Talk:Chrysler Hemi engine

Real history of the hemi

While Crysler did real things with the hemi over the last seventy years, they did NOT in fact design it. That kudo has to go to a french design engineer @1929. Henry Talbot, in cooperation with a coach designer named Largo, First designed and built the Hemi head for a custom built straight Six to be built in their race oriented two seat coupe. This car was built for wealty european's after the much sought after road racing titles of the day. The Talbot-Largo coupes were hand built with much advanced technology including a 6 speed, semi automatic transmission with no clutch. This transmission was operated by engaging seperate bands on individual levers to advance through the gears. Down shifting was accomplished by disengaging the levers one at a time till all were again off. Reverse used 1st and a reverser. This transmission pioneered the use of planetary gear technology used today in almost all auto transmissions.The suspension types under the car were also way ahead of latent technology. The most recent appearence of these hand built coupes, suprisingly, was a Disney film. Cruella Deville's Long nose coupe, In the movie 101 Dalmations was in fact, a very close artists rendition of the Talbot-Largo. Extremely rare now, there are none the less, restored versions still around. When the company went under in the 30"s Walter P. Chrysler had the funds available, and the good sense to purchase the patent rights to the design and put it away. Other companies have modified and used the style head but Chrysler owns the terminology HEMI and so is the only company who can use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk) 12:12, 2006 November 26

Early 1900s peugeot racers had dohc hemi 4 valve per cylinder, monobloc (head and cylinders one piece) etc. which enabled them to compete with a small engine versus the 20 liter flatheads the competition were running. not much new in engine technology since those. they were the ancestor of the Offy. Gzuckier 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopædic text removal

I have — for the second time — removed a dump of unencyclopædic text copied wholesale from other websites. The bulk of the text I've removed was copied from here and from other web boards, without any attempt whatsoever to disguise its web board origin ("And some opinions posted in response to Mr. Tedder's post:" headed a dump of web board me-too comments). In the first place, this type of text dump is not permitted. Mind the advisory present on every Wikipedia editing page: Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted. In the second place, the text was wholly unencyclopædic. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. It is not the place for transcripts of television shows, reprints of magazine articles, lengthy soundbites from tv-show engine builders, or web board chatter. --Scheinwerfermann 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now removed the same text dump for the third time. --Scheinwerfermann 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: and a fourth time. This time, I am being accused of "perpetuating false tests" or somesuch. I am perpetuating nothing, merely removing unencyclopædic content dumped wholesale from another website in violation of Wikipedia rules. --Scheinwerfermann 14:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: ...and a fifth time. The PP should help; if the perpetrator wishes to engage in discussion regarding this text, he can do so as a registered editor. --Scheinwerfermann 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a concerted effort by Hemi loyalists and apologists to rewrite and censor the history of the actual performance levels and records of the classic hemi engine. This effort consists of removing unpopular statements of fact, which are duly annotated and clearly true statements, and not just "dumps" of text. You may call the source of the statements up, and verify their veracity for yourself if you doubt them. But until you provide proof that they are incorrect, stop editing away the holocaust. The holocaust happened. A lot of so-called history and facts regarding the mythology of the hemi engine also happened. Acknowledge it and accept it. The source of these comments references an actual Hemi builder, in business, for profit, who has been involved with the engine, it's builders, racers, users and documentors for much of his life. If real world facts and experience are unencyclopeadic, then some people have a poor idea of just what an encyclopedia is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 17:24, 2007 December 27

Removed unencyclopædic text again. Please understand, nobody is engaging in anything even remotely akin to holocaust denial, nor does this involve loyalists (to anything) or censorship (of any kind). The text you continually try to reinsert is not acceptable because it does not comply with WP:NOR or WP:RS. If you are able to find similar info from acceptable sources, you are certainly welcome to add that material to the extent it is properly documented per WP:V. Wikipedia is a coöperative effort, not a competitive one, and your continued willful refusal to conform to the standards and rules here constitutes a major and ongoing disruption to this article and to the Wikipedia project at large. Also, please remember to sign your comments. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are an armchair lawyer who doesn't really know the law. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 where you will find that my references/source meets Wikipedia requirements for online sources. My source was personally involved, was not a third party to the information, and identifies himself, the actual project. Furthermore, if you had taken the time to read through my source, you would have found the the publisher himself, the producer of the segment, HIMSELF, by name, verified the veracity of the source data. Deny the holocaust all you want. You are a censoring, ill-informed 'contributor' to this site who should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.45.99 (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm only one of the many editors and administrators who disagree with your flawed understanding of how Wikipedia works and what constitutes a reliable source. Your apparent unwillingness to contribute coöperatively to Wikipedia is regrettable. But regardless of what you may think of me, or of any other editor or administrator, or of Wikipedia protocol and policy, your comparison of a trivial dispute over the minutiæ of a car engine to an event in which millions of people were murdered is in extremely poor taste at best. Also, please remember to sign your comments properly. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, You seem to be the ONLY editor and/or administrator who disagrees with my perfectly good understanding of how Wikipedia works and what constitutes a reliable source. Your apparent willingness to twist the rules and unsportsmanlike quashing of the truth is more than regrettable, it is diametrically opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia and in clear violation of Wikipedia protocol, policies and cooperative spirit. This is not trivia, else why would you be so opposed to the truth about what you classify a "trivial" dispute that you would pervert the bureaucracy of Wikipedia to squash its appearance? I'm sure the first "Juden" signs painted on businesses were considered "trivial" too, just as you apparently think censoring truth and actual facts is of no concern now.

