1978 Mercury Grand Marquis on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This Mercury Cougar Eliminator is a lovely '69 survivor

If you have an overachieving brother/sister/cousin/friend (or whoever), you might know this feeling well; it can be tough to live up to those standards. In many ways, that notion can also describe the Mercury Cougar and its pioneering Ford Mustang sibling. Quite the act to follow, no? Happily though, the Cougar proved to be different enough from its Mustang relative to make a big splash, and perhaps no more so than in its racy "Eliminator" trim, new for 1969. This is one such heady Mercury, dressed in sporty Competition Orange paint, and claimed to be an unrestored "survivor." Need it in your life? The '69 Mercury Cougar Eliminator recently popped up on eBay in Chepachet, Rhode Island . The genesis of the Mercury Cougar began in 1967, really with one singular purpose—to bridge the gap between the Ford Mustang and the Ford Thunderbird with a more upscale, stylish, and chiefly more "European" feeling pony car. It's safe to say the Cougar fit the bill. Using the Mustang chassis as a base, the early Cougars were about three inches longer than their 'Stang cousins and offered better legroom, sleek front and rear fascias, and a more luxe interior. Don't mistake "upscale" for "soft" however; come 1969 the Eliminator package gave the Cougar a seriously mean attitude. Spec-up the interior package and you received high-back bucket seats, a Rallye clock, wood-rimmed steering wheel, and padded interior moldings among other custom trims. Outside is where the Eliminator really struts its stuff, though. Eliminators came equipped with a blacked-out grille, special steel wheels, an aggressive front splitter and rear wing, plus racy decals and side stripes. Four color choices were available — Competition Orange, Bright Blue Metallic, White, and Bright Yellow. As standard, the '69 Mercury Cougar Eliminator came equipped with a 351 cubic inch V8, boasting 290 horsepower, as seen in the case of this car. More powerful options were also available, as noted by Barnfinds, which included a big 390 cubic inch V8 (320 hp), a high-revving Boss 302 V8, and the gargantuan 428 Cobra Jet V8. Peek beneath the body of this Cougar and the 351ci V8 is hooked up to a desirable close-ratio four-speed manual transmission, showing a claimed 35,243 miles. Though the mileage isn't verified, the car's overall condition and wear would suggest the readings to be true. Befitting those low miles, this unrestored Cougar does carry quite the high price — a tall $32,000.

Impala SS vs. Marauder: Recalling Detroit’s muscle sedans 

Impala SS vs. Marauder — it was comparo that only really happened in theory. ChevyÂ’s muscle sedan ran from 1994-96, while MercuryÂ’s answer arrived in 2003 and only lasted until 2004. TheyÂ’re linked inextricably, as there were few options for powerful American sedans during that milquetoast period for enthusiasts. The debate was reignited recently among Autoblog editors when a pristine 1996 Chevy Impala SS with just 2,173 miles on the odometer hit the market on Bring a Trailer. Most of the staff favored the Impala for its sinister looks and said that it lived up to its billing as a legit muscle car. Nearly two-thirds of you agree. We ran an unscientific Twitter poll that generated 851 votes, 63.9 percent of which backed the Impala. Muscle sedans, take your pick: — Greg Migliore (@GregMigliore) April 14, 2020 Then and now enthusiasts felt the Impala was a more complete execution with guts. The Marauder, despite coming along later, felt more hacked together, according to prevailing sentiments. Why? On purpose and on paper theyÂ’re similar. The ImpalaÂ’s 5.7-liter LT1 V8 making 260 horsepower and 330 pound-feet of torque was impressive for a two-ton sedan in the mid-Â’90s. The Marauder was actually more powerful — its 4.6-liter V8 was rated at 302 hp and 318 lb-ft. The ImpalaÂ’s engine was also used in the C4 Corvette. The MarauderÂ’s mill was shared with the Mustang Mach 1. You can see why they resonated so deeply with Boomers longing for a bygone era and also captured the attention of coming-of-age Gen Xers. Car and DriverÂ’s staff gave the Marauder a lukewarm review back in ‘03, citing its solid handling and features, yet knocking the sedan for being slow off the line. In a Hemmings article appropriately called “Autopsy” from 2004, the ImpalaÂ’s stronger low-end torque and smooth shifting transmission earned praise, separating it from the more sluggish Mercury. All of this was captured in the carsÂ’ acceleration times, highlighting metrically the differences in their character. The Impala hit 60 miles per hour in 6.5 seconds, while the Marauder was a half-second slower, according to C/D testing. Other sites have them closer together, which reinforces the premise it really was the little things that separated these muscle cars. Both made the most of their genetics, riding on ancient platforms (FordÂ’s Panther and General MotorsÂ’ B-body) that preceded these cars by decades. Both had iconic names.

NHTSA upgrades Ford floor mat unintended acceleration probe

According to a Bloomberg report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has upgraded an investigation into complaints of unintended acceleration lodged against Ford vehicles. The investigation began in June of 2010 when just three complaints had been received and it only concerned the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan, but this was at a time when the phrase "unintended acceleration" made grown men go pale. With 49 additional complaints received since then, the investigation has been reclassified as an engineering analysis - the last phase before a recall - and it has been expanded to include the Lincoln MKZ, making for a total of "around 480,000" units affected between the three sedans from the 2008 to 2010 model years.
The ostensible cause is that floor mats are trapping the accelerator pedal, but according to a Ford statement at the time, the entrapment is due to owners placing the optional all-weather floor mats, or aftermarket floor mats, on top of the car's standard floor mats. NHTSA has backed up that assessment, pinning the blame on "unsecured or double stacked floor mats."
On the face of it, it would appear that NHTSA has upgraded the status not because of Ford's error, but owner error, and Ford has stated publicly that it is "disappointed" in NHTSA's move. On top of NHTSA still being skittish after that other unintended acceleration debacle, it could be seen to be taking its time investigating all of the variables: it's reported that Ford changed its accelerator pedal design in 2010, a "heel blocker" in the floorpan has been considered a potential culprit in how the floor mats could be trapping the pedal, some drivers have said the floor mats weren't anywhere near the pedal, and according to a report in the LA Times, in "a letter sent by Ford to NHTSA in August 2010, the automaker said it found three injuries and one fatality that 'may have resulted from the alleged defect.'"