"Kah-chank, kah-chank, kah-chank..." The sound of the 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis' turn signals are enough to trigger unconscious sense memories of your dad's old Colony Park wagon or your grandfather's Turnpike Cruiser. That's not the sound of microprocessors at work or carefully metered, market-researched synthetic tones. It's the sound of real switches opening and closing. You know, like those big levers that turned on the electrodes in Dr. Frankenstein's lab. It's throwback technology.
The Grand Marquis is the very last of its breed: the full-size, front-engine, rear-drive, V8-powered, solid-rear-axle, American-made mainstream sedan underpinned by a full frame and available to retail buyers. GM killed its big body-on-frame cars back in 1996 and Chrysler hasn't had a traditional full-size sedan for sale since 1981. Ford's Crown Victoria, the Grand Marquis' virtual twin, has since 2008 been only available to fleets — most often as a cab or cop car. Lincoln dealers are still selling the Grand Marquis' sister, the Town Car, but well, that's a luxury machine. Anyhow, all of Ford's "Panther" platform big cars — the Grand Marquis, the Crown Vic and Town Car — are doomed.
Ford is shutting down the Mercury division, and sometime during the fourth quarter of this year the very last Mercury of them all will be produced. Maybe that last Mercury will be a Mariner small SUV or a Milan compact sedan. But, if there's such a thing as poetic justice, it ought to be a Grand Marquis.
And this is likely to be Inside Line's last test of a new Mercury. Ever.
Oldest School Possible
The Grand Marquis hasn't changed much since its current generation was introduced for the 1992 model year. But while even by that measure the Marquis is ancient, in many ways it's older than that. After all, while the exterior sheet metal and drivetrain were new for '92, much of the chassis carried over from the first "downsized" Panther platform versions of the full-size Ford products that first showed up as 1979 models. And while the Panther was scaled down from previous Ford behemoths, it's at least conceptually not much different from the all coil-sprung full-size chassis introduced for 1965.
In fact, the Grand Marquis has changed so little over the years that Ford hasn't bothered posting updated information about it on its media Web site since 2008. And there aren't any examples in Ford's press fleet either. Inside Line rented this Grand Marquis LS "Ultimate Edition" from Avis. Or was it Thrifty? Maybe it was Enterprise.
It's not even dead yet and Ford can't wait to bury the Grand Marquis.
Terrible, Lovable
The 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis doesn't have seats in the way other cars do. Instead it accommodates up to six passengers in what would qualify as couches if they were installed in a dentist's waiting room.
Upholstered in "leather trim" that feels like industrial-grade vinyl, the rear couch has the consistently squishy padding of a freshly baked Twinkie. Sitting back there it's as if there's a constant gravity trying to suck you down until your butt travels through a black hole and pokes out in some random other part of the universe. But there are 38 inches of rear legroom (0.8 inch more than what a 2010 Honda Accord sedan offers) and because you sit so far back in the seat, it seems like more. There's also a large parcel shelf between the top of the seat and the rear window that's a perfect platform for constructing a stuffed animal diorama, or for your lap dog to nap.
The driver doesn't so much sit in the split front couch as sprawl across it. Get in and your lower body instinctively slouches toward the transmission center hump while your left shoulder slumps into the door and left arm naturally perches up on the door sill. That's how you drive the Grand Marquis — right hand on the wheel, left elbow sticking out the window, legs spread apart and, ideally, your belly drooping over the seatbelt. Sit in this car like it's a BMW or Mercedes and there's no way to get comfortable. There's six-way power adjustment and power lumbar support built into the front driver's lounge, but no amount of fiddling will result in anything resembling an ergonomically correct driving position.
The 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis' interior is for people who like to loosen their belt a few notches after conquering the buffet at Golden Corral and have to wait for their blood sugar to stabilize before turning the ignition key. It's the automotive equivalent of a food coma. It doesn't get any better than that.
Hey, on the way home, let's stop at Red Lobster!
Slow and Built To Stay That Way
On Inside Line's scales, the Grand Marquis weighed in at not-that-porky 4,042 pounds — about 158 pounds lighter than the Cadillac CTS-V coupe that just showed its taillights to the BMW M3. But where that Caddy has 556 horsepower to push it around, the Grand Marquis has just 224. That's a grim 18 pounds per hp.
It's a truck cleverly disguised as a four-door sedan.
Power for the 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis comes from Ford's familiar and creamy smooth 4.6-liter SOHC 16-valve iron-block "Modular" V8. Asthmatically exhaling through a single exhaust, the Mod motor operates in virtual silence mostly because it's not doing very much. The engine sort of lazily builds revs when the accelerator is slammed to the floor and then gives out an almost audible sigh of relief when the four-speed automatic transmission makes one of its mushy shifts.
