Talk:EMD 265

	Trains Portal
DYK	2007-08-29

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This redirect is supported by the Locomotives task force.

This article lacks references.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this redirect.

Technology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

That's Impressive!

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In 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.

--DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

EMD 265 Engine Rebranded 1010 Engine

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Add topic