Talk:EMD 265
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That's Impressive!
editIn comparison to the common 351 CI (5.8 L) Ford V8, with a 4.0 in. bore, 3.5 in. stroke, this engine has more than twice the bore size, more than 3 times the stroke. When using the industry standard to calculate an engines total cubic inch displacement would equal 16030 CI (262.6 l)
- 3.14 x R2 x stroke x # of cyl.
(R2 = ½ cylinder bore, x ½ cylinder bore.)
Wasn't sure if this information was suitable for the article but posted it here just in case someone was really interested.
EMD 265 Engine Rebranded 1010 Engine
editThe latest ad in Railway Age confirms that EMD has re-branded the 265 engine as the 1010 engine to reflect the cu in displacement instead of the bore diameter. I suggest that the article be renamed to reflect this.Sturmovik (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
If the 567, 645 and 710 have separate pages, 265 and 1010 should have separate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.132.80 (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please explain why if both engines are part of the same family. The 265 has a 1010cu in displacement, but was given a metric designation. The 1010J is an improved version of the 265(1010)H. This is consistent with the 567A->567B->567C->567D and 645E->645F evolutions. Finally neither page has enough information to stand on their own. The H block was a failure with all US examples scrapped. Combining the 1010 engines together will make for a better user experience.Sturmovik (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)