Like some of the posters above the car was outdated and only because it was easy to fix did so many police departments bother.If they would updated it may be many police would not go with other makers and get those cars but get new one.
It’s all about weight distribution. You can take something that handles poorly like a Ford Pinto and it will still behave better when the wheels break loose versus a front wheel drive car. Of course, if braking is involved you can compensate for that with a computer controlled stability system.
There’s nothing archaic about the CV suspension and the engine bay would handle any size motor you wish to drop into it.
OMG. have you ever looked under the hood of a frontwheel drive car? everything including the transmission is jammed in sideways. To change a water pump or any other accessory is a flaming PITA. Open up the hood on a CV and all the accessories are right up front. The tranny unbolts and literally falls off.
maybe, but modifying/redesigning has a cost. Look, you sell a car like the Crown Vic. Your only customers are fleet buyers, who buy basic cars with no options. You’re pretty much dropping the engine and transmission the car uses (the 2V 4.6 is only still used in the E-Van and will be dead this year, and the 4R-75 will suffer the same fate.) The 3.7 V6 and 5.0 have replaced all variants of the 4.6, but switching to them in the EN114 would require costly validation and recertification testing, the cost of which might not be recovered.
There’s nothing archaic about a live rear axle? :dubious:
There are lots of front-wheel drive cars with longitudinally mounted engines. All Subarus are still built that way, for example.
this is totally false. The 5.4 Modular didn’t fit in Panther cars, and neither would the modern 5.0. On the line, the engine was installed into the frame, and later on the body was decked onto the whole shebang. The 5.4 (and 5.0) would be too wide to allow the body to be decked.
Look, I’ve spent plenty of time at both St. Thomas Assembly and Wixom Assembly. I’ve seen these cars being built. Trying to cram a big engine into them means the powertrain would have to either be installed off-line or by someone like Roush or DST, which makes costs skyrocket.
My FWD racecar has 62% of the weight on the front wheels, and I’ve been able to set it up for neutral handling. I’m pretty confident saying that it’d be easier to drive at the limit than a Pinto. I’m extremely confident that nobody was buying Crown Vics for their handling.
No there isn’t anything archaic about it. Ford went BACK to the live axle with the Mustang.
And this takes up less space how? It’s still cramming the engine and transmission into the same space. It does put accessories up front but none of this applies to the discussion.
I’m not sure what car you’re referring to so I can’t comment on it’s production version. I used a Pinto as an example because it handled poorly (at least the early versions without a front or rear sway bar).
And yes, people buying Crown Vics as interceptors are buying them are concerned about the handling.
It was my understanding that it was too tall, not too wide. The engine of choice would have been the DOHC 4.6L.
They didn’t go “back” to it. The fourth generation Mustang also featured a live axle. Are you under the impression that Mustangs ride and handle well? 
The Cobra was sold with an independent rear suspension. They’re talking about going back to it next year.
And yes, I’m under the impression that the Mustang handles well.
Subarus are not FWD they are AWD. But your point is valid.
no it’s not valid. It’s still cramming the transmission into the front of the car. rear wheel drive transmissions are generally easier to work on.
Any current cars besides Subarus? Audis? Saab’s gone. And what’s with Subaru’s love for boxers? Are they trying to take up as much horizontal space as they can?
Some Subarus are AWD, many aren’t. Talking about FWD and AWD as if they are 2 seperate discrete things is kind of silly anyway. Adding an extra shaft or 2 to a FWD or RWD car makes it AWD. It doesn’t change anything about the engine placement or the weight balance.
Some Audis other than the Golf based ones (TT, A3, Q3) and the R8.
Why do they use boxer engines? Just institutional momentum. They’ve already done al the design and what not and since they no longer compete in WRC and don’t make any mega performance cars what’s the point in moving away from it?
RWD is worse in snow than FWD.
Besides being easier to work on as RWD, the reason Crown Vics were so popular is because they had not GOOD handling, but PREDICTABLE handling. You don’t have to be a good driver to be a cop and in fact many cops are terrible drivers. With a big heavy car with RWD and floaty suspension like the Crown Vic, you had a car which was EASY to handle at high speeds which is not neccessarily the same thing as good.
Lexus IS AWD version would also be longitudinal I assume. My RWD is.
One big advantage of boxer engines is low centre of gravity. When handling matters this can make a difference. As noted above, it really makes no difference to most of their current offerings, except the 0846/Toyota FT86, where it most certainly makes a difference.
If you noticed I agreed with you :rolleyes:
The only Subaru with 2WD is the BRZ and that is RWD so it apeals to the Drifting Crowd, so its not some it’s one and that is a very small run of cars.
Oh cool this stupid Subaru bullshit again.
They currently don’t sell a FWD version of the Impreza in the US but have done so in the past. The discussion is about how the location and layout of the drivetrain affects weight distribution. The fact that some Subarus have extra shafts going to the back wheels makes no difference to anything.
It doesn’t really make much of a difference. If it did manufacturers would just put their inline engines canted to one side, like BMW does with their inline 6s, and the difference between a boxer and a V engine especially a 90* V isn’t much anyway. The intake and exhaust of the engine still either sit on top of the engine or below it, meaning the engine has to sit rather high up for clearance purposes. It gets even more complex once you introduce forced induction or exhaust length tuning into the picture. Ferrari use to use 180* V engines in a lot of their cars and they don’t anymore because it was pointless. The width of the engine makes for all kinds of problems in terms of weight distribution along the longitudinal and side axis. It’s hilarious that Subaru idiots are always harping on about “weight distribution” when the actual weight distribution and polar moment on a Subaru are terrible.
The handling was very predictable on the CV, especially compared to the 1990s-era Caprice they were initially competing with…