1989 Ford Crown Victoria LX from North America - Comments

Water Pump

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.

31 mpg what a load of crap.

Being a little less blunt, but equally skeptical, I suggest you learn to work out the fuel consumption in the following manner:

1. Fill up to the brim with gas.

2. Set trip odometer to zero. (Press the little button

thingy in the speedo)

3. Drive car till 1/8 full (approx)

4. Fill up again. Write down how many gallons you put in

the car and how many miles you traveled.

5. That was easy, now here's the tricky part: using a

calculator, divide miles traveled by gallons used eg;

440 miles divided by 20 gallons=22 mpg.

That wasn't too difficult, was it?

You can report back to us after you've done this and I expect you will be telling us it's between 22 and 24 mpg.

I expect you arrived at the figure of 31 mpg by reading the display on your on-board computer at a steady speed on a flat road and have assumed this figure applies for your entire journey. Not so.

Have a nice day.

You say the heater output is cold in winter - it shouldn't be.

I had the same problem with my Mercury Grand Marquis.

I fitted a "Winter" thermostat from Canadian Tire.

Cost only a few dollars and I did it in 10 minutes.

It's easy to remove the 2 nuts securing the thermostat housing, remove and replace the t'stat. Make sure it's oriented correctly. Throw the old one away.

Let car cool right down before fitting.

Let me know if it works.

I'm 99% sure this fix will work.

Better to replace with a new "Summer" thermostat at the end of winter.

Cardoctor999@yahoo.com.

Thermostat from Ford. It is even a 195 F not the 192 F, not that 3 degrees is much difference.

Yes, 3 degrees sounds like it wouldn't make much difference. Last time I compared summer/winter thermostats (in 1992) there was about 10F deg difference.

Anyway, a faulty thermostat is still very likely the cause of this problem.

If that doesn't work, try partial blanking-off of the radiator with a newspaper in very cold weather.

Don't know if radiator blinds are available for this car.

Fitted one to a car of mine in 1974 and that worked well, but you need to keep an eye on the temperature and open the blind when necessary.

Crown Vic fans can find lots of info on their cars at:

www.crownvic.net.

Yes I get 30 MPG on mine too. Imperial MPG. Some people just don't know the difference.

How do you know you are getting 30 mpg?

I just dreamed it up in my head. How do you know?

If you are referring to Imperial gallons then you should say so if you are going to brag about mileage, which by the way is only 25 mpg in US gallons, which is not anything great, even for your old beater.

You will not get 31 MPG on a 5.0L although its not that bad on gas mileage do the equation by resetting the tripmeter fill it up all the way which is 18 gallons for your car and divide the miles by how much gas you used. I have pounded 16,000 all city miles in one year on my 1992 grand marquis and it gets 23.1 mpg as we speak.

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.

Well, 1 English (US) gallon is roughly.833 Imperial gallons.

Converting your 31 mpIg to US gallons I get roughly 25.8 mpUSg. That seems a bit high for a 5.0 Windsor unless you are going down a mountain with a 60 mph tail wind.

I agree that 30 Imp. MPG or more is realistic in the C.V. or Grand Marq. with the 5.0 Litre. Why would anybody use U.S. MPG's if they don't need to. I really should be talking L/100kms. Funny how the rest of the world is on the Metric System. It is nice to understand both as most do except the Americans. They are lost. Don't get me wrong as I remember when 55 MPH signs were here to in Canada. I was pissed when that changed to 90Km/H. But later in life one relizes how much nicer it is to work with SI.

I have 90 LX, and also got 31mpg on mine. How did I know it? I went several times to California and back. (60 mph on cruise control, nitrogen filled tires, 4 people aboard and some stuff in trunk, synthetics everywhere, removed Landau top for less drag)