the F-bodies were getting the LS1.

The 1990s 4.6L stuffered from poor breathing, that is why until 1998/1999 it only put out 190-220hp, in 1999 they designed new heads, bumping the mustang up to 260hp. They used two valve since that allowed for wider valve spacing and lower cost when they first started with the engine, 1993 you got the DOHC 4 Valve model with 280 horse power and all aluminum. 290 by 1996, 305 in 1996 for a cobra. 1999/2000 cobra had 320hp, on 93 octane fuel.

For 2005 ford developed the three valve version, which made 300hp and 320lbft on 87 octane. Later 315/325. the 3V was developed in Australia, and later used on ours. It is cheaper to build than the 4v and actually has the same performance. The 5.0L Coyote is the 4.6L equivlent to the 1990s LS1, where it is built around the same tooling, but is mostly a clean sheet engine. Ford figured that 1991-2010 was about the amount of development the 1990s emissions era engine could deal with. It was designed for Mpg and Emissions, and later got developed into a powerhouse. The 302 for example had a smog pump, the 4.6L does not.

[Max Rockatansky]

Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things.  I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version.  That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane. 

[Zeffy]

Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/

The ride height is probably the only reason I would want any type of crossover. It's so damn annoying trying to turn when some other car blocks your sight. Even then, I would want pretty small crossovers, a good example of such being the Honda HR-V.

[Max Rockatansky]

I would have replaced the Rocket 88 with the 55 Chevy or 64 Pontiac GTO.  I don't tend to really lump pony cars and muscle cars in the same category...but it looked like they were trying to call the Rocket 88 the first muscle car? 

http://www.motortrend.com/news/top-10-greatest-american-cars-of-all-time/

Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/

The ride height is probably the only reason I would want any type of crossover. It's so damn annoying trying to turn when some other car blocks your sight. Even then, I would want pretty small crossovers, a good example of such being the Honda HR-V.

Even height position of the seat could make a difference in that regard.  A lot of those smaller wagons like the PT Cruiser and HHR had a more CUV-like upright seat that let you see better down the road.  I feel like I practically have to lean out the window to look for oncoming traffic in a car since so many people like to hug the center stripe these days.

[Max Rockatansky]

I thought this was an interesting story on the 2016 Camaro getting incentives:

http://www.torquenews.com/106/camaro-sales-drop-2-year-low-mustang-continues-dominate

The great irony is this...go back to 2010 and the Camaro was the bargain out of the three pony cars that were on the market.  I bought my 2011 1SS for about 31.5k before taxes....now it's almost 39k for the same trim level on the 2016 model.  Back in 2010 the Camaro had well over 100 more horsepower than the cheaper Mustang....and well the Challenger...was underpowered and overpriced.  Come 2016 the Challenger has shifted down in price by a ton and the Mustang has stayed the lowest priced entry into the segment.  More than anything else the 39k for for a 1SS 2016 Camaro is what really turned me off from buying one, I spent similar money on an R/T Challenger Scat Pack...and given the content of the car it was a bargain.  I could have had an R/T Challenger for 32k and a Mustang GT for 31.5k....so why the hell is the 1SS running 39K for the entry level V8 package?  Not to mention the color palette is boring as all hell on the Camaro and the current styling (while very pretty) really backed off from the muscular origins that were part of previous generation being so popular.

Even 26k for the entry level Camaro is a little much...  Maybe by the time 2020 rolls around the Sonic is ready to give up the ghost I can find a base level Camaro with a Turbo-4 that has some incentives on it?

[SteveG1988]

Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things.  I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version.  That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane. 

The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.

The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.

[Max Rockatansky]

Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things.  I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version.  That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane. 

The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.

The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.

Funny, the LS3 and L99 in the Camaro actually allowed 87 octane with a retarded spark.  The only problem is that you had a pull a couple fuses because the computer wouldn't know to go back to normal spark on it's own.  Even still, it's a lot better than having to worry about getting gummed out gas at the pump or accidental knocking by putting 87 octane in by mistake to a car that was meant for 91.

It's too bad that the Panther never got some of the improved versions of the 4.6L that would come out in 05.  The Marauder had the the DOHC version that the Mach 1 SN95 and it made a huge difference getting that car to go.  If I recall correctly the Marauder had a lot of the upgrades from the Interceptor Crown Vic; specifically suspension and brakes.

[SteveG1988]

Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things.  I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version.  That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane. 

The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.

The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.

Funny, the LS3 and L99 in the Camaro actually allowed 87 octane with a retarded spark.  The only problem is that you had a pull a couple fuses because the computer wouldn't know to go back to normal spark on it's own.  Even still, it's a lot better than having to worry about getting gummed out gas at the pump or accidental knocking by putting 87 octane in by mistake to a car that was meant for 91.

