Ford can deny its cars to sheriff, judge rules


PDA






Bubbles
October 1, 2004, 10:23 PM
Hello gun manufacturers... this applies to you also!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1233165/posts?page=7

Ford can deny its cars to sheriff, judge rules
St Petersburg Times
09/29/2004
Associated Press

SHALIMAR - Ford Motor Co. can refuse to sell police cars to Florida law enforcement agencies that join a lawsuit against the automaker over fuel tank fires, a judge has ruled.

Circuit Judge G. Robert Barron denied Okaloosa County Sheriff Charlie Morris' request that he order Ford to resume selling cars to his department Monday. Ford has refused to sell Crown Victoria interceptors to Morris since July 2003, a year after he sued.

The suit claims the full-size, V-8-powered, four-door sedans have exploded in flames when struck from behind at high speed, in some cases killing officers. It blames poor design.

Barron last month granted class action status, permitting other Florida law enforcement agencies to join the lawsuit. No deadline for joining has been set.

With Barron's ruling in hand, Ford also will refuse to sell the cars to any other agency that participates in the suit, said company lawyer David Cannella.

"It's fundamentally illogical for Sheriff Morris to, on one hand, sue us and, on the other hand, seek the court to order (Ford) to sell him more vehicles," he said.

An attorney for Morris, Don Barrett, has said that although the sheriff views the Ford interceptors as defective, he wants to buy new ones to replace aging cars because seeking other vehicles would be more costly.

Morris' lawyers say there have been 14 accidents nationwide in which Ford interceptors caught fire after being rear-ended. Ford attorneys say that represents 0.01 percent of its interceptors on the road - none of them Morris' cars.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ford can deny its cars to sheriff, judge rules" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
October 1, 2004, 10:35 PM
Wouldn't it be amusing if law enforcement officers in the various people's republics had to turn to the black market to find hand guns?

Shanghai McCoy
October 1, 2004, 10:48 PM
Whats next,a lawsuit against Dunkin donuts because free donuts make cops fat?:D

gwitness
October 1, 2004, 11:15 PM
I worked for a Ford dealership during the "recall" for the exploding cruisers.
I performed a few of the "fixs".

Suffice it to say....I was not impressed with the "fix"












edited for speeling:D

2nd Amendment
October 2, 2004, 12:05 AM
Dumbest thing GM ever did was drop the big RWD Caprice. Forced cops all across the country in to Fords and a great many of them weren't too happy about it. :) The rolling brown turds, as many sheriifs deputies called Caprices when they first came out, may not have been very pretty but they sure were quick and tough.

One of the sure signs of the myriad problems with the big Fords can be seen at auction. Old '94 retired Caprices with a couple hundred k on the clock will bring as much or more than '98 Vics with half the miles. Of course that itself says something too, when they are retiring these cars at barely over 100k. Personally I think I'd be suing Ford over those lousy transmissions. :D

crucible
October 2, 2004, 12:08 AM
As he clearly still wants the cars depsite being 'defectively designed' and firetraps to his officers, I see nothing wrong with this at all. (He can buy Chevy Monte Carlos if the officers' lives were so important and the Fords are so defective-but that isn't happening, so it cannot be the officer's lives that he's primarily concerned with).

In fact, the idea that in high speed rear end collisions on any vehicle, that the occupant should not be injured (or killed) and the vehicle not damaged (or totally friggen smashed), is ludicrous. Perhaps his problem is with physics, rather than Crown Victorias.

Go Ford.

Cruc

M1911Owner
October 2, 2004, 12:36 AM
An attorney for Morris, Don Barrett, has said that although the sheriff views the Ford interceptors as defective, he wants to buy new ones to replace aging cars because seeking other vehicles would be more costly.
Ah, come on, you're putting us one, right?? "These things are dangerous, but we want to buy more of them because they're cheap." What do you want---Good? Or cheap?

Maybe they'd like to buy some Wolf steel-cased FMJs for carry ammo?