Speed is a relative thing, and relatively speaking, the Grand Marquis is slow. It takes the barge 9.3 seconds to reach 60 mph (9.0 seconds with 1 foot of rollout as on a drag strip) and it steams through the quarter-mile in 16.7 seconds at 84.6 mph. A Honda CR-Z hybrid will crush it in any heads-up race.
But turn off the traction control, put the column shifter into Reverse, let the Marquis run out toward its terminal velocity going backward, and this thing does absolutely spectacular Jim Rockford-certified reverse 180s. It's simply a matter of slamming the shifter into Drive in the middle of its twirl and the Grand Marquis waltzes away. So if you're a P.I. and often find yourself running from assorted pissed-off people, the Grand Marquis isn't all bad.
Wallow World
Riding on modest 225/60R17 Michelin Energy LX4 all-season tires apparently equipped with "Super Squeal" technology, the Grand Marquis isn't built to handle as much as it is to smother. This car leans over on its suspension even when you're parallel parking. On Inside Line's slalom course it felt like it was going to scrape its door handles off on the pavement. But it's not like you can concentrate on that since the car is swinging its tail by the end of the second gate, and without some serious steering correction, the car will spin off like Oksana Baiul after losing an all-night game of Quarters.
Yeah, the big Mercury made it through the slalom in a numb 58.4 mph with the traction control off. And it managed to hold on to the skid pad all the way to 0.78g. But that doesn't tell the handling story.
The 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis is a car built for one-handed operation. Taken on its own terms as a cruiser built to slowly chase the horizon, it works great. The rack-and-pinion steering actually has good on-center feel and it does well in cutting through the urban jungle with surprising agility. Of course, the chassis never lets the driver know what's going on and the full frame adds an additional level of anesthesia to the whole enterprise, but the float and wallow are novelties compared to all the other cars out there pretending to be BMWs. It's fun in its own dorky way.
Braking, on the other hand, is just this side of terrifying. Not that the ABS-aided 127-foot stopping distance from 60 mph was all that terrible (though it was hardly good) or the fade extreme. It was the nose dive — so extreme from the driver seat it looked as if the car was aiming to drill down through the pavement.
Conclusively Archaic
With its huge trunk, capacious interior and rugged construction, the Grand Marquis still makes sense as a commercial sedan. It's a truck cleverly disguised as a four-door sedan. And with a starting price of $30,685 it's a lot of car for the money.
It costs a lot less if you're buying your Grand Marquis a dozen at a time, too.
But in today's world, the 2010 Mercury Grand Marquis is hard to justify for us civilians. A new 2011 Ford Taurus does everything a Grand Marquis does except hold six people. And it does it all more comfortably, more precisely, more quickly and more enjoyably for about the same or less money. And in the real world, the Taurus will get much better fuel economy, too (the Grand Marquis is EPA rated at 16 mpg in the city and 24 on the highway). In today's context, it's a goofball. For the record, there is a 2011 Grand Marquis which, inexplicably, costs $125 more than the one we tested here. Somehow the whole concept of model years seems inconsistent with this grand old dame.
But it's tough to see the Grand Marquis go. It represents more than a century of body-on-frame American cars and it's not without its particular and very peculiar charms. And soon, we just won't build them that way anymore.
Edmunds rented this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation. Seriously.
Add A Comment »
otter_castle says:
03:45 PM, 08/08/2011
Wow, seems to be more like Edmunds Inquirer than a review. Very smarmy.
I have owned my 2010 Marquis since new, and it performs the way I intended.
As a full size normal car. Not as an autobahn burner, not as an econo sled, but
as a comfortable everday auto. Comparing it to an equivilant BMW or Benz would be like
comparing a Town Car to a Smart-car (how mis-named was that) .
As for comfort? I am 6'2" 220lbs. No, sorry Mr.Pray, belly is not hanging over the seatbelt.
But I do have room to drive in comfort. More than I can say for a "reasonable" priced
Euro offering.
And honestly, for what it is, 1/4 mile performance? Slalom? Mr.Pray may possibly be
showing us his lack of real world automobile experience, or lack of maturity. One does not
abuse a car by putting it through what it is NOT designed for.
The review was high on deprecating hyperbole and low on objectivity.
The comments by actual daily users of the product were much more appreciated.
mgmproud says:
10:22 PM, 05/11/2011
First of all, I love my 05 MGM. When I test drive a vehicle, I test in the category of the vehicle. For instance, if i´m test driving a sports car, I test for handling, braking, acceleration and the like. When I test drive a luxury car, I test for...well...luxury. The Mercury GRAND Marquis is not supposed to handle like a sports car. I love my leather seats, I love when my Merc leans around corners. She´s telling me, she is in the zone and she is doing exactly what she was designed to do - keep me comfortable, keep me secure and not slam me into the door. I´ve owned a 7 series BMW, it is a different car all together. BMW´s are large sports cars and I loved my 735i. It was quick, responsive, true to its format and I drove it accordingly.
