Jump to content

Talk:Ford Explorer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Mountaineer

I want to create a seperate article for the Mountaineer, but it's redirect to the Explorer. This is part of a pet project to provide an article and pictoral timeline of each of FoMoCo's products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kukielk (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 August 2004

You can still edit the article. When you go to a redirect, there will be a little link under the page title like "redirected from place" -- click on that, and you can edit the redirect page and make it a regular article. —Morven 14:41, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see a separate page for the Mercury Mountaineer as well, it is warranted that the Lincoln Aviator (which has its' own page), Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer share the majority of their components, but it would be nice to have a page for each vehicle. Well thought out! (Vinycard 00:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

I do agree with you the Mercury Mountaineer should have its own user page LincolnNavigator98 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Firestone Tire Controversy

I propose moving the 'Firestone Tire Controversy' into it's own article and place it under the category of 'corporate abuse' - if you have any objections to this let's talk about it, otherwise I will move it within a week.

Move: yes. But not under that inherently POV categorization. —Morven 05:51, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

My intention is not to have a POV; but I feel a responsibility to shine light on the controversy that is the 'Ford/Firestone Fiasco' and while numerous sources point to a negligence on behalf of Ford Co., I think others have the right to know this 'POV' instead of just taking the statements of the Corporation.

Ford will never admit to any wrong doing, but this does not make them innocent - to me it (my POV here) proves their lack of responsbility towards its community. As an example, engineer Stornant wrote that...

  • 'Ford "management is aware of the potential risk with P235 tires and has accepted (that) risk. CU test is generally unrepresentative of the real world," Stornant said, "and I see no 'real' risk in failing (the CU test) except what may result in the way of spurious litigation." from Time Magazine'

I will have to disagree with your claim that it's a negative POV comment; To say that Ford is innocent of all charges is in its self having a POV of a ford CEO. Thus, I prpose adding it to the |Category:Corporate abuse|....while I do agree that Ford does great things for the public (sholarships, community service, etc.) and I think that should be addressed, my conern is, that it's wrong doings in the past aren't acknowledged.


I was always wondering why it was just Firestone tires that blew if Ford was responsible. Not I'm saying they're not, as being a maior company I expect them to lie through their teeth if it suits them. Just wondering. Or have there really been no Explorers with other tires? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Firestone recall

I would like to point out that in two investigations, one into the tires, and one into the vehicle, NHTSA (the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) agreed with the the findings of the Ford Motor Company's own internal investigations, namely a) that the Firestone tires had elevated rates of tread seperation failures compared to other tires, even when fitted to vehicles other than Ford Explorers, and b) that the Ford Explorer was no more likely to roll over in the event of a tread seperation than any other SUV, and that in fact even with the Firestone fatalities included, the Explorer still had a better safety record in the field than most other SUV's. Tim Davis, March 30, 2005.

Please rememeber: 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox'

BRAD PITT/PALTROW DRIVES ONE?

During his pre-enviromentalist days while having relationship with Gwenyth Paltrow (circa 1995-1996). They always pose next to a white Ford Explorer (1991 or 1995) XLT or maybe limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.153.249 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2006

Well unless you actually know Brad Pitt there is no way that you could say that he drives a Ford Explorer LincolnNavigator98 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Could be just for sponsorship. EmGaGa (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Explorer in NZ

Does anyone know why the new shape (4h genaration) does not appear in NZ? even if you buy a new 06' explorer its still the oldshape (3rd gen)06:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)06:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)222.155.38.238 06:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)`

"Usa"

Why does "usa" redirect here? aido2002 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't know why but I really think the US is a fat country well for starters we are 18 trillion dollars in debt and the politicians up in Washington DC just care about lining their own Pockets rather than helping us and look at us we're all fat because nobody wants to stop stuffing are fat face with McDonald's to be honest with you the US would be a much better place if we didn't have all these stupid fast food joints around here and even though I love the Lincoln Navigator unfortunately America cannot stop making big old enormous barges that just drink gas LincolnNavigator98 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ford Drops XLS from 2007 Model Year

Anybody wanna start commenting on the 2007 MY changes that would include fleet-only sales of XLS-trimmed explorers and entry level XLT replacing it...? Just a thought... Was browsing through a brochure and saw that there was no XLS anymore :( User:Vinycard

Ford Explorer / U-Haul Trailer

Article says citation required. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2004-01-08-uhaul-ford_x.htm should be sufficient.

I don't know how to properly cite stuff, so if someone can fix this?

