When did Ford stop production of the Crown Vic wagon here in the U.S.? I had an accident with Grandma's Grand Marquis sedan (totalled). I thought of replacing it with a wagon.
There's a half decent 86 on eBay right now, needs a bit of attention but overall, seems good. $1,000 http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Ford-Crown-V...2403642?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item1c295336ba If it were closer to me I would pick it up.
"Not a MAZDA" Drag, Yep, station wagons weren't "cool enough" for the Progressives busy sending our country into the wrecking yard. The mini-vans pretty much stole the market...because those looking for a car to haul kids and cargo couldn't find one so they had to buy a mini-van! Ford, trying to adjust to changing Federal regulations about gas mileage for the Crown Vics, Grand Marquis, and Lincoln Town Cars: -Dropped the 302 to a "290", an overworked engine not fully capable of pulling these cars. -Plasticized the interior making them cheap for the rising price. -Put plastic valve covers on the 290 engine to "reduce weight." -Cut the corners on the cars and made them into slopey-rounded "Mazdas." The resulting Crown Vic, Grd Marquis, and Town Car were shadows of their former selves. Although their interiors were leather and buttons everywhere, the car had zero style, and for the price, lost its clientel. Police departments everywhere lost a great car in the Crown Victoria.
I had a 91 Crown Victoria LS Sedan that I bought almost brand new and it was as nice as any Cadillac or Lincoln. It had every option including the rare Insta-Clear windshield. It was white with beige interior and was probably the nicest car I ever had. They were sweet.
The minivan debuted in 1983 and Ford dropped the wagon in 1991. What "Progressives" would those be? The 4.6 modular V8 (281 cid, not 290) produces more power than the 302 and has no problem pulling around Econolines and F-150s. I don't think it would have a problem in a wagon.
The 4.6 may have more horsepower then the 302, but it is WAY down on torque, especially in the low end. I went from an 88 Crown Vic (Trailer Tow car, 302) to a 92 Crown Vic (Performance/Handling package car, 4.6), and the difference was night and day. Both had the 3.55 rear end, with limited slip, and they had the same transmission, on the same frame. The only differences between the two were the engines and body styles. They were within 100 pounds of each other on the truck scales. The 88, with its 170 hp, was faster off the line than the 92 with its 215 hp. The 88, with worse aerodynamics, was also the better on fuel. Both engines were working correctly, and had about the same number of miles on them. I will NEVER touch another 4.6, or any of the other engines in that family, again. They are duds in my book, and I would not even think of using one for towing anything. Load the car down, and they turn into slugs compared to the old Windsor engines, especially the 351, which is by far the more fuel efficient way to go anyway.
The factory torque rating went from 215 ft-lbs for the 302 to 239 for the 4.6. I've never driven an '80s Crown Vic with the 302, but my 2004 Grand Marquis (2.73 rear) is plenty quick off the line. I'm sure a wagon with the 4.6 still wouldn't hold a candle to an LT1 Caprice/Roadmaster, but it would certainly be more capable than, say, an Olds 307.
All I know is that I had a 5.4 in my '97 F-250 supercab (new style, like a HD F-150), and it was a monster. Plenty of torque to tow my travel trailer. I wouldn't mind one of those in a wagon at all.......
