Talk:Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor/Archive 1

Archive 1

WPLE Assessment

Classed as B, if wrong, your welcome to change it!

Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

changed to "C" due to lack of inline referencing. PKT(alk) 02:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

vandals

"for the penis version" ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.17.185.103 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Problems and Criticisms comment removed

An unregistered person put the comment "A 9C1 caprice with the LT1 was last made in 1996, however the caprices are still faster than the newest p71's." under the Problems and Criticisms section of the article. This comment seems unrelated as the last year of the Caprice was 1996 and this article covers the CVPI models 1998 to present. And without a cited source, it also seems to violate the NPOV, in my opinion. —S3BST3R 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

5.0L Windsor V8 ?

The article's infobox states two engines. A 5.0L Windsor V8, and a 4.6L Modular SOHC V8. However, the article details do not speak, at all, of the former. It only speaks of the 4.6L engine. And I, myself, have never heard of the 5.0L engine used in the CVPI. When was this engine used? Any sources? —S3BST3R 07:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It would have been an earlier model if any because the Windsor is an old engine. That said, a mere 186KW from a 4.6 V8 is pretty piss weak. Barra 190 generates 190kw from a 4.0L V6. 211.28.220.254 (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't look at Hp, look at torque when comparing engine power; 282 ft/fb compared to 297 for the 2v 4.6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.165.227 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The 4.6 replaces the 5.0 as a more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly motor. The 5.0 2-valve OHV was roughly 200-220hp and 300ft-lbs and at best i have seen 19mpg and the 4.6L 2-valve SOHC is about 240hp and 290ft-lbs and gets about 25mpg tops. I have seen these 4.6L motors with 500,000 miles and still claiming to pass smog. The "weak" 4.6 you are referring to is the 2-valves per cylinder. The 3-valve SOHC is rated easily around 350hp in later Mustangs and there is also a 4-valve DOHC which conservatively put out 290hp in 1995 in the Mark VIII. these are all without variable valve timing. The pushrod 5.0 was last used in 1988 in the Crown Victoria and in Mustangs till 1995 I believe. The new car ford is trying to sell for police duty is e Taurus SHO with a 3.5L V6 with twin turbos making over 350 hp and bragging 28mpg. After 150,000 miles of real world testing, this motor was still within "new build" specifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.164.43 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the design info?

The design section is sorely lacking. It tells of changes but not what the differences between the standard CV and the Interceptor are in the first place. Does anyone have good information they can add, or time to look it on the Ford site and whatnot? --Howdybob 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with civilian Crown Vic added

I've added a section detailing some of the differences. --Roger Williams 08:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of this is not completely correct. The article says: The Police Interceptor has the interior trunk release in the center of the dashboard, while the civilian version has it in the driver's door. The only PI I've got at hand has the trunk release on the driver's door (along with a space for another button, presumably the fuel tank door for the versions with that option); it's a 1998 and without doubt a Police Interceptor. At the moment I don't know if the article has this backwards, if it varies by year or model, or what. If someone with more data could clarify, that would be helpful. Wyvern (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Giving to Clarity?

Is that US$150 trunk pack per PI or per agency? I'm guessing per PI, which could make the cost prohibitive... Be clear. Trekphiler 11:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

How fast do they go?

I would expect that to be included as highly relevant information?

- Good question. If anyone wants a definitive answer, They can go here for answers from the Michigan State Police: http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123--16274--,00.html

That link has stats for pretty much all vehicles marketed by their manufacturers for pursuit duty. I don't have time to look it up right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.228.181.183 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have driven several generations of the Interceptor. The first was a 1996 model, which DID have a "Police Interceptor" badge on the trunklid, as well as small "police interceptor" stickers on the rear door 1/4 windows. The speedometer in the car topped out at 140 MPH, however, I was only ever to make it top out at 130. This may, however, been due to the age of the vehicle. According to the web site "Modern Racer," that generation Interceptor was limited to a top speed of 137 MPH. A later-model (2004) Interceptor that I drove also read 140 MPH on the speedo, but I was unable to find what it's top speed is limited to. --RoadKill555-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoadKill555 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Accelerator Problem