Kythri 05:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Done OPaul 05:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, U-Haul's decision has sparked controversy all over the 'net, including here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/103495-U-Haul-CAN-T-HAUL?p=1723402#post1723402 00:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Bronco II /Ranger site which has with VERY little to do with Explorer's, and "Fordrides" which is a generic Ford site with only 680 members should be removed from the External Links section. If the Wikipedia is here to provide boatloads of information to people looking for information on a specific topic you need to be more selective in accepting links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab7fh (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 October 2006

Agreed. I've removed those two and the page about the Sport Trac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OPaul (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 October 2006

fordexploreraustralia.com

Aussiexplorer, I asked if you could please discuss before you readd the site. Can you please explain how fordexploreraustralia.com is an official Ford site? I see no endorsement from Ford on there. What I do see is a lot of links pointing to external sites and a small forum. Wikipedia is not a place for every enthusiast site, it is an online encyclopedia. Please explain why you think it is encyclopedic. And, why you say it's an official Ford website. - OPaul 04:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


A site does not have to be endorsed by ford for it to be official. What makes fordexploreraustralia.com an official site is that it is the first australian web site dedicated to ford explorers,,,, that makes it OFFICIAL! It may be small right now but it is very rapidly growing as more and more aussies find and join us, and may i also add we have only been online for around 5 months and have grown very quickly compared to many other sites. If you can find another australian ford explorer web site dedicated to helping and informing aussies about ford explorers that dates before us coming online then i will gladly withdraw my "official" statemant. Fordvehicles.com being the so called official USA website shows me nothing different from any other ford explorer web site, yet it is still there in all its glory.Can you please tell me what is encyclopedic about fordvehicles.com (USA) I could go on and on about it but it seems to me that the editors are some what bias when it comes to what is offical and what is not. Why bother putting an external links section for people to place links if they all get deleted? why not just have the editors place links that they like, it will save people alot of confusion and frustration. over and out!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To be listed under the offical links for a Ford Explorer, yes, the site does need to be a Ford endorsed website. Fordvehicles.com is owned and maintained by Ford and provides additional resources to people who are interested in a Ford Explorer. Notice the following about pages that should be linked to;

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

Also please note the following restrictions on linking from Wikipedia:External links.

A website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for; even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines. If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, mention it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.

Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, that have objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. For example, instead of linking to a book's entry on Amazon.com or another bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums.

There are other reasons why your site should not be included, but you get the point. - OPaul 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

fordvehicles.com is a site about fords in general not a official ford "EXPLORER" SITE An official ford explorer site should be just that, a site just about ford explorers, OMG you cant see the forest from the trees!!. Please tell me this,,,,if there were 5 ford explorer sites all endorsed by ford with exactly the same content would that make them all official? would you list them all?. fordvehicles.com is endorsed by ford because it is owned by ford!!!!!!!!!!!! I suggest removing the external links page if you dont want to be constantly editing it. cmon now who really sits there and reads through your endless jargon and ranting guidelines. Can you please tell me what is encyclopedic about fordvehicles.com.??????? or what is encyclopedic about ice cube or whatever his name is driving a ford explorer?? this site is full of useless information that is in no way encyclopedic!!!! One thing it is good for is getting people to give you hits by coming back to defend themselves and their actions. no wonder you rank so high with google. wHO needs a encyclopedia about ford explorers anyway, you shouldnt even be listed in google under ford explorer, this site helps ford explorer owners in absolutly no way mechanically. in my opinion serious explorerations should be the official USA ford explorer site, i wouldnt even give fordvehicles.com a look in if i was searching for info on ford explorers. you need to start listening to what the people want instead of telling them what they want.your opinion that fordvehicles.com is official is exactly that ,,,,YOUR opinion, no one elces. good to see drive.com taking over your 1st ranking with google.hahahahahahaha,,,, over and out!

