Talk:Ford F-Series (medium-duty truck)

Customization section?

One editor added this giant piece of text concerning customization. It has some good info (but no sources), but isn't entirely in wikipedia style and is a bit long compared to the rest of the article... what to do in situations like this?

"There are several companies that have built their business around customization of the F-650. High quality conversion to 4 wheel drive is common as is stretching the chassis and cab similar to stretch limousines. Adding a third door and an extra row of interior seating is common, as is grafting the back part of the Ford Excursion onto the F-650 creating what is likely the worlds largest "SUV". Other popular options include custom bumpers, winches, satellite TV with multiple displays for each passenger and or a big screen (in the range of 40+ inches) on retractable mounting in the back for your tailgate parties. Multiple exterior cameras, extra driving, fog and back-up lighting, additional fuel in custom tanks allowing 200 or more gallons of fuel and much more. These hyper customized units can range in cost from about $80,000 for a basic low end model to $250,000 or more depending upon the model chosen, the equipment added and the company doing the conversion. These extreme customized vehicles are commonly found in the garages of movie stars, professional sports figures and other very wealthy persons with a desire to stand out in a crowd by having a very large and somewhat unique vehicle. MPG numbers quoted by the various customization companies for the vehicles is surprisingly high, usually in the range of 12 to 14 MPG burning diesel which is the fuel of choice for most any vehicle of this size. While 12 to 14 MPG seems low when compared to todays average car, when compared to something more in line with the design and use structure of the F-650, someting like a 4 wheel drive 1 ton truck, or Ford Excursion, that routinely gets 8 to 16 MPG depending on engine, gearing and loading, 13 MPG is right in the same range and the F-650 is not as suceptable to MPG reduction with load increase as is the much smaller 1 ton cousin so the end user is likely to see a fairly constant MPG reguardless of load. Surprisingly, the turning radius of the large F-650 is actually tighter than that of almost all "Normal size" pick up trucks and SUVs making the beastly size SUV much more manuverable than one might think. To find more information on these customized vehicles try searching for "Ford F650" and add, "4x4" or "XUV" or of course, "Customized"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.163.143.28 (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeralLynX (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, a customization section doesn't belong in this article.The companies that offer these customizations are typically not exclusive to this specific vehicle. If the author of the above section wants to write an article about any of the various companies who customize these vehicles, he may want to include this information in that article. Of course, I'm no expert. --Brendanmccabe (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion

I have several ideas on how this article could be expanded.

• First, there is no F-750 article. It is essentially the same vehicle with a heavier payload and GVW. It could be merged with this article.
• Second, the focus of this article could be broadened to include all medium-duty Fords. Obsolete models including the F600/6000, F700/7000, F800/8000, F900/9000 as well as the recently discontinued LCF.
• I had proposed on another article's talk page that Ford Commercial Trucks be its own article, this F-650 info could be merged into that one.

Thoughts, ideas, votes? --Brendanmccabe (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as that proposal goes, I agree with that; the 650 and 750 (although it's titled 650, the content covers both; it just has never been moved anywhere) are the latest models of a long-running product line and the product line itself needs its own article first (this could take some time). A Ford commercial truck article could consolidate all models together, as there are only articles only on the L-Series conventional heavy trucks, B-Series school bus cowl, C-Series cabover, and the Cargo cabover. (The LCF was a badge-engineered International truck). The best way to go would be to re-write this article (as it needs it), and link it into the "parent" Ford commercial truck article or whatever it will be called. --SteveCof00 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Caterpillar engine

Just because the CAT engine is no longer offered as of 2011 does not mean that the engine specs and information should be removed from the page. Vehicle articles still retains what engines and specifications the vehicle had before. This information should be returned, and should be specified as -2010. FeralLynX (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, this is a vehicle that has been produced for 11 years. When a major change to the powertrain lineup is made, it should be noted that it is discontinued, not deleted from the page altogether (for the purposes of historical accuracy). --SteveCof00 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As part of a page re-construction, I added that information back in. Just because a vehicle doesn't have an option now doesn't mean it never has had it at all. --SteveCof00 10:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox question

I'm guessing this was likely copied off of the Ford website when the article was made, but what exactly are a "Pro Loader Kick-up Frame or Pro Loader Straight Frame" (as listed in the infobox)? --SteveCof00 21:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Renaming page?