Has any one had a problem while hitting the brake the accelarator revs up causeing the car to keep foward momentum. the first time it happened I thought I might have hit the gas, but I didn't. The second time it happened I knew I had a problem. I found out that another unit in our fleet has done the same thing. Both vehicles are 2006 C/V. Any help

-- I believe it has to do with a problem in the drive by wire system (the throttle body is linked to the accelerator pedal via computer, not cable). Ford Dealer can help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.37.29 (talk) 07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how air bags are deployed on the front passengers side? Are air bags disabled for PIT maneuvers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.187.242 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The PIT maneuver is not exactly just ramming the vehicle. It is forcing the other vehicle's rear end to slide causing that person to lose control if they do not know how to recover from this. This can be done bumper to bumper with minimal damage to both vehicles and no airbag deployment. Airbag deployment occurs when the sensor behind the bumper is triggered. You would have to severely damage the front bumper  to deploy the airbags. Airbags may deploy even if the vehicle is off if the sensor is triggered by impact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.164.43 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 

End of availability to civilians post 2008

This article The civilian version will not be available after 2008. The Grand Marquis will still be sold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.8.234 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

THat's a blog (albeit an auto industry one) quoting a rumor. We'll need to wait for an official word from Ford, or from a reliable source with editorial review, before putting that kind of info in the article. It probably won't be too long before official word is out tho. - BillCJ 22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture "File:2008-03-13 North Carolina State Trooper on I-85.jpg " seems to be incorrect.

It does not seem to me that the first picture on this page is a Police Interceptor. I would guess that this is actually a '99 or '00 civilian model due to the fact that the grille is chrome. To the best of my knowledge, chrome was never a factory option for the Police Interceptor grille. I have seen cases where police departments have chosen to employ civilian Crown Victorias so it is not impossible that this was simply a regular Crown Victoria pictured here. It is my opinion that this picture should be replaced with one that more accurately represents a Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor.Billy Bishop (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pit maneuver comment

Pitting another vehicle does not place significant stress on the body of any vehicle. I'm questioning the validity of this assertion. 74.218.207.65 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Third Generation Ford Police Interceptors

The Wikipedia mantra is "be bold", but I think I was edging into "rash". I just don't have the experience putting together auto data boxes and such, and I'm not sure of the procedure to take a Ford PR picture and put it on Wikipedia. And I don't have the time. Sorry. This search should get most of the relevant articles at Ford:

http://media.ford.com/googleSearch.cfm?cx=007812692274835949346%3A5msz5e-s47a&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=police&searchBtn.x=0&searchBtn.y=0

The Ford site for the new models is: http://www.ford.com/fordpoliceinterceptor/ Note the PDF brochure; it has much of the technical information needed (but not all, unfortunately).

A few other articles: Production announcement: http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=32207 LASD testing and approval: http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=35655 Michigan SP approval: http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=35300

Note that the third gen interceptors are two distinct vehicles, a sedan (Taurus-derived?) and an SUV. However, they have a bunch of unique features in common like a special transmission/all-wheel-drive system. Some authors seem to dismiss this Interceptor as "just a Taurus", and this does not seem to be the case. A Taurus cannot pass a 75-mph rear crash test!

Also note that this article gathers searches for "Ford Police Interceptor" and similar. Car models frequently change chassis (a couple Ford examples include the Mustang II and the retro Thunderbird). I opine that "Crown Victoria" should be removed from the title of this article to be consistent with the handling of other car models.