The link is to http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/explorer/, which is about Explorers. Your definition of "official" is wrong, fordvehicles.com is the official Ford website. You can not arbitrarily assign official sites. Official sites are no one's opinion.
If people follow the rules, the section will be edited consistently. If you do not like the rules, contact the people who make them. Debating them here will not get you anywhere. The people that edit this page do not make these rules, we just follow them. If you don't want to read the rules, or "endless jargon you should not be an editor.
www.fordvehicles.com is encyclopedic because it provides an additional reference for those who are interested in Ford Explorers, i.e. purchasing one. Personally, I do not think that Ice Cube driving an Explorer is encyclopedic, but someone does, so its there.
This page is not here to help people mechanically with Ford Explorers, it's here as a encyclopedic reference for Ford Explorers. - OPaul 01:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

fordvehicles.com is a site about fords in general not ford explorers , it should be removed and put on a "ford" page not a "ford explorer" page.and you still havnt answered my questions or dont you have an answer???? the word official has many different meanings not just the meanings that you find to your liking. your opinion of what is official is exactly that your opinion, cmon now who died and made you god of all that is official. If i wanted to purchase a ford explorer i certainly would not be looking in an encyclopedia to do so, you need to stop taking ranking away from the real ford explorer sites and stick to giving definitions to school kids. I can't say it has been a nice experience visiting this site or talking trash to you about why the sky is blue, so i will show my peacefull protest by not visiting or hitting this page again, that should make your day, right? PS- just remember it only takes one man to start a revolution. over and out!

Ok... my site was pulled on purpose or a hack?

Serious Explorations Ford Explorer Enthuiast Website at http://www.explorerforum.com/

I'm putting it back up since we had already discussed this some time ago and agreed that the site was a valuable asset to the Ford Explorer community.

Forums are not allowed on Wikipedia pages, and putting up your own website is also against guidelines, so I'll remove it. Read this for more on what I mean. --ApolloBoy 00:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We went through this a long time ago and I thought it was agreed that the site was a valuable resource to the Ford Explorer community. Here is the text of the previous discussion:

Has been deleted twice by a kid who can't even drive. How can you say that information regarding the best enthusiast resource for Ford Explorer owners is spam? With over 40,000 registered members there is no where else like it on the Internet for Explorer owners to get the information they need to repair their Explorer's on their own. Not only that, but most people have no clue that a Ford Explorer can even be used as a "real" offroad vehicle. If you want to re-write the submission that's fine. But leaving it out completely is unfair to those seeking information about Ford Explorers.

If its a useful page put a link to it with a decent description. Don't write a page long spiel about how awesome the page and the people that made it are. TastyCakes 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Linking to it is fine, but like he said, when you talk about how it is all great, you sound like you are boosting the site and that is considered Spam, a type of Vandalism. --Karrmann

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of other wholly irrelevant content.

Sorry, Karrmann, but what I had in there did not meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for "vandalism". The information was hardly irrelevant. That was a press release describing the site and how and why it was founded. It is a fact that Ford sent teams of engineers with us on three seperate occasions to see what we do with our Explorers. You want to write something better? Go ahead and be my guest.

I like the Enthusiast section. Why not make it its own article and have one sentence referencing it in the Explorer article.
I think an Explorer Enthusiast section would be fine, both in this article and on its own, but that section should be something like "there is a thriving community of Explorer enthusiasts in the US and elsewhere. THese people do blah and blah and blah." It shouldn't be all on one particular website and group and it shouldn't be doting and biased to that group. It definitely shouldn't consist entirely of a press release from such a group. TastyCakes 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
yes, make it to be a section where it shows enthuiests good places to go, but shouldn't sound like it did, because I thought all it was was an advertiesment of someone trying to boost their site when I deleted it --Karrmann.
haha, I'm still not convinced it wasn't... TastyCakes 21:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
For the last time, forums are not allowed as external links. I've said this so many times that I don't feel the need to explain it yet again. --ApolloBoy 06:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop posting that forum on the page. I will get the page protected if an edit war stems from this. Karrmann 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Too bad you can't be consistant and fair Karrmann... This is YOUR quote "yes, make it to be a section where it shows enthuiests good places to go, but shouldn't sound like it did".

So I changed it to "Serious Explorations Ford Explorer Enthusiast Forum". It stayed that way, for what? Nearly a year? Then I came in and commented about other sites that had added themselves to the External Links section which weren't even related to Ford Explorers. So... I basically shot myself in the foot for trying to keep this place up... Thanks a lot...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.198.102 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 November 2006

