1989 Ford Crown Victoria LX 5.0 Litre from North America
New Muffler, tailpipe and catalytic converters were cut out.
Poor heater output when it is cold. I don't mean -15 Celsius, but at -30 Celsius.
After the tune up I did and your basic service and catalytic converters were removed I was so impressed with the 31 MPG on the highway for this size of care. Why would you go to a Civic? I don't think it is to save money. However, I would buy one 'cause they are easy to drive, but I wouldn't because of 92 cents/Litre. Cost per mile people I believe overlook. "Yeah let's spend $20 000 to save $600 a year on gas." That makes a whole lot of sense.
Smooth ride and I can kick back on the highway in comfort. I think people have forgotten about comfort. Not just Vics, but of how most were built back then.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 21st July, 2005
23rd Jul 2005, 09:36
Yes I get 30 MPG on mine too. Imperial MPG. Some people just don't know the difference.
6th Aug 2005, 18:17
First of all I see there is somebody else that disagrees with the mileage I had stated. That is your lack of ability to pay attention to what is written above. Cruising down the highway at 110 km/hour it will. You notice how I did not say 69 MPH. You think maybe that 31 MPG would then mean Imperial Gallons? I think so. Sorry to read that you get crummy mileage on your '92. I think those are the 4.6 L motor? Simplicity is always better therefore I wish they still made the 5L motor. (That is a 302 cu. in. for you yanks). As I stated earlier, although I don't think it was sent through, it doesn't matter to me if it is metric or not. Just that you need to pay attention to the details. 31 MPG...31 MPG... just in case you missed it?...31MPG.