Talk:Ford Ranger EV

Merge

I would rather not merge this article with the standard Ford Ranger article. This (Ford Ranger EV) is a rather unique vehicle and though it uses the standard Ranger frame and body parts the powertrain is far from a variant of the regular ICE, transmission, fuel tank, and emissions systems. I believe it warrents it's own article. Similarly the Chrysler TEVan may have used many of Chrysler's Caravan components. The Chevrolet S10 EV or E10 used many S10 parts, and the Toyota RAV4 EV used many RAV4 components. Though these vehicles while sharing parts with other standard models are as unique as are the General Motors EV1 or the Honda EV Plus. Besides the Ford Ranger wouldn't fall into the Category:Production Electric vehicles! --D0li0 09:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. I think there is simply too much information on this page that would fit in the normal Ranger page. --ApolloBoy 03:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge suggestion is nonsense - I removed. Note that the poster of this merge notice (User:Karrmann) had earlier simply redirected the entire article to the Ford Ranger article. Not worthy of further comment. Leonard G. 02:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content

This is a great article. Clearly a lot of work went into it... with that said, there are a few comments that would probably be a better fit for a magazine article. I'm in the middle of making a few modest changes throughout the article to bring it more into line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Please discuss here if you think I've gone too far. Thanks, Gregmg 19:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV

The last paragraph in the article has been troubling me since I first read it. I just haven't been sure how to rephrase it. As Wikipedians, it's important that we keep some distance between ourselves and the article content... by that I mean we should provide the facts dispassionately. It's obvious that whoever wrote that paragraph had a passion for electric cars and the Ranger EV in particular. I'm not convinced that Ford is as evil as this paragraph would lead one to believe; frankly, I don't think any corporation could be. In any case, I believe two things need to happen. First, this paragraph should be rewritten to dispassionately and coherently present the case of EV activists that it was wrong for Ford to "pull the plug" on electric vehicles. Also, the other side of the story needs to be presented. Let's assume for the moment that Ford is not an evil empire and they had valid business reasons for not continuing production of the Ranger EV. What were those reasons? Thanks, Gregmg 15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The slam on Ford is about the destruction, not the cessation of production - Leonard G. 04:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be best not to have a slam in an encyclopedia article. But this isn't just a slam of the destruction of the Rangers. The last paragraph goes on a tirade about Ford not taking care of the "massive needs of urban motorists". This hardly seems NPOV.

Further, one could argue that it was Ford's prerogative to do with the vehicles as they wished, since they still owned them. To allow them to remain in the wild would have put Ford in the position of needing to support them. I've found several articles that provide some details of Ford's objections to selling the old Rangers to their owners.

As time permits, I'll rewrite the last section to provide both sides of the story, and strip out anything not pertinent to the Ranger EV. Gregmg 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)