It's too bad that the Panther never got some of the improved versions of the 4.6L that would come out in 05.  The Marauder had the the DOHC version that the Mach 1 SN95 and it made a huge difference getting that car to go.  If I recall correctly the Marauder had a lot of the upgrades from the Interceptor Crown Vic; specifically suspension and brakes.

It basically was a Police Interceptor, without the increased ride height, but stiffer ride, better built in general. The main reason the crown vic kept the 4.6L 2v was because it was standardized. Everyone can work on it nowadays, and keeping fleet cars on the same engine design makes sense. By the early 2000s fleets were the main buyers of panther platform vehicles. Same reason why the 3.0L Vulcan was kept around until 2007. It was cheap, easy to work on, and proven.

Ford dumped money into the crown vic in 2003, to make it drive better, with rack and pinion steering, newer shocks, moving them outboard for servicablity, hydroformed frame, etc. but that was mostly to just make it easier to build.

[Max Rockatansky]

Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things.  I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version.  That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane. 

The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.

The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.

Funny, the LS3 and L99 in the Camaro actually allowed 87 octane with a retarded spark.  The only problem is that you had a pull a couple fuses because the computer wouldn't know to go back to normal spark on it's own.  Even still, it's a lot better than having to worry about getting gummed out gas at the pump or accidental knocking by putting 87 octane in by mistake to a car that was meant for 91.

It's too bad that the Panther never got some of the improved versions of the 4.6L that would come out in 05.  The Marauder had the the DOHC version that the Mach 1 SN95 and it made a huge difference getting that car to go.  If I recall correctly the Marauder had a lot of the upgrades from the Interceptor Crown Vic; specifically suspension and brakes.

It basically was a Police Interceptor, without the increased ride height, but stiffer ride, better built in general. The main reason the crown vic kept the 4.6L 2v was because it was standardized. Everyone can work on it nowadays, and keeping fleet cars on the same engine design makes sense. By the early 2000s fleets were the main buyers of panther platform vehicles. Same reason why the 3.0L Vulcan was kept around until 2007. It was cheap, easy to work on, and proven.

Ford dumped money into the crown vic in 2003, to make it drive better, with rack and pinion steering, newer shocks, moving them outboard for servicablity, hydroformed frame, etc. but that was mostly to just make it easier to build.

It's too bad they never made a new body-on-frame platform to follow up the Panther, seems like the fleet purchasers would prefer them to uni-bodies.  It would be interesting to see how much profit that Panther had given the age of the platform when it was discontinued.  Granted I don't know how much business that would really draw...but GM seemed to be making the case with drawing out the W-Body basically for that purpose until last year I believe?

[SteveG1988]

Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things.  I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version.  That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane. 

The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.

The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.

Funny, the LS3 and L99 in the Camaro actually allowed 87 octane with a retarded spark.  The only problem is that you had a pull a couple fuses because the computer wouldn't know to go back to normal spark on it's own.  Even still, it's a lot better than having to worry about getting gummed out gas at the pump or accidental knocking by putting 87 octane in by mistake to a car that was meant for 91.

It's too bad that the Panther never got some of the improved versions of the 4.6L that would come out in 05.  The Marauder had the the DOHC version that the Mach 1 SN95 and it made a huge difference getting that car to go.  If I recall correctly the Marauder had a lot of the upgrades from the Interceptor Crown Vic; specifically suspension and brakes.

It basically was a Police Interceptor, without the increased ride height, but stiffer ride, better built in general. The main reason the crown vic kept the 4.6L 2v was because it was standardized. Everyone can work on it nowadays, and keeping fleet cars on the same engine design makes sense. By the early 2000s fleets were the main buyers of panther platform vehicles. Same reason why the 3.0L Vulcan was kept around until 2007. It was cheap, easy to work on, and proven.

Ford dumped money into the crown vic in 2003, to make it drive better, with rack and pinion steering, newer shocks, moving them outboard for servicablity, hydroformed frame, etc. but that was mostly to just make it easier to build.

It's too bad they never made a new body-on-frame platform to follow up the Panther, seems like the fleet purchasers would prefer them to uni-bodies.  It would be interesting to see how much profit that Panther had given the age of the platform when it was discontinued.  Granted I don't know how much business that would really draw...but GM seemed to be making the case with drawing out the W-Body basically for that purpose until last year I believe?

