Oh, NICE post FastDEW!

 

I understand your talking about acceleration and not top-end. The issue is the same though. The city departments do not want the officers driving too fast and creating added liability for the city. Think about it this way. If the top-end were to be limited at 110 mph for both the 5.4 and the 4.6 the liability of high-speed accidents would still be greater with the 5.4 due to it's ability of time to speed being shorter than the 4.6. If an officer is pursuing a vehicle in city streets the faster the patrol unit can get to speed the greater risk exists for all. Some of the issue is that the harder you pursue someone, the harder they run. If the vehicle can now reach 80 MPH in the same city block that previously the vehicle could only hit 60 MPH, the risk of a high speed collision is greater. Again, the 4.6 gets the job done that 90% of the departments need and want.

There are some departments in desert areas and such that want a better performing vehicle, but these are getting to be fewer and fewer. Technology rules here... you can radio for another car, bring in a chopper, coordinate with another department and many other ways to get the crook without risking such high speeds to the public and the pursuing officer. This all helps the city, county, state, etc. keep liability lower than it might otherwise be.

I recall when we were showing the 4.6 DOHC to the CHP, they loved the top speed of 149 MPH, but it also scared the heck out of them that an officer might be able to run that fast. Just a few months ago in CA on the back side of the Grapevine a CHP officer lost his life when the CV he was driving lost control and he crashed at over 100 MPH. I also recall a number of years ago in Long Beach, CA when an officer in one of the LT1 units was on the 710 FWY at night and crashed in excess of 130 MPH. The car split in two pieces and the front half ended up 1/2 mile away from the back half. I am sure there are many other examples of this type that all point to the 4.6 and other equivalent power vehicles having a good combination of performance vs. safety. The 4.6 installed in the CV combo in particular is a very robust vehicle. The departments can run these hard and long while keeping the costs down. The other attraction to the CV is the load capacity. Have you ever looked in a patrol car? The trunk and passenger compartment are full of gear and the vehicle must still survive curb hops and dips at high speeds. The 4.6 also works well in high heat envronments during extended idle.

All around it is a great combination and Ford will keep their market share with the 4.6 CV vehicle.

 

Otherwise known as a Marauder

Are they even still available?

 

I remember reading that ford/mercury scrapped the marauder. It was only in production 2 years before it kicked the bucket. I always thought it was a nice car inside/out with lots of power. http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/ov...model=Marauder

 

Nope ... scrapped. I liked the Marauder but it did not sell well. As was mentioned earlier the CV is a good grandpa mobile and not too many grandpa types looking to scare grandma into submission

 

Boo Hoo.... I was kinda liking that car...

I had an '82 Ford LTD wagon I got when my mother passed. 302 ... I put a set of shocks in it, it had the biggest front sway bar EVER ... and put an F250 camper special sway bar in the back (yes, it liked to wag it's tail under pressure ... but I had to avoid an obstacle on the highway at 75MPH and swerved ... with good tires, I corrected just right and it just handled it like nothing.

Big car, nice balance - well, station wagon, too butt-heavy, but, still, VERY predictable.

Hmm... now I'm going to have to walk down the block to a neighbor who has a Marauder parked out front all the time ...

 

Oh, and that LTD wagon got a 289 that was 10.5:1 compression, nice cam, etc... it could go FAST... too fast

(yes, an adapter had to be fitted to the 289's harmonic balancer to make it a serpentine - my friend got me into a big machine shop on the weekend and I made one)

So, I'm sitting here understanding the fascination with a higher-power CV...

 

I understand your point. I know liability is the issue. I also realize that many of the urban/suburban departments are going to a non-pursue policy for that reason alone.

The first couple of minutes of a persuit are critical in determining the suspects direction of travel to be able to radio ahead for cut-offs, road blocks, copters. My point was having the extra few seconds given to an officer to determine that. Apparently it isn't worth the added seconds versus the liabilty, although I can see that the officer's actions, as well as the suspect's actions, can fall back on a department in this day and age. Persuit policy or not, it seems that we've fallen into the laps of lawyers.

-Kerry

 

I agree with that for sure.

 

I had a 69 LTD Wagon with the 390 in it. Thing really screamed. What was very cool though was my 70 Pontiac Wagon with the 455 - Wow! What a rocket that was.

To bad... back in the old days even the family haulers had b*lls... Not any more.

 

On second thought, the gas was much cheaper back then and a big blocks thirst would not kill you. Today ... Ouch! My V10 just cost me $82 to fill up in the great state of CA.

 

I forgot to mention, that the station wagon my mother had before the LTD was a '65 Fairlane 500 wagon w/2bbl 289.

That's where the 289 came from It seemed fitting.

That Fairlane did 105. It might have done much better if my mother hadn't driven it for a while after blowing all the oil out the idiot-light sender - TWICE. At 120K miles, it knocked a lot, but held together until I pulled it apart. Crank needed like .010/.020 or so... and still did 105. Hair-raising... I was waiting for a piston to come through the windshield...

 

Quick accelleration, which comes with a powerful car is actually a safety advantage. Why do people think that police departments used Mustang 5 liters, Camaro 350s, Caprice LT1 350/260 hp patrol cars? The reason was that long , drawn out police chases could be avoided if police had a quick accelerating patrol, which could stop the offender, before the chase began. The vehicles I previously mentioned had that capability.

The 4.6 CV doesn't and as a result, in many cases, when there is not much acceleration difference between the police and offender, the chase becomes long and drawn out.

Interesting national news story (60 minutes or a similar show, can't remember)a couple of years ago, from Florida. State police bought 200 of the last Camaro police packages. Why? Because they were getting involved in too many unsuccessful , long and drawn out chases with CVs.

They immediately noticed the difference, in the drop in chases. Some offenders, would just automatically pull over to the side of the road, when they realized the flashing light, police vehicle was a Camaro. They knew they couldn't out run it. Same thing with the Mustang 5 liter.

Deterrent by using overwhelming odds, is a big factor in police work.

 

You explained it better than I did. That was my original point about acceleration in a better explanation.

Problem would be that without some recognizeable feature, suspects would believe they were running from a standard CV. Once they start, they seldom have any rational thoughts.

-Kerry

 

Sounds like a good theory. But in practice, the cities really don't even want the officer to pursue unless it is an extreme circumstance and even then, why hit any high speeds, just get a chopper on it. If you look at most chases in CA, the CHP are trained to work on keeping speeds down if at all possible. I understand your theory and perhaps it is correct, but one fact still remains. When we try to sell the CV with more power, over 90% of the departments don't want it. The customer rules.