This is a pretty big proposal, but I'm floating the idea of renaming this page. As it is written now (and has been for several years), this particular vehicle is but one generation of a line of vehicles. Something along Ford F-Series (medium duty) makes a lot of sense, as the other Ford F-Series articles tend to concentrate on the pickup trucks. This is something that would need some expert help, though. --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Notoriety:A 1993 Ford F-700 was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Reply

I think this fact: "Notoriety:A 1993 Ford F-700 was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing" belongs in this article because it is a notable fact about the vehicle's use and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which includes notable facts about a subject and its use.

The vehicle does not exist in isolation, but is part of the world, and notable facts about the use of the vehicle in the world, belong in an encyclopedia, even if criminal and should not blocked or censored.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. If you think this is something we should be adding to articles please bring it up at project automobiles to get wider input. This edit stems from recent gun related discussions (see the Sig MCX article and discussions). However, in this case I think it would be very hard to argue the fact you wish to add has sufficient weight in reliable sources. Springee (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Note This article is about the series of Ford medium duty trucks launched in 2000. The Oklahoma City bombing was in 1995. While F-700 redirects here it would appear that the Ford_B-Series page would be the appropriate place for this information assuming consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A 1993 Ford F-700 was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing Reply

I think the statements written by User:‎Dennis Bratland are valid, have due weight, and belong in an encyclopedia article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousMind01 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)--CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Primary discussion related to this addition has been occurring at Project Automobiles page [[1]]

Currently there is no consensus for inclusion at the above with 3:2 opposing inclusion in any article covering the 1993 F-700. There are issues with Dennis's inclusion arguments. First, there is an issue of due weight. While it can easily be shown that discussion of the truck has weight with respect to the bombing article, it has not been shown to have sufficient weight for inclusion here (ie the bombing is significant with respect to the truck). In fact one editor noted that it would be considered WP:Trivia. We also have to consider WP:ONUS:

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

The material is clearly verifiable and does exist in the bombing article so this isn't a case of the material being removed from Wikipedia. The above discussions were largely based on an assumption that this article covered the 1993 F-700. This article covers the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar, not earlier Ford medium duty trucks. This makes the material WP:OFFTOPIC (the material is only loosely related to the article topic). Thus we have information who's inclusion in even an article that was about the 1993 F-700 would be seen as tenuous at best. Even if consensus supported inclusion, the material would need to go into an article about the F-700 trucks spanning the 1993 MY. Since this article does not it is off topic and thus needs to be removed. Springee (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How is due weight determined? What policy or guideline tells us that two sentences about the only famous Ford F-700 is too much? Or that the big block of unsourced material under the "First generation (2000-2015)" heading is the right amount of detail? What rule says that we need to mention some company making a knock-off?

Anyone citing WP:Trivia in reference to this material hasn't read that page. Felsic2 (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is no consensus for adding the material, and currently there is not, the onus is on those wishing to add the material to show weight and get consensus. It is also important to note that this article doesn't cover the 1993 F-700 trucks. Springee (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2, Springee doesn't care what you think, or what I think, or what CuriousMind01 thinks. He's got his own agenda. As long as he isn't getting his way, he will say "there's no consensus". He's going to remove this content from any article about the Ford truck, and will remove any similarly unpleasant information from the Caprice article, and any other automaker or corporation article he's protecting. You can expect this to go on without end. If he says you can't mention the truck because it didn't have any effect on the bombing, you can cite evidence the trucks characteristics did affect the investigation and the trial outcome. Instead of being satisfied that you met his conditions, he will invent new conditions for you to meet. I don't expect this to be resolved through the normal collaborative editing process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland, please stop with the accusations of bad faith. This addition is a problem in terms of Weight, and Trivia. Additionally, there is not a consensus for its addition to this article thus the WP:ONUS is on those who wish to add to get consensus. Note that the primary discussion is on the Automobile Project page. Springee (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee, 1. I do not agree with removing the bombing text User:Dennis Bratland added. I do not agree with your opinion "a problem in terms of Weight, and Trivia", I think the text with note he added is proper.