The W Body is in production for this year. 2017 no more W Body Impala. The Dodge Charger and Caprice proved that police departments are 100% okay with unibody. NYC is moving away from v8 taxis to the Nissan/Chevy micro-van thing. The ford Transit connect, etc. Due to Emissions and Mpg they are wanting to move away from the gas hogs of the crown vic. Back in the day it was the Checker Taxi, which was almost unchanged between the 50s and the 80s, then in 1998 it was pretty much standardized on the crown victoria, which was kept unchanged for the most part until 2011. All door panels fit between 1998 and 2011, Grand Marquis doors fit 1992-2011, etc. They standardized the body on the 1992 grand marquis roofline instead of the 1992 more open crown victoria roof.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't know, there seems to be a lot of departments who like to use the Tahoe Police Package over the cars due them being body-on-frame.  The common complaints with the uni-body cars are that they don't have anywhere near the room the Crown Vic did for all the gear up front and they aren't as rugged given the uni-body construction.  But you really hit on the issue at hand, the EPA requirements are going up and a big huge car is going to be difficult to engineer with maximum efficiency.  I there was some third party company that was working on an exclusive police patrol package but it never panned out when all of the Big Three put out a sedan offering for police duty...I guess they were going for a whatever spot Checker was occupying in the market back in it's time. 

For the life of me I can't find any articles or videos of the CHP 5.4L Supercharged Crown Vic that they had as a demonstration vehicle.  I remember reading about it in Hemmings Muscle Machines about a decade ago and it was an absolute beast. 

[Stratuscaster]

I believe it was Carbon Motors working on that specific police-only vehicle. It fell through.

A friend that works for a vehicle upfitter notes that once the cage and other gear is installed, all 3 of today's police packages - Charger, Taurus, and Impala - are VERY tight for a fully loaded officer to get in and out of.

Locally, some locations use the police-spec Tahoes but more have opted for the Explorer Police Interceptors based on interior room. FCA is out of that market because they have not opted to create an actual police-spec Dodge Durango (but they do get sold and outfitted for support - ie; non-pursuit - duties.)

[slorydn1]

Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things.  I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version.  That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane. 

The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.

The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.

Yep, my wife's 2012 is 412hp, my 2014 is 420hp.

The new S550 Mustang's have 435hp Coyotes.

I had always preferred the torque delivery of a pushrod V8 better, but, I gotta admit, these Coyote's are real screamers, they freely rev all the way up to just short of 7K rpm in stock form (the FRP tune has them going up to 7,300 rpm or so-hence the lower powertrain warranty at 36K miles, lol).

I have had several 4.6L 2V vehicles over the years and I enjoyed them all, both car and truck. I also had one 5.4L 3v (my 04 F150) and it was ok. Its just that my truck was so heavy that matting the gas amounted to more noise than actual forward motion. My 97 F150 with the 4.6L felt quicker, but it probably wasn't.

[SteveG1988]

With the 4.6L, if it is mated to the AOD-E or AOD, it is a real dog. The gearing on that transmission is just out of whack for the motor. Yes, there are two years the AOD was used on a 4.6L Car, 1991/early 1992 town car and early 1992 crown vics. i know someone with a bolt in 302 swap on a 1992 crown vic thanks to that. The 4R70W has a lot better gearing, allowing for better acceleration. The 1990s was the time when they could start doing that again, giving you a transmission with a 1st and 2nd that can get you going fast, without worrying about a big mpg hit on the EPA testing, since the rest of the engine is efficent. The 4.6L In the mustang was never mated to the Tremec T-5 for example, just the V6. The 4.6L until 2001 used the T45, and then the TR-3650 for 2001+.

http://www.moderndriveline.com/Technical_Bits/tremec_t45.htm

[GCrites]

The Marauder needed more torque that came at a lower RPM. Fantasizing about a factory 5.4 Marauder. It was a big, heavy car and I'd argue that the early Mod motors didn't even make enough torque to be in a Mustang. I remember going to the dragstrip in 1997 and I lined up against a 1996 Cobra. Assuming the car was running right, and I will since the car was only a year old, the guy was only able to coax 15.5s out of it. I walked him by running a 14.1 in my IROC-Z. I didn't see it since I was messing with tire pressures, but according to my friends afterward the guy flipped out, pulled out of grid and left the facility in a huff. I don't know if the guy wasn't good at driving it (it was only my second time at the strip ever) or if it was a manual or automatic.

The 1996-1998 SN95s were just underpowered for the amount of complexity you had to deal with. A lot of people say to avoid 96-98s and I agree. Granted a '94-'95 only makes "215hp
", but I say they are underrated whereas the 96-98s were overrated. And I just like the 302 better than the pre-'05 non-Terminator Modulars. B-cam, heads and bolt-ons 302 for the win.