Freedspeak
October 2, 2004, 12:36 AM
Wasn't there another thread about maybe gun manufacturers not selling to states/cities that were suing them?

The argument was about rico act in regards to the gun folks, but if it works for the car comapnies it should work for anyone else. (Presidence if I'm not mistaken) sp

Destructo6
October 2, 2004, 12:38 AM
Dumbest thing GM ever did was drop the big RWD Caprice
GM has been doing a lot of those incredibly dumb things. The elimination of both a full size RWD sedan (Caprice) and pony car (Camaro) has allowed Ford full control of those market segments. Also, the introduction of the atrocious Aztec and similar styling (designer should have been fired and sued, not promoted). I'm half amazed they're still afloat.

Well, Sheriff Morris could always order Volvo police cars. Oops, those are FoMoCo, too.

Good to see that the Judge and the blue oval saw it the same way.

dinosaur
October 2, 2004, 07:17 AM
I have a 95 Caprice 9C1 with the LT1 motor. Great ride and fast! But wait'll you get a load of the 2005 Dodge Charger!:what: 340 horse 4 door RWD sedan! More practical than the Chrysler 300. I think the Dodge Boys are back in bidnizz!:D

dinosaur
October 2, 2004, 07:22 AM
Couldn't attach the pic to my last post.

Blackcloud6
October 2, 2004, 07:56 AM
Ford:

Fix Or Repair Daily

Found On Road Dead

:neener:

ID_shooting
October 2, 2004, 09:14 AM
Black,

You forgot F***ed On Race Day

Of course, since we are going this way, here is what I have to say about the Dodges:

Mostly Old Parts And Rust or Moments Of Performance Are Rare.

Jake
October 2, 2004, 11:11 AM
Don't forget my personnel favorite - F#@%ing Old Rebuilt Dodge.

Coronach
October 2, 2004, 12:51 PM
The problem is, as already explained, that there are no really good options for cruisers other than the Crown Vic.

Chevy's idea was that PDs would go to the Impala for standard patrol, or to the Tahoe if they needed a larger vehicle. They ran into the Goldilocks effect- the Impala is too small (and decidedly not-fast and unreliable in the bargain), and the Tahoe is too big. The Caprice used to be just right. But, now its dead.

Instead, PDs went to the Crown Vic in droves. Its not quite as roomy as a Caprice, but it tops out at about the same speed (though, the Caprice will get there faster) and is a better handling vehicle. It, uh, also has the added benefit of still being built.

As to the right of FoMoCo to deny sales to someone who is sueing it? Sounds OK to me.

Mike

PS Supposedly, there is an actual problem with the vehicles. The Chiefs are not, as was asserted, living in a fantasyland where they don't expect vehicles to be damaged. They DO, however, fully expect that the vehicles not burst into flames like trucks on a CBS news special report. ;)

wolf
October 2, 2004, 01:08 PM
exploding fords..does ralph nader know bout this..???

Smoke
October 2, 2004, 01:35 PM
In talking to one of the local Hi-Po, after the demise of the Caprice (which he wasn't happy about); he said GM was really pushing the Tahoe. He was skeptical, citing it was to large to handle well and go fast enough.

In testing it proved other wise. He said the dept. took several of the vehicles and ran them through a variety of tests and it performed very well.

Yet I have never seen one in TX DPH trim. Expense?

Weights and measures are driving Ford and Dodge pickups, ever other vehicel I see are Crown Vics. Used to see a Camaro or Mustang....not anymore.

Smoke

2nd Amendment
October 2, 2004, 02:21 PM
...and is a better handling vehicle.

Man, I haven't driven any for awhile but I remember the #2 complaint, after losuy acceleration compared to the Caprice, was lousy boat-wallow handling from the Vics. I suppose they've probably improved over the years but if so they haven't shared those improvements with Lincoln(same car, different trim). This year's top-of-the-line Town Car can't even begin to keep up with my old '94 Fleetwood(same car as the Caprice, different trim and some sheet metal)in a straight line or curves, even though Ford has had another 10 years of development.