The MGM is, in its own right, is ¨the ultimate driving machine.¨ We are talking about a 4000+ lb beast that handles itself very well. If you drive like a fool, the tale end will break away on virtually any vehicle. The MGM brakes responsively and accelerates well for a heavy car and the body roll is part its character. We don´t slalom in the Merc, we cruise.
Highlight what the MGM was made for, keep it in its category.
ingobreuer says:
12:35 PM, 05/01/2011
To me the Mercury Grand Marquis is one of the most comfortable cars and best driving experiences. I now live in Germany and drive a Mercedes C180 but when I travel to the US and rent a Grand Marquis, I definitely prefer the comfort of the Grand Marquis over any other car including the Benz. In fact, back when I lived in the US I even drove the old 1986 Grand Marquis and that was the best driving experience I ever had. I prefer that over any of that European so-called "premium" stuff. That car had the right size, the right engine, the right seats (like recliners). I think there is still a demand for old-time American cars. Sedans with sis seat benches and old-fashioned trucks! I don't like how the Grand Marquis is being run down in the above article. This car represented affordable luxury. You could get for $16000 what you couldn't from Mercedes for $32000. My demand: Bring back the Grand Marquis and the Crown Victoria. Don't make'm loook like a European or Japanese car. Keep'em American! I already like the sound of the door shutting at the Grand Marquis. I traveled overnight and didn't stop at a motel because the seats were so comfortable! And the sound of that V8 engine is just wonderful. America is losing a great car. It is time that Mercury, Lincoln, Oldsmobile and Pontiac come back and start building cars that will wean Americans once and for all from VW, Toyota, Honda etc. I appreciate the Grand Marquis and will miss it a lot. I wish I could have taken it with me to Germany!!!
lotsofmiles1 says:
10:56 PM, 02/16/2011
I have a 97 Grand Marquis I love the the car its showing the hard use I give it. But it still runs vary good just did some front end work and new cats.But dam with 333000 miles on the same motor that came with it I think thats good and thats not all HWY miles. Oh also many hours just idling.I can whip that car all over the place. The j turns are so easy too but you did say that.I feel bad you guys dont know how to drive the old school car.But it could use more power thats for sure.The speed limiter bites too cuts out at just a hair over 105 mph but maybe thats a good thing.
grandnobleman says:
05:11 PM, 12/14/2010
I am highly dissapointed with these reviews. The 2010 Grand Marquis is a far cry from previous years but still deserves much more respect, if only for the name. These new age drivers are used to suckling the tits of cheap import vehicles that arent worth a damn.
northsparrow says:
06:55 PM, 11/23/2010
chlyn
I'm awarding you the IL Pulitzer for 2010. Thanks so much for taking the time to post your comprehensive analysis. I doubt I'll see a more thorough commentary anytime soon. I'll leave you with a few lines from
a favorite song,
As the ships and the steel slip away to the cry of compete....
royce_2011 says:
10:48 PM, 11/07/2010
@ cello_one: "...this car can have a TAPE deck as an option but NOT satellite radio. Books on tape anyone?"
I took delivery of my new 2011 model 5 days ago. Though not available already installed, the radio IS definitley SATELLITE READY. It has a button on it that says "SAT," and is ready to accept the available satellite tuner and antenna kit available through the dealer. As a matter of fact, I ordered it through my dealer a couple of days after getting the car. It's scheduled for installation as soon as the kit arrives.
And by the way - my radio is even the one with the CD and TAPE player! :-)
butch350 says:
10:43 AM, 11/04/2010
Let's see.....159000 miles...no problem...28 mpg on the road...VERY comfortable to drive....no mechanical issues EVER...yep must be my 2001 MGM. I don't know how old the "expert" is that wrote this piece of...(well you know) but judging by his brains he ain't been born yet! There IS a reason why Ford has sold so many of these cars. Most BMW drivers will never figure this out.
chlyn says:
11:38 AM, 09/29/2010
Sorry I 'm late to this posting party . And whoa! What divergence of opinion. I had no idea there are so many carheads out there who just don't quite get it. I mean really! Whoda thunk the elitist messengers of American automotive decline would hold such sway. You gotta realize some of these guys just write to rally the gullible into buying "the latest thing" or just to exercise their word prowess, such as it is or isn't. And remember this, it's probably easier to tear down valid car concepts with weak moronic humor, or even to damn them with faint and false praise, than to recognize, as dougmare did in his comments (great post, btw), that some cars are deserving of better press than Edmunds is dishing out. I'll admit though that the guys in the trunk bit made me laugh.
