28th May 2011, 14:05

It takes more than a day to find out the pros and cons of a vehicle.

28th May 2011, 15:45

True. They were built for the long haul... the very long haul!

29th May 2011, 09:09

I'm the original reviewer again... reading posts like this is a hobby of mine.

I know it takes multiple days and multiple drives, and more than a few hundred miles to find the pros and cons of a vehicle. This was only based on my experiences for a day; that is why I identified the sample as a rental. Prospective buyers sometimes like the reviews of rental units, while others simply do not.

These cars were built for the long haul, why else would they have been around for all these decades?

29th May 2011, 16:13

I agree that it is sad to see the end of the large American sedan. I recently purchased a brand new "large" Buick sedan, and while it is a nice car, it doesn't compare to the old school big cars like the Town Car and my previous Park Avenue. And even the car I bought (the Buick Lucerne) won't be around after this year.

Honestly though, Ford let the Grand Marquis and Town Car die. These cars went largely unchanged since 1998, and Lincoln wants nearly $50K for a Town Car. Now they don't even offer options like a sunroof and navigation, which are must haves in a luxury car.

Oddly enough, as far as I know, you could still order a sunroof in a 2011 Grand Marquis. Considering depreciation and the fuel cost, the Town Car is very low on the value side. I test drove a new one last year, and in my opinion these cars are very over priced for what you get. In the used market, you can find one with under 10,000 miles for about $30K; that makes a lot more sense.

31st May 2011, 15:23

Mom had driven new Town Cars since 1984, but had trouble hitting things due to the massive size. In 2003 she opted for a Volvo S-60, but it was a huge disappointment. Now she drives a fully loaded Lincoln MKZ, and finds the size just right, the amenities plentiful, and the comfort level totally acceptable. Of course it is not the rugged body-on-frame design, and therefore not nearly as safe or strong, but with an array of airbags, we feel she is protected as much as one can be in a flimsy unibody vehicle.

6th Jul 2011, 04:03

I put 300000km over 13 years on my 1992 Grand Marquis. By far the best car I've ever driven. The vehicle still has the original radiator, heater core, water pump, and many other items. The ride, while not sporty, is actually both firm and smooth. It rides better than my '99 Buick with 4-wheel independent suspension.

I understand my 1992 Grand Marquis is not the same car as the 2011 Grand Marquis. However, the 2011 has a more efficient version of the 4.6L motor, plus many other refinements over the 1992 model year. The original poster's opinions do have reasonable merit. However, I would agree that the Grand Marquis does not appeal to everybody.

11th Mar 2015, 23:00

Aside from a few minor updates, your 1992 Grand Marquis is pretty much the same car as a 2011 model.

Also, while body-on-frame is a cool, unique feature of these cars, I don't think it is necessarily "better" than unibody designs. I mean the 1960s Lincolns were unibody and they were very well-built. Even by today's standards, they hold up well.

There's bad and good; a lot of it comes down to design and quality control. There are plenty of crappy unibody designs out there that are cheaply made. But on the flip side, some of the finest and highest quality cars on the road are unibody.

Same goes for body-on-frame. Plenty of good designs that last a long time, but also plenty of crappy designs that are a result of cost-cutting and poor quality control.

Unibody is a bit superior because there's more you can do with it. Because BoF lacks stiffness, it really isn't useful for vehicles without torque boxes and soft suspension settings. That can be quite a limitation. Whereas unibody vehicles can be built to be whatever the manufacturer wants them to be. Unfortunately, the potential of unibody is limited by small minds who opt for the same predictable designs year after year, instead of doing something new or different.