I'd say I'd go buy one just to play with it next week but there are indeed problems with the cars. And while I may not have to worry about exploding CBS fuel tanks the transmissions cost around $1500 so, either way, my wallet gets torched.

Bob Locke
October 2, 2004, 05:58 PM
"It's fundamentally illogical for Sheriff Morris to, on one hand, sue us and, on the other hand, seek the court to order (Ford) to sell him more vehicles," he said.
Sounds like a pretty good point for the defense to bring out at the trial.

one-shot-one
October 3, 2004, 07:20 PM
"An attorney for Morris, Don Barrett, has said that although the sheriff views the Ford interceptors as defective, he wants to buy new ones to replace aging cars because seeking other vehicles would be more costly."



would not this open the sheriff to lawsuites by the family of any officer hurt while driving one of these cars???????????????

Moparmike
October 3, 2004, 10:30 PM
An attorney for Morris, Don Barrett, has said that although the sheriff views the Ford interceptors as defective, he wants to buy new ones to replace aging cars because seeking other vehicles would be more costly. Yet the lives of the officers riding in them would be quite cheap to replace, yes?:cuss:



To hell with it. Just go get a fleet of 1985 Caprices and refit them. It would still be cheaper than the Crown Vics, its got actual *MachoMan Randy Savage* STEEL */MMRS* in it, and with the addition of a 385 Fast Burn Crate engine (http://www.rebuiltcarengines.com/ce04.html), I should think that you would put those Vic's in their place, ie: your dust. :evil:



And its a sad day when the name "Charger" is slapped on a 4-door family sedan, much like the Nova's of the 1980's...:barf:

DRZinn
October 3, 2004, 10:33 PM
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that a strategically superior course of action might have been to go ahead and sell him more vehicles, then go to court and ask, "Well, if they suck so bad why'd you buy more of 'em, huh? Huh?"

Then again, if the Crown Vic is half as bad as all you guys are saying, maybe this'll be a good push to buy something else.

Don Gwinn
October 3, 2004, 11:09 PM
Moparmike, are you kidding? I'm hearing Hemi and RWD or AWD options for the Charger, just like the 300. Cars have four doors now; it's what most modern drivers were raised with, and having back doors is a hard habit to break.
Besides, most 4-doors today are shorter, lighter and stiffer than 2-doors were in the thrilling days of yesteryear.
(Yes, I know, that means that modern 2-doors should be even more shorter, lighter and stiffer. What can I say? You can't have everything.)

Moparmike
October 3, 2004, 11:12 PM
Don, only if they put that supercharger package they were originally going to put into the Magnum into the Charger. 430 Horsepower.


*Tim Allen Grunt*:D

cracked butt
October 4, 2004, 02:37 AM
Dodge is behind the curve anyhow with Pontiac putting its new GTO out earlier this year.:D

dinosaur
October 4, 2004, 07:36 AM
Have you actually seen the new GTO? Ugh. Sales are way down and I'm not sure even the LS2 motor (400 hp) will save it. State Highway Patrols are the only real fleet buyers of 2 door coupes and even they're very limited. In fact a Florida HP Officer (retired NYPD) was killed over the weekend in a Camaro during a pursuit.

The new Dodge Charger will be the police car of choice. It'll have the 340 hp engine as an option but will probably sell more with the 3.7 250 hp 6. There are Magnum police test mules out there but a lot of agencies don't want station wagons.

Langenator
October 4, 2004, 08:41 AM
Unfortunately, DaimlerChrysler killed Plymouth...they used to make a cop version of the Plymouth Fury back in the 70s. 427ci V-8...I'd love to have one.

I think a 340hp 4d Charger in either RWD or AWD would do a bang-up job though.

Bubbles
October 4, 2004, 09:50 AM
Wasn't there another thread about maybe gun manufacturers not selling to states/cities that were suing them?

The argument was about rico act in regards to the gun folks, but if it works for the car comapnies it should work for anyone else.