I've been behind a wheel since the 60s and I currently own a 2005 Grand Marquis Ultimate with 40,000 miles that I bought in 2008 with 20,000 miles for less than $14K. The market and the economy converged over me and I got the deal of a lifetime. (Well, as far as cars go anyway.) This car drives just the way I want it to, economically, smoothly, reliably and with just enough power. The power lumbar seats, similar to 1st class airline seats, are supremely comfortable and accommodating to my tricky back. And in spite of the writer's weak jokes about lumps and potatoes, there is no lumpiness. (I also liked the post just previous to mine from crownvic420 suggesting Edmund's writer might want to see an @ss doctor for a checkup maybe, as the problem is obviously elsewhere. Now THAT was funny.)
My Grand Marquis has all the luxury I need in this maxed out material world, and if I want more techno junk, I'll buy it a la cart. As it is, I already know how to read a map so I don't need nav, and I don't care if I ever have a Bluetooth. Who really needs or wants one? (What are they anyway?) Further, I wouldn't be caught dead in a foreign car showroom unless I moved overseas. When all the jobs have been shipped there, then maybe you'll "get that" too. Or maybe your kids will. (How about we import no cars from any country that refuses to welcome our cars into theirs?)
So go ahead, as Mr T might have said, buy that teched up econobox go-cart and be happy. (Just stay the hell off your cellphone please, and pay attention to your driving.) And if you have too much cash, it's certainly your choice to waste it too. See if I care when you buy that overwrought, overpriced, and over-engineered POS Asian or European luxury blingmobile. (Or an Escalade either!) And don't start cryin when you realize you've been had by the arbiters of taste who've sold you on the notion that you're not cool if you don't buy car X or spend X amount of money. Maybe you could stop with the "keeping up w/ the Joneses" stuff. Ya think? Finally, did you catch hwyhobo's post? Here it is again as he does a MGM comparo with a 7 series BMW:
"Average MPG: MGM 19, BMW 17
Turning Circle: MGM 40.3 ft, BMW 40
Luggage Capacity: MGM 20.6 cu ft., BMW 14 cu ft.
Stopping distance: MGM 127 ft., BMW 118 ft.
Lateral grip: MGM 0.78 g, BMW 0.89 g.
Price (per Edmunds TMV): MGM $28K, BMW $80K - any questions?"
As for the fake walnut interiors, I'd have to say that the MGM's fake wood is as good as most, and really, is that what makes a good car great? Is it worth spending an extra $50,000 to get better imitations, or even real wood? Or slightly improved performance enhancements? (I for one would rather send, or see you send, the $50,000 cost savings between the two above mentioned cars to a real project, like maybe for Doctors Without Borders or similar groups who fly around the world fixing cleft palettes for poor kids condemned to life as outcasts. At $250 a pop, you could fix up and save 200 kids. Imagine the joy in that. Or maybe you have a similar worthy project. Makes a little more sense, doesn't it? At least maybe think about it.)
With my 45 years of driving time, and my dad's 50 years in the biz, I know a good car when I'm in one. The Mercury Grand Marquis, pound for pound and dollar for dollar is, was and has been among the best deals ever in the automotive world. With over 4 million sold over 35 years or so (that's an average of about 300 cars a day EVERY DAY for the last 35 years), the MGM has been (to say nothing of the other Panthers) a smashing over-the-top success. Ford pulled the plug in the face of changing tastes and their own unwillingness to upgrade or to cater to an older demographic, it seems. Maybe the harvest will be better going forward with newfangled contraptions as it markets to younger buyers and ignores the older. God forbid any company be strapped with an older generation image. But remember this too. Sometimes older people actually know something beyond sports cars and fleeting and flashing facebook type narcissism, not to mention the quest for fawning attention and faux admiration. Your day will come for a "mature car" too. Too bad Panther cars won't be available for you on that day when you might want one. The elitist automotive press has finally killed them off, as some of the Panther car detractors not only don't know what quality looks like in a larger car at a reasonable price, many also probably couldn't spell VALUE even if you spotted them the first three letters. Even accounting for our differences in automotive taste, the blindness and stupidity are stunning.
crownvic420 says:
07:20 PM, 09/22/2010
Im a Crown Vic owner. I love the car, it has become sentamental to me and i can never sell it. Its convienient, cheap, and durable. The epa under estamates the fuel milage compleatly. I manage to get about 18 miles on a bad day and about 20 on a good one and thats in the suburbs. I love how it drives, its a smooth car and its very comforable. I have no i dea what your talking about when you say "sitting on the seats feels like sitting on a sack of potatoes", you should get ur ass checked out if your sayin that. It deffenatly is one of the most comfortable cars i have ever been in. it really isnt a performance car but its classy and good ole american car. But with the right mods it can be a great performance car. Im sad to see the panthers go. I would have loved to see ford make changes to improve the panther line instead of just getting rid of it.
Jake