Sigh, first User:Wiarthurhu, now you. Why am I everybody's scapegoat? Karrmann 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. The link is out, it stays out. Stop arguing. --Sable232 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I have no idea why there's even an argument about this; Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear about these kinds of issues. --ApolloBoy 01:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The link stays. That site is a wealth of information that many find valuable, even if they never post once. I tire of all of you self-appointed sainted editors that want to foist your point of view on the majority, but have never had a single paid article published anywhere, much less edited. I will personally keep that link on here til the end of all time. Locking this article is fruitless, there are hacks that defeat it. Find another battle - you will LOSE this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.65.105.155 (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Still being a dick about this, Ab7fh? If you weren't so busy doing your best to be an asshole, maybe you'd realize that your site has been linked on this page since May, and there's a discussion further down this page where I said myself I had no intention of removing the link.
In fact, you're lucky I saw this first. Almost any other editor would have looked at your uncivil tone and deleted the link to your site without any further thought.
Maybe consider letting sleeping dogs lie, for your sake. You can make all the threats you want, but they won't get you anywhere. --Sable232 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Sable, kinda assuming much, aren't we? You think there is only one person that isn't impressed with the arrogance of a wikieditor? Oh, yeah. No college will allow a wiki entry as a reference. Sable... I'm laughing at the superior intellect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.65.105.216 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
What the fuck is your problem? There wasn't any issue with having your site linked. I've said TWICE now that I had no intention of removing your link, so I don't see what your issue with me is. And if this site sucks so much, why do you care if your forum is linked here?
Oh yeah, that's right... free advertising.
But by all means, keep being a whiny little prick. If it makes you feel good about yourself, than I guess that's what matters. --Sable232 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Split The Pages?

To many images of Ford Explorers, anyways! Due to SOOOO many images, we decided to split the Explorer page -- the Explorer page mentioning the 4-door version and the Explorer Sport page mentioning the 2-door version. -- Bull-Doser 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So a new, completely useless page was made just because you decided there's a couple too many images? This is ridiculous. --Sable232 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Not like when the Cadillac Escalade SUV and Cadillac Escalade EXT pickup pages were split up, since they had DIFFERENT BODYSTYLES. -- Bull-Doser 17:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Pickup versus SUV is different from two-door versus four-door. Do you see different pages for the Accord and Civic coupes and sedan, for example? Just make a gallery if you want more images. Frankly, I'm also astonished that no one complained when you split up the Daewoo Kalos article into THREE pages for the same car just to put in a few more rear-end images of cars with different badges. IFCAR 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like no one is doing galleries anymore. Galleries are stupid. I tried making galleries, and most of the galleries were suddenly removed. And plus, the Daewoo Gentra page existed before the Chevrolet Aveo got its own page. -- Bull-Doser 00:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree; a new page is unnecessary when the only difference is the number of doors - OPaul 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason for the removal of the galleries on that page was probably that the pictures all depicted blurry rear ends of the same car with different badges, not that "galleries are stupid." IFCAR 01:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And simply because they look sloppy like that. Adn the only time that we split up an automotive article by different bodystyles, was with the Chrysler Sebring as is is a rare (And maybe only) case of the different bodystyles being completely mechanically unrelated. I am gonna merge it now, adn BD, please stop making dumb edits like this, and just stop and THINK. Karrmann 02:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok now I'm armed with info...

  1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. 
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article.

Now, before I go and request mediation on this matter please explain to me how given the rule stated above Serious Explorations /www.explorerforum.com would not be considered a "content relevant" link.

www.explorerforum.com is without a doubt the #1 Ford Explorer resource on the Net. You're right. People don't come to the Wiki to find out how to work on cars, but... consumers come to the Wiki to learn more about the vehicle they own or are considering purchasing. What could be better than an external link to a site with over 50,000 owners of the vehicle you're interested in?

Ab7fh 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This page needs some fuel economy figures..

I really wish that you would please stop fighting against us and just understand what you are saying. Yes, it is a top Explorer website, but it is nothing besides a forum. Besides, I found that you are probably the same person who continously added a section in this article advertising the site. Basically, what I want you to understand is that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a billboard. Also, I can explain how it is not a content relevant link. There are rare ocassions where forums are allowed. Like on the Ford Taurus article, there is a link to the Taurus Car Club of America. Although it is a forum, it also has a very informative encyclopedia that goes over the history of the cars, and a Wiki with a lot of technical information and maintainence info about the cars, while the site you are trying to boost is just a forum, although it has some helpful info like the aftermarket product reviews. Still, it does not have enough info about the cars itself to make it is a relevant link, as you can not find more about the history of the cars there, which this article is basically about. I just want you to know this, the link is not approiate. Karrmann 10:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Errors

What is the deal with the first gen 93-94 getting 170hp??? That is clearly wrong. Most all automotive websites including edmunds.com said it was 160hp. I also thought 1992 had only 145hp, but that could be off... 1991 was 155hp. Also a list of rear end ratios would be nice...128.120.184.77 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To IFCAR

While we appreciate you making the effort of taking pictures, I would like to ask you not to change the pictures on the Explorer page, as the top picture should be a picture of the current 2006-2007 generation, and in regards to the 1998 picture you have on the generation 2 page, 1998 was a good model year, but it was not fully developed as the 1999-2001 series final design, kind of like a hybrid between the 1997 and 1999. The 99-01 design came to dominate the design for the 2.5 generation facelift. Those pictures are fine, please don't change them unless you have a better picture of a 2000 Explorer. Also, please give users the opportunity of posting their own work here on wikipedia instead of having you dominate most car articles with your pictures. Thank You! (vinycard 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

You wanted info about the vehicle - here it is.