I have now a PUBLISHED source for my comments. Will that be satisfactory? Let me cite the written article about this fiasco. Or are you soooo against the truth being made easily available?

By the way, how anal are you that you need a signature? So you can track me down and punish me for my impertinence?? Are you threatening me? Nazi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.159.130 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your comments on talk pages is a matter of courtesy. Please keep your comments civil. Namecalling doesn't accomplish anything. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you didn't address the offer to use a Published source, from a mainstream publication, as a citation. Is that because this isn't about presenting facts and true history, or because you are trying to control the facts and history made available? Just as there are those that want to deny the holocaust and other events in history, you want to be the gatekeeper and allow only facts that you approve of to be reported on. Do you believe Man landed on the moon in 1969? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.159.130 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Behold - we have Godwin's law and Reductio ad Hitlerum in progress. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps 64.107.159.130 would be interested in Wikipedia's article on Usenet. ;-) --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not a "Law". It is only a means of deflection by those it is directed at. Second, if it was good enough for Torvalds, it's good enough for me.

FINALLY, I notice no one is willing to discuss the inclusion of my valid statements given my willingness to cite a PUBLISHED source.

So, deflect, obfuscate, dance, prance and serpentine all you want, but, all I see are hypocrites and armchair lawyers who've probably never touched a hemi, much less had one crush her foot, again, use made up "laws" to quash truth and completeness regarding the history of the chrysler hemi. Definitely against Wikipedia policy and intent I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.159.130 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First Sentence Is Not Very Clear

A Chrysler Hemi engine is one of three different internal combustion engine families from Chrysler that are Hemi engines; in other words, they utilize a hemispherical combustion chamber.

I was going to offer a rewrite of this run-on sentence, but I'm not even sure what it means. A Chrysler Hemi engine is an engine family from Chrysler that is a Hemi engine? Is "Chrysler Hemi" the name of one of these engine families or a general term for all three? If it's a general term, the three "engine families" are never mentioned as such in the text. Maybe they are the same as the three "generations" mentioned later in the intro? If so, the engine families/generations probably don't need to be mentioned until then. How about something like:

A Chrysler Hemi engine is an internal combustion engine built by Chrysler that utilizes a hemispherical combustion chamber.

If the three families/generations really do need to be mentioned up front, how about following up with the sentence:

The three generations of Chrysler Hemi engines for automobiles included the first (the Chrysler FirePower engine) in the 1950s, the second from the mid 1960s through the mid 1970s, and finally in the early 2000s.

from the end of the intro. End the paragraph there. So the next paragraph starts:

A hemispherical (inverted bowl-shape) combustion chamber allows the valves of a two valve-per-cylinder engine to be angled rather than side-by-side...

If no one objects, I'll make these changes.Originalname37 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object. There are many examples of cylinder heads that use angled valves; they're usually referred to as "Canted Valve" heads...the Ford 351 Cleveland heads are just one example.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.159.130 (talk) January 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes and did some other cleanup. It could use more cleanup.Originalname37 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't link to the Wikipedia article on the Chrysler 392 (Firepower) engine family? To properly clean this article up, it should be retitled Chrysler 426 (Elephant) engine family and the article about the modern DaimlerChrysler hemi should get its own article, with links between the three. They're all very separate engines, with no parts shared amongst them. Also, placement of the sparkplug in the center of the chamber is not mandatory. Your statement of such is just flat wrong. One example of a hemi chamber with one offset sparkplug would be the Ford 425 Hemi.

