Talk:Chrysler Hemi engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Archives of past discussion[edit]

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

Image[edit]

This article is about the Chrysler Hemi engine. Granted, the image in question shows the word "HEMI" on the side of a Chrysler-built car, but…how does that further a reader's understanding of the subject matter of this article, please? —Scheinwerfermann T·C03:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a picture of a Chrysler Hemi Engine logo is inappropriate in an article about Crysler Hemi Engines. There are picture of Chrysler Hemi engines in the article. To play the devil's advocate, how do the pictures of the engines further a reader's understanding of the subject? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are the forgotten Hemi???[edit]

How come you don't talk about the crate 426, 472 and 528 Hemi?? These are "real" Hemi with hemispherical heads... Why nobody gives informtion about those?? 24.201.225.92 (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Francois Cote

modern hemi engines[edit]

Are the modern hemi engines cast iron or aluminum? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It is important to specifiy what metal the block is made from. This is a page about an engine. The material the block is made from is important to list. Almost as important as configuration and horsepower. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again. I don't care anything about a Hemi. But the engine block material should be added when it can be either cast iron or aluminum. This is important. Not something the gets discussed in a Hemi forum either. It needs added to the page. Any engine page for that matter.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, at last. This is an appropriate comment for the talk page. Yes, the block material needs to be mentioned in this article. Absolutely. Please be bold, go do a Google search and see what comes up, and you'll probably find not only the answer, but corroboration for it in a couple of reliable sources, and then you can and should add it to this article…all in just a couple of minutes! —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hemi V6?[edit]

Chrysler designed a 3.6L Hemi V6 in 1951, but it was not produced.

Cross-flow contradiction[edit]

As it stands the article contradicts itself. I personally agree with the bracketed statements, but the article should be one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.102.164.130 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Cosworth did an extensive comparison between a 2-valve crossflow head and 2-valve counterflow head in 1964 when they designed Cosworth SCA series, which had a SOHC counterflow non-hemi design similar to Coventry Climax FWE engine. 1498cc SCB was built for this purpose to compare against Lotus-Ford Twin Cam-based 1498cc Cosworth Mk.XVI, which had a DOHC crossflow hemi-head on the same Ford block and the same forged crank and rods.
Mk.XVI made up to 150hp, and SCB made 175hp on the bench, so Cosworth released the 1L SCA with the same SOHC head as the SCB for Formula Two racing where SCA dominated. So the notion of crossflow being superior to counterflow in terms of volumetric efficiency is proven wrong at least in these two designs. Cosworth used this result in successfully moving on to 4-valve crossflow designs later.
I am not familiar with American V8s and have no intention of editing this article, but thought this would be of interest to you. Yiba (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect displacement figures[edit]

The displacement figures for the DeSoto Fire Dome hemi engine are wrong. I checked on this website ([1]) and it lists 276 ci, 291 ci, 330 ci, 341 ci, and 345 ci. On the Wikipedia article it is 287 ci, 306 ci, 312 ci, 324 ci and 345 ci (the 345 is correct). The Wikipedia article is clearly incorrect not only on the displacement but also on the year the engines were introduced. For example, the FirePower engine was introduced in 1951 and the section states that the Fire Dome engine was introduced in 1946. The Fire Dome was introduced in 1952, not 1946. Meltdown627 (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The source you presented seems to be legit and is used not only on this article but on others as well. I think it's acceptable to edit them to the correct values. As I posted on your talk page, there's been a rash of number-changing vandalism on this article in recent months and it's made myself and others fairly paranoid when people start changing numbers. For future reference, you need to have a source when you change numerical values - don't just do it because you think it's right. Also, I'd suggest you use that webpage you just posted as a reference in the article when you edit it to correct the values. See WP:IC to learn how to do that if you don't know how already. Antoshi 01:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Split article[edit]

I, VX1NG propose that this this information in this article be split into 3 different articles, because there are three different engine families covered by this article. I also suggest that this page be a disambiguation page for those articles. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)