Talk:Mercury Marauder

Needs Work

This article needs works it feels almost like someone copied and pasted it from elsewhere.

The article mentions "Twin screw" does this mean "twin supercharger" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.171.131 (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, most likely it refers to a supercharger that employs two interlocking screws in its compression mechanism. See, for example, this. Captain Quirk (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This jumped out at me on my first visit to this page: "The 383 cu in (6.3 L) Marauder V8 engine was exclusive to the division, producing 322 hp (240 kW; 326 PS) with a 2 barrel or 230 hp (172 kW; 233 PS) with a 4-barrel carburetor." Something tells me that those output numbers are reversed. First time I heard of LOSING over 90 hp by adding a 4-barrel. I was going to check the links and possibly fix it, but noticed there were none. Like it says, "needs work." Jororo05 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Similar vehicles

In my view the only car that is truly similar to the '03-'04 Marauder is the B-body Impala SS. Both cars were high-perfomance sedans (originally available in black only) based on decidedly pedestrian fullsize cars. Both reused old nameplates from the past and neither lasted very long. --Sable232 23:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. IFCAR 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

68.21.245.236 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC) I strongly disagree, if you had ever driven a true 2003 Marauder, (not a clone) you would see that there is no comparison, or equal made, in America, (actually Canada) Drive at 60MPH, when you put your right foot to the floor, there's a minor hesitation, while the tranny downshifts, and when you look she's passing 100-110MPH. THERE IS NO EQUAL. To qualify this statement I was a Chrysler fanatic, (through good times the 60's, and bad, the 80's-90's)all my life, I'll say it again, there is no equal!!!!!!! If anyone would like to continue this discussion, I would gladly oblige.Trash68.21.245.236 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Buyer Beware

I myself was a Marauder owner for three years; bought one in Feb 2003 from the Daytona Beach L-M dealer. Before I even closed the deal, I signed on as a member at the mercurymarauder.net website, hoping that I'd be able to glean as much technical support/general help/fellowship from the folks who are/were decidedly more rabid than I am when it comes to knowledge of all things automotive.

In the three years I owned the car, it was a "warranty bandit". Perhaps it was the anal way that I preferred to maintain it (Marauders ARE valuable and worthy of better-than-average treatment), perhaps it was the quality of construction...I'll never know for sure. The rear speakers needed alteration; the front end alignment specs were for the Grand Marquis and not the Marauder (which has vastly bigger rims and tires); the paint quality was atrocious and necessitated a top-end repaint (roof, hood, trunklid); the head unit for the stereo blew out...the list goes on. (In fairness, mine was an early-build '03---June 20, 2002.) The one thing that I DO know is that MM.net was never there for me when I really needed them the most. The simplest questions would be pointedly ignored. Worst still, when I moved the car to Hawaii in 2005, and the suspension---supposedly built from police interceptor components and therefore considered nearly unbreakable---was mangled by the movers, MM.net just couldn't seem to offer any sort of help. I WAS able to access one vendor who---God bless him---cut me a small break on replacement front end components, but that was the best I got from anybody. The rest of the website remained painfully silent.

The situation has gone from bad to worse to worst. After a couple of bad-blood interactions, the Detroit, Michigan-based chapter broke away to form their own group, motorcitymarauders.com. THAT group itself is in serious danger of fracturing; as I write this, I've just seen two posts today that got closed for contentious behavior. The situation over at MM.net is no better; the stench of scandal around Dennis Reinhart---the site's leading vendor and contributor---is SO bad now that any deal with him must automatically be considered suspect.

Here's the bottom line: the Marauder is a future classic, period. If you DO get one, know that any chance of tech help is sketchy at best. Do your research, go over your prospective purchase with a VERY fine-toothed comb, and at the end of the day, if you do find one in good shape...Enjoy! Know that you have the very last musclecar ever built by this country, and that you are keeping the eternal flame burning.

But be careful around the websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.214.1.51 (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

it is not a muscle car you twat, its a big old sedan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.136.244.242 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

2003 Mercury Marauder concept

One thing worth adding to this page is that Ford initially showed the Marauder off as a 2-door convertible concept car (I can't remember if it was '02 or '03)...it might be hard to find information or pictures, but it was the only Panther-platform convertible ever built. SteveCof00 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixing up the article (especially the end)

I tagged the final section since much of the 2003-2004 content is weighted towards the potential modification of the car, rather than describing it. In the end, this is the part of the article that needs the most work done on it. Although the sections dedicated towards the 1960s models are hurting for information, the 2003-2004 section has just gotten to the point where the average reader won't be able to follow it anymore.

Any thoughts? -SteveCof00 (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, perhaps the reverting back to the version that had reached a compromise should help restore the entry to an encyclopedia format. And more information needs to be found for the two other '60's models. -- JD 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro missing 2nd generation

Just a quick note to point out that the intro references three generations, but only lists two. I'll try to return to flesh it out later; help is welcome/appreciated. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And one bright red one.

A family friend special ordered her Marauder in a bright red. I'll find out if it's a 2003 or 2004 and see if I can get a picture. I saw the car soon after she bought it, definitely NOT that dark red, more like fire engine red. How did she get it the color she wanted? Enough money to make Ford say "Yes, we'll paint it bright red!". Pretty much the same sort of deal that got Mercedes to halt their paint line for a model they normally only offer in white, black or silver, clean out their spray equipment, shoot *one* with bright red then clean everything out to go back to their usual blah colors. Bizzybody (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mercury Marauder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121007235813/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=10953 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=10953

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

not a fastback

There are various definitions of "fastback," none of which describe the Maurauder's roof-line. At the time the style was officially called a "scatback" and the press sometimes called it a "semi-fastback."2600:4040:5D30:4800:59AC:7118:563F:160A (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this was never a "proper" fastback, but what matters is what the references say. Find a WP:RS and we will see. Meanwhile, I lightly modified the text in a way that shouldn't contradict the cited references.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)