Comparison Test: Large Sedans  
 

Introduction
Vehicle Details

15th Place

14th Place

13th Place

12th Place

11th Place

10th Place

9th Place

8th Place

7th Place

6th Place

5th Place

4th Place

3rd Place

2nd Place

1st Place
Evaluations


 

 

14th Place: Ford Crown Victoria

13th Place: Mercury Grand Marquis

Depending on how you look at it, the Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis (and the more-expensive Lincoln Town Car) can be considered the oldest vehicles in production. Despite a facelift for 2006, a suspension and styling modification in 2003, a partial redesign in 1999, and another in 1992. One could accurately call the current vehicles seven (still geriatric by automotive standards), fourteen, or, going back to the date of the first Ford full-size sedans on the “Panther” platform, twenty-seven. Thus, these current vehicles present a flashback to the days of V8-powered, rear-wheel-drive, land yachts, with their twin bench seats, huge trunks, and soft ride and handling. But as other cars have changed around them, developments have been made in interior space efficiency that gives many smaller vehicles more interior space than these cars, powertrain efficiency that has given dozens V6 cars better performance than their V8s, and safety features that outweigh their sheer size, while still in some cases undercutting them in price. In short, the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis accurately replicate the popular cars of the 1970s, but the standards of excellence have risen around them. The Grand Marquis comes out above the Crown Victoria here because of some powertrain and suspension differences between them, but neither is recommended for standard consumer use.

 

The Grand Marquis delivers the sort of ride quality that one would expect from it, very soft and absorbent but almost entirely without control of pitch, float, and wander. The Crown Victoria LX “Sport” model reviewed here (a comparable version of the Grand Marquis is also available, and vice versa) is a surprising departure, with an unexpectedly jittery ride on smooth pavement and poorly-absorbed road imperfections. Handling also meets the low expectations for the Grand Marquis, it feels as soft and clumsy as its ride. The Crown Victoria has less body roll, but still feels clumsy. Neither car, at least, ever feels dangerous during changes of direction, only highly uncomfortable with such action. Both cars have accurate, though rather numb and slow steering. The Grand Marquis’s V8 comes with fewer horsepower than many family sedans’ V6s, and with its additional mass to carry and its unwilling 4-speed automatic commanding it, it does not impress with its acceleration. The Crown Victoria here has an additional fifteen horsepower, which represents some improvement. Both engines are generally quiet at cruising speeds, but rather noisy and harsh under acceleration. Wind noise is also prominent on the highway, though the optional factory-laminated side windows could help that issue. Gas mileage is as bad as one would expect from a V8-powered 4,100-lb sedan, though it does not decrease with the extra-horsepower engine.

 

Inside, occupants are greeted by the same interior that was unveiled for the 1992 vehicle, with only minor changes. The Grand Marquis has the traditional bench seat with a column shifter; the “sport” Crown Victoria has bucket seats and a console shifter. Neither front seat design has what one might call “shape,” essentially coming off as large, soft blobs of foam. The bucket seats have the slightest hint of lateral support, and the center console limits the distance that occupants can slide in cornering. The bench seat doesn’t even have that much. Even children wouldn’t be comfortable in the front bench’s center position, and when there they block access to the climate controls. The seat is at least high enough, and very roomy. The rear is not as large as one might expect considering the car’s exterior size, and many shoes will not fit in the irregularly-shaped space below the front seats, but it is suitably comfortable, though also too soft and slippery. The lack of a true cushion shape offers more comfort to a center-position passenger than most cars, though they would find a particularly high center hump occupying their leg space and a hard fold-down armrest forming their seatback. There are no rear head restraints. Throughout the interior, most plastics look and feel cheap, and some trim pieces fit together poorly. The gauges ought to be larger, but they are clear enough and have good contrast. The vehicle’s width leaves the centered controls as a stretch both from the driver and front passenger seat, and the climate controls are too low, and directly behind the Crown Victoria’s console shifter. The instruments are at least clearly marked. The Crown Victoria here includes steering wheel-mounted radio and climate controls, but they are still too low to be comfortably used despite a recent improvement. Drivers have available power-adjustable pedals, which help them sit more comfortably, but the steering wheel does not offer a telescoping function and is too close. Visibility is good, but the car’s sizeable front and rear overhangs require extra attention in tight quarters. Entry/exit is easy enough, but the large doors have weak checks and are prone to bounce back if swung hard even on level ground. The trunk was until recently the largest in any current vehicle (it has since been unseated by the Ford Five Hundred/Mercury Montego, which is almost a foot shorter), but it is oddly shaped and extends too far from the opening for items placed all the way back to be easily reached without leaning inside, from where it is only too easy to slam your head into the trunklid. The optional full-size spare tire simply sits back there as well, eating up space.

 

The cars did very well in crash testing. The similar Lincoln Town Car was rated Good in its IIHS offset crash test, though their head restraints were merely Marginal, the third-lowest of the four ratings. It also earned five stars for both the driver and for the front passenger in the NHTSA frontal crash test, and five stars for both the driver and for the rear passenger in the NHTSA side crash test with the optional side airbags, the highest available score.

 

The Crown Victoria LX Sport reviewed here came in at $29,451, the Grand Marquis LS Premium at $28,404. The extra cost of the Crown Victoria buys almost exclusively the upgrades to the powertrain and the modifications to the suspension, no major extra features. Both lack such features as curtain-style side airbags, stability control, and satellite radio, but do have rarer items like power-adjustable pedals, and the Grand Marquis’s Ford-exclusive keypad entry system.

 

The Grand Marquis outranks the Crown Victoria here based on the theory that anyone who has narrowed down a buying decision to these two cars is probably looking for a comfortable ride, a lower price, and more features more than a bit more power and diminished body roll. But overall, while these cars are reasonably comfortable and fairly inexpensive, and did well in crash testing, they are certainly not alone with those benefits. Factor in the flaws of age, such as the somewhat anemic yet gas-guzzling V8s, the lack of space efficiency, the lack of modern safety features, the poor seat shape, and the mediocre interior quality and ergonomics, and those run-of-the-mill strong points seem less impressive. The same qualities, coupled with a soft ride, can be easily found in better overall packages within the class, even for less money. Look there before returning to these nostalgia boats.

 

 

The Basics:

 

 Vehicles Reviewed:

 2006 Ford Crown Victoria

 LX Sport

 4.6-liter V8 (239 hp)

 4-speed automatic

 $29,541

 

 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis

 LS Premium

 4.6-liter V8 (224 HP)

 4-speed automatic

 $28,404

 

  Pros:

-Trunk Space

-Safety Ratings

 

 Cons:

-Ride Comfort (Crown Victoria)

-Handling

-Fuel Economy

-Seat Shape

-Ergonomics

 

Overall:

Even if you do enjoy the experience of driving these cars, you can still do better.    

IFCAR Home

Reviews

Pricing

Other Sources

Top Picks

Vehicle Info

About IFCAR

Contact IFCAR

© 2005, Institute For Consumer Automotive Research