The following information is only available on my website. It was given to me by the Derek Elliot who was an electrical and body engineer for Ford. http://www.explorer4x4.com/1stexplorer.html How do you want to include this relevant information?

"Serious Explorations" is a registered US Trademark. Aren't there a load of US trademarks in the Wiki? Wouldn't the Wiki be a good place to search for information on a trademarked phrase? Lets see, there's Coca Cola, Pepsi, and on and on... Why would those companies be allowed a Wiki page, but not "Serious Explorations"?

Ab7fh 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

History of the First Ford Explorer

^Placed in a collapse box to improve talk page readability

Echo...

I know you hate me and my Ford Explorer enthusiast community, but what's with letting this "resource" exist http://www.explorerx.com/latest/honda-crv-ousts-ford-explorer-as-top-selling-suv-3.html This is the #1 listing in the Ford Explorer Resource section. The site which the Wiki links to is a forum, just like mine. His article is nothing but a summary of an article originally published by http://www.bloomberg.com/

Aren't you participating in copyright infringement by allowing his site to be listed as the true resource for the material when in actuality it's a Bloomberg.com article? In his summary he provides no credit for the original author and the link which he provides no longer links to the article in question.


Ab7fh 22:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

4th Gen Explorer is not all-new

Can someone explain how exactly the '4th gen' Explorer is new enough to be considered a separate generation? It is clearly a facelifted 3rd gen. model - just looking at it, the door panels, side windows, etc. are all the same. The engines and transmissions are the same. Simply having new lights, a new hood, and upgraded interior is not enough to warrant being classed as a new generation.Davez621 19:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

www.explorerforum.com

The "rule" that forums shouldn't be linked to should be disregarded in this case. Isn't it the spirit of Wikipedia that NO rule is absolute? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules  ??? www.explorerforum.com is *THE* preeminent resource for the Ford Explorer on the Internet. Even though it's presented as a forum, there is a ton of static, informational material on the site. Excluding a link to it does a grave disservice to the article. Kythri (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia:External links section regarding discussion forums is titled "Links normally to be avoided". It's not titled "Links that must absolutely be avoided." or "Links that are prohibited." This would indicate that while not preferred, links to discussion forums are occasionally allowed. This would also seem to generally agree with Ignore all rules. I think the link to www.explorerforum.com needs replaced, and soon. Kythri (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can provide a valid counterpoint, I'm going to re-add the link soon. Kythri (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright - nobody has had anything to say on this matter since November of 2007. I'm re-adding the link, and if someone thinks it should be removed, they need to discuss it here, first. I've detailed the list of reasons why it should stay, and the applicable Wiki-rules backing this position. If you object, cite the valid rules. Kythri (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saying "My forum is the best" means nothing. Then someone else comes by saying "no, MINE is the best" and puts their link above yours, and this goes on and on.
Whatever. I poked around, your site has some sort of tech section separate from the forum pages from the looks of it, so it's good here. --Sable232 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Not my site. The site is administered by Ab7fh (talk). The only affiliation I have with the site is being a sometimes-user/reader and I own multiple Explorers. My opinion and research/arguments above in favor of maintaining a link to the site are my own. Yes, it's a forum, but a forum with a TON of technical information, including repair/maintenance diaries. I really don't care what position the link is in. It's currently the last link. If someone wants to put another link above it, so be it. I appreciate your follow-up comment regarding the tech section. Kythri (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ford Explorer Police Cruiser

There are Ford Explorer police cruisers that are founded in Puerto Rico and this should be added. Professional Gamer 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone's been using copy and paste...

Does anyone think that the fifth generation concept article looks like it was written directly by Ford or that someone is a little overuseful with copy and paste?