It's not RICO, it's the anti-trust laws. I don't know how much precedence will be set by this case since's it's a local Florida court that heard the case.

IMO no firearm manufacture should do business with any jurisdiction that has filed a frivolous lawsuit against any other firearm manufacturer.

2nd Amendment
October 4, 2004, 11:34 AM
Four doors. I am just baffled at this tendency to four doors. How do you compromise the design lines of a fine auto shape? Stick an extra pair of doors on it. *blech*

BTW, y'all do know what the GTO is under those body panels, right? Hint, they discontinued the T/A for a reason...

Steel
October 4, 2004, 12:34 PM
At least they are not patrolling in some of the dorky little cars that some European and Asian agencies use.

Yowza
October 4, 2004, 12:37 PM
How do you compromise the design lines of a fine auto shape? I'll probably get flamed for this one, but how many new American two doors actually have a fine shape? Zero is the number that's coming to my mind. Maybe the Lincoln LS? But they're about to redesign that one. Of course, I can't think of many finely shaped American sedans either (Chrysler 300 excluded, of course).

BTW, has anyone seen the video of the kid driving the 240HP BMW M3 that totally smokes the HP officer in the 350HP Camaro? It's really pathetic, especially since the kid was like 14 years old at the time.

Rick

roo_ster
October 4, 2004, 01:39 PM
The City of Dallas is also suing Ford.

What occurred was a drunk driver plowed into a Dallas Crown Vic parked on the side of the road & killed the officer...at around 90 miles per effing hour!

There are precious few automobiles that would keep you from getting killed in that sort of rear collision.

A local car-talk guy interviewed a police officer in favor of such lawsuits. LEO said the Fords weren't safe, light up like roman candles, etc. Then local car-talk guy asked him how many times has he been hit while idling on the side of the road in a Ford police car? Nine times, was the answer.

Nine

9

Nueve

N.I.N.E.

Neuf

One LESS than ten, one MORE than eight.

The product of 3 and 3.

The square root of 81....

How on earth did he live to tell the tale if the Ford was such a hazard?

OK, might the largest factor leading to deaths by rear collisions in Ford police cars be parking on the side of a busy road rather than what type of vehicle you might be driving?

Smurfslayer
October 4, 2004, 02:39 PM
Firearms that is..

Jurisdictions that are intent on suing, should be entering that situation knowing that they will not be procuring any new firearms... The thing is, other manufacturers are going to look at the departments, and you can bet their lawyers are going to caution against letting these departments buy brand-x cars.

For every action, there is an equal, and opposite REaction. I think that as a matter of good will, Ford should offer to replace those Crown Vics with the Ford Focus... After all, they're concerned about money and safety...

Zach S
October 4, 2004, 06:20 PM
So the guy, or department, sued ford, basicly because he thinks the CV is a dressed up pinto, then sues again because ford wont sell it to him? Um, ok...

With the P71/9C1 debate, from what I understand, the P71 was good competition until they went from the 5.8 to the 4.6 SOHC. The 5.8 made the low-end torque needed to get a heavy car off the line, and the 4.6 is known for it lacks of grunt, especailly in a heavy CVPI. As already mentioned, the 9C1 and P71 top out at about the same speed (which is limited, IIRC), and the LT1 equiped caprices get there faster. I've drove both, and handling seems about the same - though they handle "different," they seem to have the same limits. The current CVPIs are pretty much limited to the 4.6 at the moment, since the 5.4 is too wide to fit, although I have seen a 6.8L conversion on the net. It would be nice to see the blown 390hp 4.6 DOHC that they put in the 03 cobra under the CV hood though, but I doubt ford would ever consider it.

Oh, contrary to popular beleif, the LT1s in the b-bodies are not the corvette engines, they arent even the f-body engines. And some 9C1s came with the 4.3 V8, which is a real pig IMO. They got the rest of the 9C1 package, just without the LT1.

Also contrary to popular beleif, Chevy did in fact make a 4.3 V8, nicknamed the "baby LT1," since it was a de-bored and de-stroked version of the 5.7 LT1. I've had other shadetree mechanics as well as "GM certified technicians" argue with me over this, which is one of several reasons I fix my own cars.