Laguna CA (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as editing the article goes, I'm not going to discourage anyone, but Wikipedia is fairly strict on what kind of images can be used in articles. Most likely, Ford PR pictures won't make the cut (obvious copyright issues; free-use images are typically seen here). On the other hand, changing the article from that of a Crown Victoria derivative to that of a Ford police car line may be a possibility to explore/discuss in the near future. As I see it, such a change would not mean a major redesign of the article, aside from a new lead-in section. -SteveCof00 (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the name change. It would better distinguish this article from the regular Ford Crown Victoria page, too. IFCAR (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think changes could be fairly straightforward--the comparison with the standard CV is appropriate, I think--but I just don't have the time/experience to avoid creating a mess. Help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 03:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

1992

Article states Crown Victoria Police Interceptor was manufactured by Ford starting in 1992, and article also makes reference to the P71 VIN designator covering the time-frame 1992-2011. Article states only P72 Crown Victorias were police versions for 1992.

The Police Interceptor name was not used in 1992. In 1992, a Police Package was offered for both the 1992 P72 (Commercial Series) & P73 (Standard Series) Crown Victorias. Although these police packaged vehicles were the same as the Police Interceptors that followed in 1993, and subsequent years (in terms of Police package options), no reference to the Interceptor name appears on the 1992 vehicles or on any available documentation about such vehicles. The Police Interceptor name was not resurrected by Ford until 1993, when it would be given it's own VIN designator of P71.

On the tire inflation label, located in the rear door entry of a 1992 Police model, one can read the tire sizes & pressure requirements for a "Sedan Police".

Sources: General Fleet Office Ford Division brochure entitled, "1992 Crown Victoria Police Package"; General Fleet Office Ford Division brochure entitled, "1992 Crown Victoria Police Package Preliminary Information"; 1992 Crown Victoria police car tire inflation label.

Police Interceptor Utility?

The redirect at the top of this page points to the Taurus-based Police Interceptor, but what about the new Police Interceptor Utility? It doesn't appear to be based on the Taurus and I don't see an article about it on Wikipedia. (I don't know enough about it to start a new entry.) Thought I'd mention it here because it looks like that redirect should point to both models. B.Rossow · talk 18:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Wesley♦Mouse 23:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor → Ford Police Interceptor – More Inclusive title that can include content of currently-produced variants; has been brought up on talk page before. Does not work manually. SteveCof00 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose this is about the Crown Vic. A separate article can be started on all Ford cars used as police cars, or the current Ford offering. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support A separate article; that is pretty much my intent. This content would not go away so much as become a section of that article, along with sections dedicated to current versions. 9C1 (Chevrolet Police package) is a good example. --SteveCof00 09:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the proposed rename especially knowing that Ford has these based on at least two models. The proposed rename would force both of these into one article which I don't believe is the correct solution for anything. If you are looking for a shorted title, I would Support Crown Victoria Police Interceptor or even better Crown Vic Police Interceptor which I believe are much more common names that the current name or the proposed name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as these are very different vehicles which don't belong on the same page. The Crown Vic is RWD, whatever Bill Ford and Alan Mulally are selling today are pullcarts. K7L (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Engine differences

I am re-removing the mention of compression difference for the CVPI engine because this is simply not true. The internals are identical, P71 or no. The block, crankshaft, rods, pistons, and heads are no different from the civilian model. This can be confirmed with a quick web search, as there are countless sources that confirm that they are identical, and zero that state there are any internal differences. This can also be confirmed by disassembling one. 65.255.71.12 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110421074830/http://www.statesman.com/news/local/austin-police-ask-for-4-5-million-to-1409441.html to http://www.statesman.com/news/local/austin-police-ask-for-4-5-million-to-1409441.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823101944/http://norwalk.patch.com/articles/norwalk-police-buying-eight-of-the-final-batch-of-crown-victoria-patrol-cars to http://norwalk.patch.com/articles/norwalk-police-buying-eight-of-the-final-batch-of-crown-victoria-patrol-cars

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309154923/http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207288 to http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=207288
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220063240/http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=206939 to http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=206939
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110421081414/http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/apr/16/police-switching-to-tahoe-suv/ to http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/apr/16/police-switching-to-tahoe-suv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)