2. I added the original text to this article because my Wikipedia search directed me to this article for F-700. I read the F-700 redirect was changed Sept 6 2016, but there was no notice in the project page or this article of the redirect change. It may have been a normal valid change by someone, but without notice it gives me the appearance of a hidden change, not made in good faith cooperation, with the objective of creating a sudden situation, to make the text off topic, in a manipulated attempt to remove the text, and bypass the discussion.

3. If User:Dennis Bratland thinks it valid to move to another article, I can support the move. I oppose the removal of the text altogether, text which I consider in scope of Wikipedia policies. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

CuriousMind01, I will address your points out of order, please forgive. #2, I was not involved in the redirect. You would have to ask Boivie since he did the redirect [[2]]. I think it was an appropriate change as the F-series article does, at a high level, cover the mid-90s F-series medium duty trucks, but that is another mater. #1. Beyond the fact that this article doesn't cover the F-700 truck (and thus wouldn't be the proper location regardless of weight etc) there is an issue of WP:ONUS. It is clear there is not consensus for the addition of the information to this (or even any F-700) article (see the auto project page discussion). The appropriate place for the information is the article about the bombing. #3. Remember that the material in question does exist within Wikipedia. That doesn't mean it should exist here regardless of Dennis's opinion (see the issue of WP:ONUS). Springee (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee, Your deletion of the text is what gives to me the appearance of you not acting in good faith cooperation, as I wrote above. My opinion is the text does belong here as an important historical use.

Onus clearly says the burden to get consent is on those who wish to make the change in a case where the change is disputed. Three editors oppose the change. Three support. This no consensus. The way things are supposed to work. Dennis's restoration of the material under the circumstances is the problem in this case. Springee (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion instead of discussing or moving is what I think is not acting in good faith cooperation. I think the info does belong in the relevant article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It was certainly not meant in bad faith and I fear that Dennis has poisoned that well. I felt the change didn't help the article. It wasn't moved to another article because, as I indicated, I felt it was inappropriate in any similar article. Thus removal with an explanation. I regret using the common term "notable" since that has a wiki specific meaning. Regardless, I did post an explanation and we engaged in dialog. The restoration of the material while there was a conversation underway and with a clear disagreement between a number of editors was the first part I saw as confrontational vs just the BRD cycle. Springee (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee. I made my own judgement. I believe you when you write you did not act in bad faith. You feeling it was inappropriate text, I can respect your opinion, but I did not think your opinion alone was justification to immediately delete the text, after the F-700 redirect change was made, when the text was already in discussion. You could have left the text or moved the text to the F-700 article. The text is true and verifiable, not false, and there was no emergency to delete the text. Thank you, CuriousMind01 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Expand to cover other medium-duty Ford trucks or use Ford F-Series ninth generation?

Ford B-Series is very clearly an article about Ford's bus chassis, not a medium-duty truck. The 1995-1997 medium-duty F-600, F-700 and F-800 have to go somewhere, and the best candidates are either this article, or Ford F-Series ninth generation. To keep it here, we explicitly expand the scope to cover both the current and the previous generation. This is the usual way we cover products that span several revisions, rather than have disjointed stubs all over for each refresh or facelift, and even major redesigns.