All that I did was try to clean up some of the writing in the intro and add some missing links. I don't claim to know anything about the Chrysler Hemi engine. The sentence:

This design also allows the placement of the sparkplug nearer to the center, which is mandatory, given that there is minimal quench and swirl to burn fuel gasses thoroughly and quickly.

was there when I got there. I don't vouch for it's validity. The same is true of the "angled valve" sentence. I just moved it to satisfy anyone who really wanted the three families/generations to still be mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph. If it was false to begin with, please feel free to establish an account and fix it.Originalname37 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not (and would not without authoritative sources) make a single change with regard to the facts of the article. I was trying to learn about the Hemi Engine and I came across an article that needed some copy editing. So, I made some minor edits to the introduction. This was a good deed. I'm just a user like yourself, trying to help out.Originalname37 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan on making any other changes to the article. I've already spent much more time on it than I wanted to.Originalname37 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't claim to know anything about the Chrysler Hemi engine." You KNOW that it is false. You KNOW that it is wrong. You ADMIT you don't know anything about the subject. JUST WHAT ARE YOU DOING MESSING WITH THIS ARTICLE???? Here's an idea: If you are just an officious wannabe why don't you leave well enough alone. To all users of Wikipedia: The registered editors do not care about accuracy, completeness or relevance. They just like to write random stuff down. It's apparently a vanity thing. If you're clearing things up, maybe you should put in the heading, a statement, that the contents of this article have numerous errors, omissions, and is generally poorly structured within itself and as part of the total set of articles relating to "Hemi Engines". So add your name to the growing list of Wiki editors who can't be bothered with getting the facts straight and complete, just grammatical:

Scheinwerfermann
T-Dot
Originalname37

You all talk/write a good game, but when it comes time for presenting actual facts, you all can't be bothered.

I think you're confused about how this works. I'm just a user like you. I'll help when and where I can, but volunteering to fix a run-on sentence here and there does not mean that I owe you a research project on the Chrysler Hemi Engine. Why don't you register (it takes about 5 seconds) and fix it yourself? Originalname37 (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

64.107.159.130, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a coöperative venture, not a competitive one. It is not a forum for credentials-wielding oneupsmanship, nor is it appropriate to beat editors over the head with the rules. The verifiability and reliability criteria for information sources and all the other protocols and regulations exist to facilitate the improvement of the project, not to frustrate or foment the aggrandisement of one editor over another. Please also observe the rule against personal attacks, remember to keep your behaviour civil, and properly sign your comments. Also, do not intersperse comments amongst existing text on a talk page. Put all of your comments in one block of text. Otherwise you disrupt others' ability to keep track of who said what...especially with your habit of refusing to sign your comments (and inappropriately deleting SineBot's autosignatures). If you carry on behaving abusively and disruptively, you will likely be blocked. Thanks for striving to be a coöperative Wikipedian. --Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you cooperate and allow the posting of factual, supported by references (published) information regarding the topic at hand. You too are now aware of the flaws, omissions, errors in this article. I am not allowed to correct them; the editors apparently are too busy with their grammatical corrections to address these problems. How exactly is this a cooperative, or believable article/project if you don't allow people who KNOW the facts to edit the articles. And don't give me the registration spiel, my firewall doesn't allow registration at this site. YOU know about the problems, why don't YOU fix them?????

my firewall doesn't allow registration I can register an account for you and email you the password. Pick an account name, make sure it's not in use and leave me the request on my talk page. Include your email address.

Alternatively, you can register an account through another internet connection, such as your local library.

Once you have an account, you might be able to edit through your firewall even if its ip has been blocked by wikipedia. Also, an account gives you some more privacy by hiding your ip address. --Duk 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal. The registered editors of Wikipedia have done the following for this article: they've corrected some spelling, rearranged existing text that they admittedly don't understand, and spent a goodly amount of time beating on a lowly IP'er who's greatest sin has been that he wants to add to, correct, and make the article more usable. Oh, and the registered editors, have made repeated snide comments, trotted out rule after rule and link after link, rules that they themselves are breaking (cooperation, assume the best...) or links to pages that they are not themselves actually reading and/or comprehending.

Why exactly would I want to register myself into this cadre of snobby officious grammaticians and spellcheckers? Why would I want to spend any more time and effort in correcting and adding to the "knowledge" here. I mean, they can spend hours correcting spelling, but they can't spend a few minutes looking up "canted valve heads" and correcting facts instead of words. I'm just a lowly IP'er, without the "degree"/registration that apparently is needed to contribute to the knowledge base here.

I guess, being a dumb IP'er, I just don't get the logic of driving people who actually know some FACTS away from a, supposedly, factual reference. I guess I don't get the idea of why, if a lordly registered editor says he is deleting something because he wants a published reference, that if you provide him with a published source, he a)ignores you, and b)locks you out. All the while holding himself up as some kind of wig-wearing judge/jury/executioner.

I KNOW this article is riddled with errors, and questionable information. You registered editors can be proud of your success in ignoring the grain for the chaff.