Well, that was a little longer than I thought it would be...

Zundfolge
October 4, 2004, 06:50 PM
I think the Dodge Boys are back in bidnizz!

Yes ... now that they are owned by Mercedes :neener:

JPL
October 4, 2004, 08:53 PM
"How do you compromise the design lines of a fine auto shape? Stick an extra pair of doors on it. *blech*"

It's always baffled me how so many people can look at a money sucking chunk of tin and become all doey-eyed... :)

2nd Amendment
October 4, 2004, 11:05 PM
I love cars. I make my living off of cars. I think they are just plain cool. Even as I am beating a ratchet off the radiator support in frustration I still love 'em. Well, most of 'em. Most of the time...

38SnubFan
October 9, 2004, 09:49 AM
I really can't speak fairly about this, considering that I just purchased a 2000 Ford ZX2 coupe about 3 weeks ago, thus returning to Ford products a 3rd time (First Ford was an 86 Ranger - should have never traded it in! :banghead: , and the second was a 95 Escort LX Sport coupe - got hit by a 24' box truck :mad: :banghead: :cuss: ).

I've never driven the Crown Vic, but have talked to many police officers who have, and my boss (who is a part-time police officer) drives an Interceptor as well. The overall opinion from these officers is that they don't handle bad, they've driven worse; but Yes, they could stand to accelerate a little better. As far as top speed, they'll go to over 120 MPH just fine.....100 MPH is a dangerous speed to be at in a pursuit.....and at 120+.....high risk for a fatality. Cops and civilians are both forced to the same fact: Your chances of being killed in an accident at 55 MPH is 50%. For each 5 MPH after that, those chances increase an additional 5%. This means at 105 MPH, your chances of being killed are 100% - cop or not.

So I'm sorry to say, but in my opinion (and I've done A LOT of driving in A LOT of different vehicles, from motorcycles to 18-wheelers), Mr. Morris does not have a good lawsuit. The fact that he attempted to purchase more Ford CVPIs while in litigation with them makes his case look frivolous as well.

When I worked as a Director Of Campus Safety for a law school about 5 1/2 years ago, my patrol vehicle was a 1994 Caprice with "police package" (a retired LE vehicle). Acceleration was impressive, as well as braking. It even had a nice soft ride to it. Unfortunately, the handling seemed "loose", and the cornering abilities of the car were very sloppy, as any corner attempted faster than 25 MPH wanted to kick the rear tires loose from the road. On wet roads, it was worse: it ALWAYS spun it's rear tires from a standing stop, unless you pressed the accelerator with a "feather-light" touch - this was even with high-quality "wet traction" tires.

Just to show I'm not partial to either Chevy or Ford, I offer this: the Public Safety department I currently work for has two vehicles - a 2004 Ford Explorer Sport Trac and a 2002 Chevy S-10 P/U. The Ford is at the dealer for a new transmission at 11,000 miles; the Chevy is at its dealer for repairs after the wiring behind the dashboard caught fire, with about 19,000 miles on that vehicle.

Both car companies are known for faults with all models of vehicles they sell. Regardless, I don't know of ANY vehicle that can withstand a rear-end collision at high speed and NOT cause serious injury or death to its occupant(s).

At least they are not patrolling in some of the dorky little cars that some European and Asian agencies use. You'd be suprised at how well some of those little cars handle and how fast they go. Consider that European and Asian cars aren't subject to the emissions regulations the are imposed on US vehicles. This means a 30 to 40 horsepower boost on cars weighing less than 3,000 lbs. That's a lot of power. Also (sorry to say) European law enforcement officers are far-more highly trained at operating their "mini-cruisers" at high speeds than we are. (I remember watching something on PBS where they "live-train" officers, using real police cars pursuing a "chase car" on real roads in real traffic. More suprising, they operate the lights, siren, radio, etc. while shifting a manual-transmission car! And....their accident rates are lower than our LEOs here.)