For now, the status quo is to cover those models here. Should we keep them here, or have Ford F-Series ninth generation as the main article on the F-600, 700 and 800? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Start making a new article... The answer to this is complex at best. There have been medium-duty variants of the F-Series since the first 1948 edition; timelines have also not matched the smaller trucks as well; prior to the introduction of the Ford L-Series (Louisville) trucks in 1970, this timeline also includes related conventional trucks as well. In place of adding stubs to existing articles (technically, the previous generation was related to the seventh-generation F-Series introduced in 1980), this model family needs an entire new article of its own; this article will end up being a stub of it. Although not ideal, the Ford B-Series article (about the school bus cowl based on the B600-B800) is a place to start. --SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 08:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with expanding this article but it would make no sense to add just one previous generation to this article, especially since there was a production gap as Ford left the market before re-entering with Navistar. Thus I think any expansion should be logical such as "all F-series" medium duty trucks" or "all Ford medium duty trucks back to 1917 [[3]]". I would also note that just adding the last generation wouldn't address the bombing material discussed above. Springee (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Any article construction (I'm thinking construction over expansion) would be beyond the scope of the content of the previous-generation trucks. I don't think it's right to build an article just to fit in a bit of trivia for someone. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC Notice: Inclusion of vehicle use in crimes as part of vehicle articles

A RFC posted at Project Automobiles is discussing the following question related to this article:

• Should the Ford Ford F-650 medium duty truck article include a mention in the body of the text or via a see also link the Oklahoma City bombing?

Here is the specific addition in question: [[4]].

Springee (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete content It's not so much because of its notoriety/relevance, but there is another reason for deleting this content. It is relating to a specific vehicle produced in 1993 involved in a 1995 incident. The vehicle that is referred to on this talk page did not begin production until 2000, five years later. In other words, if anywhere, that content belongs on Ford F-Series seventh generation in the subsections related to the medium-duty trucks. --SteveCof00^{My Suggestion box is open} 11:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Flyte35, Dennis Bratland is correct in noting the material is the subject of an RfC (see link above). However, the RfC is only a few days short of a month and currently consensus is nearly 4:1 against inclusion. If Dennis feels that formal closure is needed then we should probably leave the material in place until the RfC is closed. Springee (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• If you didn't want a formal closure then why did you start a formal RfC? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• [[5]],"If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." Do you feel the results are either contentious or the consensus is not obvious? I think the results are clear at this point but if you don't agrees please put in your request for a formal closing. Springee (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Let's see, 8 threads of discussion across 3+ talk pages. And RfC initiated. Ongoing edit warring. "Not contentious"? Really? I'd hate to see what it would take for you to admit a dispute was "contentious".

  Have you ever not thought consensus was obvious? When two editors opposed you alone, you thought consensus was obvious, in your favor. When three opposed you alone, you thought consensus was obvious in your favor. When a couple more added !votes, some in your favor, you thought consensus was obvious -- surprise -- in your favor. Every few days, you again announced consensus was obvious.

  When you're outvoted, you say it's "not a vote". When votes favor you, you say it is a vote. Heads you win, tails, you win. Springee, your opinion on when consensus is and isn't obvious is not reliable. The reason every single dispute you have must be settled by a third party arbiter or somebody getting blocked or banned is that you do not negotiate in good faith. You Wikilawyer every single step of the way and never give an inch. Obviously, a formal close is necessary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Please drop the accusations. If on the 9th you think the results of the RfC aren't clear then please request a formal closure. Assuming no radical shift between now and then I would think the results will be clear but I would welcome a formal closure if you or anyone else feels it's necessary. Springee (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford F-650. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502003708/http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/f650-f750/2016/ to http://www.ford.com/commercial-trucks/f650-f750/2016/

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) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford F-650. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://media.ford.com/products/presskit_display.cfm?vehicle_id=1946&press_section_id=398&make_id=92
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029203921/http://pdf.cat.com/cda/files/2200276/7/LEHT3462_07_20HR_20P1.pdf to http://pdf.cat.com/cda/files/2200276/7/LEHT3462_07_20HR_20P1.pdf

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)

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:

• 1982 Ford truck and tractor in Mexico (4488350861).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)