Talk:Ford Probe

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Infobox info

With regards to its successor, in Europe it was the (Ford-badged) Mercury Cougar. I'd say this should be included, since many readers will of course be European. -- DeLarge 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all of Europe, but I know at least the UK got the second-generation Probe, as referenced by the UK Probe Owners Club. Hear me today and believe me next week.... BlackOpSource (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph rewritten

Old paragraph: The Probe can nearly keep up with a V-8 Mustang. Our Probe test car was outrageously fast for a 2940-pound car with only 145 hp: it sprinted from 0 to 60 mph in just 6.7 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 15.2 seconds at 91 mph. Those times are about half a second slower than the Mustang GT's and quicker than the 5.0-liter Camaro/Firebird's. The Probe's 134 mph top speed is within a couple of mph of the Mustang's and Camaro's top ends.

Changed because this is uncited, and sounds more like a fanboy shouting at his computer in ecstacy about his almighty Probe. Rewrote the paragraph to seem more encyclopedic. Ahanix1989

Possible citation?

Missing citation for electronically limited speeds under the Models table may be located at http://www.performanceprobe.com/info/specs/table_sta.htm.

Being a wiki noob I don't know if its good enough source and dont know the code to add it either.

I think it is site that can be trusted, looks quite "pro" probe site.--— Typ932^{T | C} 08:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performance Probe is generally a very reliable site. I know my saying this doesn't mean much, but I own a Probe, and I trust the information there. Hear me today and believe me next week.... BlackOpSource (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism perhaps?

Keep an eye on this... I found the table row for the '93-'97 GT model in the "Models" section to be grossly inaccurate, while the rest of the article contains correct information. The peak horsepower was listed as 350 (at correct rpm), with time to 60 mph listed as 8.5s (7.5s is correct). Additionally, the top speed is still listed as 147 mph. I do not know the correct figure, but this isn't it. A stock Probe GT could only do 150 mph if it was being shipped air freight. Hear me today and believe me next week.... BlackOpSource (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody changed it back to 8.5s again, so I changed it back, to 7.0s this time w/reference. I have the Jan 93 COTY issue and the 94 long term test issue of MotorTrend, buried in a box somewhere. MotorTrend repeatedly achieved 7.4-7.5s 0-60 mph. Car and Driver apparently had a perfect launch and got 7s out of their test car. Since the Car and Driver article with this statement is linkable, I chose their figure. I can't find anything on the Probe test numbers at either motortrend.com or automobilemag.com. I'm also unable to locate a top speed figure online at a universally trusted source. They all want you to buy back issues for this info apparently. I have just a bit of experience with this car. I owned a 1993 Midnight Blue Probe GT 5sp and took it to its limits many times for a couple of years. I can verify the top speed is indeed 137 mph. I tested it on no less than 5 occasions and hit 136 mph each time, speedometer verified, thankfully not radar verified. My car had the factory rear spoiler whose drag cost it the last 1 mph. The 'clean' GTs without the spoiler would hit 137. Hardwarefreak (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History seems rather innaccurate

I recall a series of numbered Probe vehicles appearing in Popular Science in the early 1980s. The Probe that was released was originally shown with seat-back televisions and other gadgets that were removed for production, but was otherwise very similar in layout and design. One of the others, either the 2 or 3, became the Taurus. None of this appears in this article, which appears to be similar to the history here. Am I imagining all of this? Or is the history in this article too Spartan for its own good? Maury (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not imagining it. This page has all the details -- all that I had wrong was the numbers. For those of you looking at the images, note the Probe III, which became the Taurus (in North America anyway). I believe the II became the Tempo. Maury (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redline

I do not have a source for this, but the ECU for the 2.5-liter V6 cuts fuel at 7800 rpm, not 7000 rpm as you might think by looking at the tachometer in the car. I don't know about the other engines.

Hear me today and believe me next week.... BlackOpSource (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power/Torque mistake

"The results are 145 hp (108 kW) power peak at a relatively low 4300 rpm and190 lb⋅ft (258 N⋅m) of torque at 6000 rpm."

If we take the torque figure as correct then at the same 6000rpm the car would be producing 217hp, well over the aforementioned peak hp of 145. (Formula)

RXrenesis8 (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on wikipédia concerning the ford probe!

Hello,

I you warned of the attempts of vandalism of this IP:82.245.74.97 concerning the abolition(deletion) of data on the various wikipédia, wikimédia and the other sites

See the history on your site:

19:17, 18 January 2009 82.245.74.97
19:15, 18 January 2009 82.245.74.97

See the history on the French wikimédia:

13 janvier 2009 à 21:25 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 314 octets) (défaire)
13 janvier 2009 à 21:20 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 310 octets) (défaire)
13 janvier 2009 à 21:18 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 307 octets) (défaire)
13 janvier 2009 à 21:16 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 308 octets) (défaire)
13 janvier 2009 à 20:43 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 305 octets) (défaire)
13 janvier 2009 à 11:35 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 139 octets) (défaire)
13 janvier 2009 à 08:09 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 139 octets) (défaire)
12 janvier 2009 à 22:51 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 140 octets) (défaire)
12 janvier 2009 à 19:58 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 139 octets) (défaire)
12 janvier 2009 à 19:36 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 139 octets) (défaire)
12 janvier 2009 à 13:28 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 140 octets) (défaire)
11 janvier 2009 à 17:49 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 139 octets) (défaire)
10 janvier 2009 à 23:02 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 139 octets) (défaire)
8 janvier 2009 à 08:01 82.245.74.97 (Discuter) (6 179 octets) (→Présentation) (défaire)

Would it be possible to prevent him from acting in this way?

Thank you and good day

Sagittaire57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagittaire57 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

IP 82.245.74.97 Spam the ford probe article and clubs links!! For the moderators or administrators, would be it possible to make anything to block him? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagittaire57 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Can anyone clarify what part of "this article's external links may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines" ? The links seem fine by me. ProbeTalk, ProbeRegistry and PerformanceProbe are well known and respected sources within the Ford Probe community. ProbeStore, ProbeAddiction and FordProbeShop are all specialist stores for replacement and aftermarket Probe parts. Probing 4d Probes is a fan page with lots of pictures of Probes spotted at various locations.

Is there any reason why this section is marked ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terr-E (talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statements that need to be qualified

"Along with numerous other enhancements from lessons learned since the first Probe's debut [such as?], Ford brought the experience of many days at the track to the design table [details?], creating one of the best handling cars on the road. [says what/who?]"

This is a loaded sentence and needs to be backed up with sources and more detail. I have not touched the page, I hope more experienced editors will address this. 68.5.16.235 (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Probe. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aus-cartalk.com/probe/history.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022233558/http://www.marklines.com/en/report/rep054_200203 to http://www.marklines.com/en/report/rep054_200203

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) 08:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Probe. 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) 18:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]