Just my $.02,
38SnubFan

WT
October 9, 2004, 10:07 AM
Is South Carolina SP still running BMW's? A few years ago I saw one parked at the airport near Clemson.

Then again, I've seen NJSP running a Volvo.

BeLikeTrey
October 9, 2004, 11:25 AM
yes ther is one or two still in use as far as I know. they have a few BMW bikes as well. VERY NICE. wish I knew one of the guys on the bike group. I'd love to compare with my superhawk!

jefnvk
October 9, 2004, 11:16 PM
Here's an idea, if you wanna car that'll withstand a 90mph wreck:

Outfit some NASCAR cup cars. They're built to take a lickin' and go fast. :D

Moparmike
October 10, 2004, 06:25 PM
This means at 105 MPH, your chances of being killed are 100% - cop or not.Then I should have died about 10 times by now.



However, chasing some crazed psycho is a little different than doing 130 on an empty-ish interstate.

Buck Snort
October 10, 2004, 08:27 PM
Hey, the CV is a PASSENGER CAR fer crissake!! It ain't no damned BATTLE TANK!! If the sheriff is all that concerned about the "defective" auto then he should pony up and have BIG rear bumpers installed.

2nd Amendment
October 10, 2004, 10:21 PM
Oh, contrary to popular beleif, the LT1s in the b-bodies are not the corvette engines, they arent even the f-body engines. And some 9C1s came with the 4.3 V8, which is a real pig IMO. They got the rest of the 9C1 package, just without the LT1.

Also contrary to popular beleif, Chevy did in fact make a 4.3 V8, nicknamed the "baby LT1," since it was a de-bored and de-stroked version of the 5.7 LT1. I've had other shadetree mechanics as well as "GM certified technicians" argue with me over this, which is one of several reasons I fix my own cars.


OK, I waited a few days till I could do some digging before I commented on this, and yeah, it's so far off topic it's silly...but anyway...

The early Caprice had the throttle-body 350 Chevy motor(the L88?) until '93. The Roadmonster and Fleetwood shared this. In '94 the Caprice got the LT1 across the board, as did the Buick and Caddy. The police package from '94 to '96 was just heavier suspensions and brakes and an oil cooler and a certified Speedo(and some cosmetic things like cheap bucket seats and steel Rally wheels).

OK, so the early cars were certainly not the 'vette derived LT1 but from '94 on as far as I can tell they definitely were. These engines were slightly detuned(and supposedly some cop cars got ones that were NOT detuned) with different fuel rails, MAF's and slightly different timing. Otherwise they are, as far as I can tell(and I've been into more than a couple of 'em over the years in 'vettes, T/A's and Caddys)the 'vette motor. So how were they not the well known LT1? I can find no parts differences whatsoever except the ones I noted. Oh, and the comps are different. There's actually numerous comps, some without the speed-limiter.

Over the years I have noted a wild difference in performance ability among these cars. My mom had a '94 Roadmonster that was just wicked. Her first '94 Fleetwood was, too. Her second is frankly a dog(even slower than my TBI '93 Fleetwood was). My current Fleetwood is another torque monster that I'd put up against the best cop cars I've driven. And among Caprices I have noted huge differences in acceleration. All this leads me to believe that along with very different parameters in the computers some of these cars certainly got at the very least engines that were intended for the T/A or Impala SS.

Lastly. I have bought and sold a LOT of Caprices over the years. I've seen 'em with TBI and LT1 and the 4.3 V-6 but I have never, ever, seen one with a 4.3 V-8. I've heard the occasional tale of this motor but not one person I've talked to has ever seen one, either. I've got a Chevy parts guy looking for service bulletins on them now but he, also, said he's never seen one. You got any links or info? I would love to snag one of these just to build one for the helluvit. But really it sounds like one of those things that never made it to production, like the DOHC 506(8.3L) V-8 GMC had on the shelf a few years back.

roo_ster
October 10, 2004, 11:51 PM
4.3 V8 & V6

I do suspect the 4.3 in the Caprice was a V6, the "3/4 350," as a buddy liked to call it.