72.147.251.84 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The First Explorers=F-Series Pickups

Why does it seem like I'm the only person who realizes that the first Ford Explorers were special edition F-Series Pickups? Ford came up with the Explorer pickups around 1969, and by the mid-1970's applied that name to special editions of the Econolines, Broncos, and Rancheros. DanTD (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My grandfather owned one of these - the model wasn't actually an Explorer, it was a trim package, like the current "Lariat" or "Eddie Bauer" trims on certain Ford vehicles. It would be interesting to note such in the article, but to refer to those early vehicles as an Explorer would be inaccurate. 71.59.145.69 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the perfect example of one.
Yeah, that's about right. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

There really needs to be something in here about the Explorer being used in Jurassic Park... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.209.21 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well even though I've ever seen Jurassic Park I think an article on the Ford Explorer user page should should be dedicated to how the Ford Explorer was used in Jurassic Park LincolnNavigator98 (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What about the ignition system problems that caused car fires?

This occurred in several Ford models, including explorers. I believe it was the 91-94's, but I'm not positive.thegreatco (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What about similar issues in virtually every other make of vehicle out there? Actual vehicle fires due to the wiring issues (I believe this was related to faulty cruise-control modules) were few and far between, and did not garner much, if any, media attention. This is a different situation from the Firestone fiasco, which was covered by most news outlets for quite a while. Kythri (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This issue with the Ford Ignition system affected the explorers, crown vics (including police models), and a few others. It resulted in several deaths and the burning of several homes where the cars caught fire in the attached garages. I think it important to mention. I do not know of any other vehicles that had issues that resulted in this severe of property damage. I think its on par with the firestone incident.thegreatco (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mixed export sales success

This section of the article has no sources and reeks of original research. Unless someone finds reliable sources for it, I'm taking it out. --Vossanova o< 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

5th Generation

Theres no REASON that there isnt a picture and proper set-up of the Ford Explorer 5th Generation level in this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.150.7 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, maybe because they haven't even entered production yet? --Sable232 (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Section on Gen 3 IRS--Just about everything in this section is wrong

This section is so full of misinformation it sounds like it was written by my Grandpa. Live axles do not offer the most efficient power delivery, etc, etc...terrible. Surely somebody here is an engineer and can clean it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.238.8.86 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with you but don't forget Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit LincolnNavigator98 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ford Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ford Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ford Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Carbon monoxide issue

Why is there no mention of reports from across the US of police officers suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning from driving Ford Explorer Police Interceptors? It is getting coverage in major US national news sources, such as CBS News,which reported 2700 complaints about monoxide poisoning in Explorers with 41 injuries.Most of the complaints involved regular Explorers. NHTSA and Ford are reported to be investigating. Reports have come in from around the US such as : Kansas, Texas, and New York. The last article says that a dozen or so officers in Texas, California, and Louisiana have become ill from monoxide while driving the cars, in some cases resulting in hospitalization either from crashes or from the effects of monoxide. Departments around the country have tested the cars and have added CO detectors.It has not had the extent of coverage of the rollover problems but it seems important enough to mention. NHTSA and Ford are reported to be investigating. Edison (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ford Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Amber turn signals

The article says:

For 1998, the exterior of the Ford Explorer was given a mid-cycle update. Distinguished by the addition of fender flares, the rear fascia was restyled, with larger taillamps (deleting the amber turn signals);

Where is this information sourced from?

The tail lamps never deleted ambers until the third-gen body style. I own a '98, '99 and '00 and they all have ambers, '01 models also do.

67.189.101.24 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Midsize SUV from the start

CNET: "Although the Explorer resembled the (also Ranger-based) two-door Ford Bronco II compact SUV of the 1989 and 1990 model years, the Explorer was actually a full segment size larger." (emphasis added) [1] --Sable232 (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Explorer was a Ranger based truck up until 2002. The Explorer competed directly with the Compact Chevrolet S-10 Blazer and Jeep Cherokee XJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.163.155.150 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ford itself called the 1991 Explorer a "compact utility vehicle" [2] and the 1998 Explorer a "compact sport utility vehicle" [3] (2nd page). However, this was before the Escape came out, so there was nothing smaller to compare it with. I personally consider the 2-door Explorer (later Explorer Sport) a compact and the 4-door Explorer, with its longer wheelbase, a mid-size - but it's very difficult finding reliable sources to back that up. I'm good with the IIHS page for the 1996 4-door Explorer as a source; it's just too bad they don't have one for the 2-door or anything pre-1995. --Vossanova o< 18:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vossanova: I agree with you. Ee2mba (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Explorer/Archive_1&oldid=1045929015"