|
Head-to-Head Comparison
Here's where the rubber meets the road so to speak...
Performance - The Caprice gets a "qualified" nod in this
area. It is qualified because the Caprice needs to be a
1994-1996 LT-1 model to win. A 1992 or newer Crown Vic beats
any other model Caprice due to higher horsepower (170-205 hp
for Caprice compared to 210-215 hp for Crown Vics) and in
body weight (the Crown Vic is lighter). The 1994-1996 LT-1
Caprice will whoop a Crown Vic performance wise, but that's
the only one that can do it. Otherwise, the Crown Vic wins
this category.
Price - Since there were more Caprices made each year than
Crown Vics, the prices of Caprices tend to be about $1,000
to $1,500 less than a same model year Crown Vic. Also since
the 1996 and older Caprices are getting on in years, their
price points are dropping faster. So overall a Caprice is
usually cheaper than a same year Crown Vic (up to the 1996
model year).
|
|
|
Handling - Here I think Crown Vics get the nod over the
Caprice. The Crown Vic's traction control, ABS, and
high-ratio power steering make the car handle better than
any Caprice I've driven. Not that the Caprice is a slacker
in this regard, it's just that the Crown Vic is better.
Economy - This is another area where the Ford wins. The
Crown Vic averages three to five MPG better than the Caprice
due to a lighter body and more fuel efficient engines. The
LT-1 Caprice has more power, and here's where you pick up
the tab for that power (hey... you gotta take the good with
the bad).
Maintainability - Most Caprice owners that I have talked to
agree (however reluctantly) that they are more prone to
experiencing mechanical problems than Crown Vic owners.
These problems range from minor (alternators, P/S pumps,
etc.) to major (transmission problems are a biggy). Most
Crown Vic problems are minor and stem from front-end
suspension components wearing out (ball joints, rod ends,
etc.)
Style - This is a highly subjective area, and very difficult
to quantify. Like looking at a member of the opposite sex,
one person can see a swan while another sees the ugly
duckling. For me personally, I think the 92-97 Crown Vics
win the styling battle hands down. I do not like the 98 and
newer Crown Vic styling as it looks too much like a modified
1996/97 Mercury Marquis (which is exactly what it is). I
like the aero styling of the 1992-1997s, but to be fair I
hated that body style when it first came out so opinions
change.
As for Caprices, AKA "Rolling Baked Potatos", I have never
really liked the 1991-1996 body style. It will always look
like a stretched Volkswagen Beetle to me. Opening the wheel
wells on the 1993 and newer models made the car look 100
percent better, but I still don't think it looks as nice as
the leaner-looking Crown Vic.
So who wins? That depends on what you're looking for. If
your primary concerns are power and price, the 1994-1996
LT-1 Caprice is your car. If your concerns are on
maintenance costs, fuel costs, and handling, the Ford wins.
As for styling, it's whatever makes your heart beat a little
faster and your gut ache a bit that wins!!! And the only one
who knows which car does that for you is you, so you get to
make that call.
So in summary, yes Virginia... some Caprices do have more
horse power and performance than the Crown Victoria. But
here's something to think about: When I was younger and
driving a 1973 Plymouth Roadrunner with a 600HP,
highly-modified, engine, I had a good friend who had a
hopped up Corvette. He would always ding me on the fact that
while my car was faster off the line and through the
quarter, his car had far better maneuverability and
handling. We were stationed in Virginia at the time, and I
would point out to him that the only twisting, winding,
roads around were the on and off ramps on I-64. All that
handling crap may be great when you're in the Alps, or
driving along the California coastline, but on flat,
straight, roads it doesn't mean diddly.
I look at performance in used police cruisers the same way,
i.e., what good is it? How many of us are taking our cars to
the drag strip? Not many. I usually don't go any faster than
about 65-70 mph, so why would I care about being able to go
130? 65-70 will get me a ticket... 130 will land me in jail.
So as far as I am concerned, the importance of the
performance delta between the CV and the Caprice is only
good for bragging rights, especially when you realize that
the net gain in HP doesn't result in all that much of a
performance gain (I mean, we're not talking the difference
between a 318 2-barrel and a 426 Hemi here... we're talking
about 40 HP with a lot of limiting factors like body weight
and drag thrown in.) So if I don't have a need for the
slight increase in performance, why sacrifice the styling,
mileage, model year, and reliability benefits that the CV
has? This
article first appeared
here.
|
|