I owned a 1981 Ponitac Grand Prix Broughm with a Pontiac 4.3L V8. What a dog. It was only offered in 1981. Did I mention it was a dog? But, very pretty.

2nd Amendment
October 10, 2004, 11:57 PM
Hmm, I just realized something, Chevy DID make a 4.3L...in 1955. The 265.

Jamie B
October 16, 2004, 02:52 PM
Ford backwards is Definately Return On Foot

Jamie

ilcylic
October 16, 2004, 03:01 PM
Moparmike: if you've been in 10 105+ mph crashes...

Maybe you oughtta slow down... :)

-Ogre

Zach S
October 16, 2004, 07:03 PM
OK, I waited a few days till I could do some digging before I commented on this, and yeah, it's so far off topic it's silly...but anyway... Yeah, other people were talking about other police cars so I thought I would too. That and the fact I get really chatty when I'm tired. Not so chatty that I talk to myself when no one else listens, I just think out loud;) Anyway...

In 1994 the B bodies did not get the LT1 across the board. The LT1 was optional, the base model engine was in fact the L99 4.3 V8, to replace the base-model 305 in the earlier b-bodies. Dont know about the Caddies, other than the fact that they're really nice.

I've been told that the biggest difference in the block was that the B and F bodies had two bolt mains, the vette had four-bolt. The F body also has alumimum heads, as does the Vette, B bodies had iron heads IIRC. Cams were also different for every car. Havent looked into to MAFs and such, the only difference I'm sure of were interal. I'm not saying that the LT1s you saw in TA werent LT1s, they were just tuned different, just like the 350 in a 92 chevy truck and the 350 in the Camaro.

The wild prefomance difference would probably come from the fact that there were two different displacements in the LT1 family of engines. 85 cubes does make a big difference, as can gears, tuning and the condition of the engine.

Lastly, I have never seen a V6 Powered Caprice, but I'm not saying they dont exist. The fact that no one has ever seen this 4.3 V8 I speak of may be because they have the same external deminsions and accesories as the LT1 (hence the nickname, "baby LT1") The easiest way to tell them apart is either by looking at the exhaust (all L99s came with single exhast stock, all LT1s had dual exhaust), look at the 8th digit of the vin (P is the 5.7, W is the 4.3), or by simply looking at the emissions label on the radiator support. My 94 9C1 has single exhaust (not for long, hopefully), 8th digit is W, and says 4.3 on the emissions label, ans has eight plug wires, so you have, in fact, spoke with someone who not only has seen one, but currently owns one.

I realize this may not be proof enough, so you are welcome to look around the NAISSO forums (http://www.impalasuperstore.com/naisso/forum2002/default.asp), or you could go to every to every parts store website and see what engines were available for a 1994 Caprice. Autozone.com, napaonline.com, and partsamerica.com, all list the 4.3L 265ci V8. Napa is the only one that lists the 4.3L 262ci V6, in addition to the 4.3 V8. If that doesnt satisfy you, then check out the goodwrench website, where you can purchase a replacement 4.3 L99 V8 (http://www.gmpartsdepot.com/store/product1.aspx?SID=2&Product_ID=489&Category_ID=74) for just under $4300. More than what you'd pay for an LT1 shortblock at a junkyard, not to mention the LT4 intake, heads, and cam new from summitracing.com. Depending on how much the LT1 shortblock cost, one could also pay for the different fuel rails and have the computer reprogrammed. If I ever make it that far, I hope to have hooker headers on the 4.3.

It seems I have once again found myself in an online urinating competition because the motor in one of my cars suposedly doesnt exist, but at least its not in a chatroom.

I think I'll end my childish post with IM RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG:neener:

Dont take it personally...

2nd Amendment
October 16, 2004, 09:49 PM
Ah well, what the hell...

I do this for a living. Have in one form or another for 20 years. So away we go... :)

The Roadmaster, Olds wagons and all Fleetwoods had the LT1 motor from '94 up. There was no option. 4 bolt vs 2 bolt is random. I've seen both. Aluminum heads vs iron is also random. My fleetwood and both the folk's have/had aluminum. Their Roady had iron, my Caprices have had both.

The 4.3 V-8 and V-6. Just gonna havta take your word on it. I've never seen anything in a '94 up Caprice except the 5.7(350)LT1. In the other B bodies there are no options except the 350 LT1, period. From '91 to '93 I have seen the 4.3 V-6, the 5.0(305) V-8 and the 5.7 TBI motor(which was the only available engine in the BOC cars until '94. I know the 4.3 V-6 was available for the Caprice from '94 up, but again never seen one.

You have a RARE motor. As for spending $4300 for one. Um...hehehe...HA! I've never spent that much on a motor for anything in my life(and I admit I avoid diesels and European cars like the plague) and the day I do it better say Northstar or Cobra on it somewhere. :)

Moparmike
October 17, 2004, 06:51 PM
Moparmike: if you've been in 10 105+ mph crashes...

Maybe you oughtta slow down...

-Ogre


ilcylic, no, I havent been in any crashes like that. I was just commenting on 38snubfan's assertion that there is a 100% chance of death at over 100mph. NASCAR fans must tune in for the spontaneous combustion seen on the driver-cams.:scrutiny:

38SnubFan
October 17, 2004, 11:43 PM
Moparmike:

Saying that the chances are 100% doesn't necessarily mean that it WILL happen. Just saying that it COULD. There are plenty of us out there who are trained to handle vehicles in high speed in stressful situations, but for the average driver in your everyday passenger car/truck/SUV, that's probably a pretty good statistic.

I just know I wouldn't want to wreck at that speed, no matter what I was driving (short of a race car with a LOT of safety measures).

-38SnubFan

Zach S
October 18, 2004, 07:23 AM
Saying that the chances are 100% doesn't necessarily mean that it WILL happen. :scrutiny: Uh, ok....

What are you talking about, getting into an accident at 100+ or dying in an accident at 100+?

My Fairmont is capable of 140:D I'll never drive it that fast again though.

Coronach
October 18, 2004, 12:03 PM
When I worked as a Director Of Campus Safety for a law school about 5 1/2 years ago, my patrol vehicle was a 1994 Caprice with "police package" (a retired LE vehicle). Acceleration was impressive, as well as braking. It even had a nice soft ride to it. Unfortunately, the handling seemed "loose", and the cornering abilities of the car were very sloppy, as any corner attempted faster than 25 MPH wanted to kick the rear tires loose from the road. On wet roads, it was worse: it ALWAYS spun it's rear tires from a standing stop, unless you pressed the accelerator with a "feather-light" touch - this was even with high-quality "wet traction" tires.

1. You can't judge the handling of a cruiser by running an old one. Cops beat the holy heck out of the suspensions in their cars, and Fleet Maintenance rarely bothers to fix them properly. I've been in CVs and Caprices that feel like you're rolling around on a pumpkin when your corner. I've also driven ones that were tight and firm. The Caprice that I drove was a reconditioned one, but it obviously had a redone and well-tuned suspension that we had not yet managed to beat back into the ground. Still, a modern CV handles better than a Caprice in good shape- at least in my experience.

2. The Caprice will break its rear wheels loose pretty easily. More easily than a CV. This has a lot to do with why it is also quicker in accelleration than a CV. TANSTAAFL. ;)

3. For everyone sneering about the possibility of there being a safety issue, consider: Ford is retrofitting the CVs to avoid this issue. To me, this means that there is something to this issue. Possibly not as much as the PDs are claiming, but at least something. Cars shouldn't burst into flames in accidents, even high speed ones.

4. Shouldn't we be talking about the legal/rights issues more thn cars? Yes, yes...mea culpa. :D

Mike

PS Btw, CVs handle pretty well at about 135mph :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Ford can deny its cars to sheriff, judge rules" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!