Talk:Inline-four engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, High-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Motorcycling (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorcycling 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Archives of past discussion[edit]

Archive 1

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Inline-four engine. The redirect from Straight-four engine will remain to provide consistency with other engines. Rationale: Three things led to my evaluation of consensus here, in order of importance: 1) It has been pretty clearly demonstrated that this is the more common name. 2) Two editors were persuaded to strike their oppose !votes, which indicates the persuasivesness of the arguments. 3) The editors in favor of the move outnumbered the editors opposed to it (this is the least important reason, but still matters to a certain extent). Aervanath (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)



Straight-four engineInline-four engine — Straight-4 engine is rarely, if ever used to describe (an inline) 4-cylinder engine. Article name should be changed to Inline-four engine which is most often used to describe this type of 4-cylinder engine. Vegavairbob (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Straight-six Straight-6 and Straight eight Straight-8 are used to describe these engines because 6- and 8-cylinder engines are also (and usually) offered in V configurations where 4-cylinder engines usually are not. Because of this 4-cylinder engines are not (and don't need to be) referred to as Straight-four engines.Vegavairbob (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment disagree with those comments. V4s were historically very common (Ford probably made a few million of them), and opposed fours are still today very common (Subaru to name one manufacturer). 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the other Straight-x engine article use the same format, so why be different? Also, straight-four engines maybe not be referred to as such in the U.S., but they are elsewhere (UK, Australia, NZ (+ probably others, but I don't know any more off-hand)). OSX (talkcontributions) 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment The UK does NOT use 'straight' - every single source (from academic text books to car and commercial vehicle sales brochures) in the UK will ALL use 'inline' or 'in-line'. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Both terms are in popular use but we should keep it consistent with the other straight 2/3/... articles. Redirects take care of the other forms and most people won't even notice the difference. And for 199.125.109.19, there are plenty of V4's (Ford) and boxer 4's (Subaru, VW, Porsche) out there. Stepho-wrs (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Highly unnecessary move, seeing as how straight and inline are synonyms.--Flash176 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can see some justification for the move, in that the normal abbreviation for this configuraion is I4. But the justificaton given seems to be based on guesswork, and not always very good guesses. The names straight-four and straight-six probably came from the famous straight-eight automobile engines of the early and mid twentieth century, which were slightly preceded by the V-8. Other inline automoble engines of the period had relatively little competition from corresponding V configurations, and the inline four is still dominant enough among four cylinder autmomobile engines to often be simply described as a four, with vees and boxers etc being more fully described. On balance, I'd leave it as is. Andrewa (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "in that the normal abbreviation for this configuration is I4.": perhaps in engineering bandbooks that use seriffed type. Here with Wikipedia's usual sans-serif type it looks like "... the normal abbreviation for this configuration is fourteen.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment 'In-line' is used in authoritative text books, and so could not be based on 'guesswork'. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It's true that in-line is used in some of these, as is straight in others. But this doesn't tell us anything about the validity of the arguments or the truth of their premises. It's perfectly possible to arrive at true conclusions by invalid argument and/or by using false premises, and of course equally possible to arrive at false ones. Both occur above. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Whilst I respect your concerns, I personally cited a formal textbook to prove that in-line was the defacto nomenclature, and OK, you are free to challenge with an opposing point of view. But you have failed to provide any citation. Can you cite ANY formal textbook (and Haynes manuals/Haynes Publishing are NOT classed as textbook) which supports your claim that straight has any official and formal use? So I am utterly perplexed on your comment "It's perfectly possible to arrive at true conclusions by invalid argument and/or by using false premises" - are you honestly trying to state that textbooks are somehow 'invalid' or 'false'? It would be good if you could clarify what you mean, thanks. Rgds 78.32.143.113 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Formal names are not terribly relevant. This is a general encyclopedia, and the naming conventions here favour common names. Andrewa (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Yes but Andrewa, not only is inline-four the more common name, but it is apparently the formal one as well. So there goes that argument. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "Straight" and "inline" are synonymous, so the issue can be handled with redirects. "Straight-six" and "straight-eight" are more popular because of the poetic nature of the names (alliteration and assonance, respectively), which "straight-four" lacks, but it's still a common name for the configuration. V-4's are rare, but they do exist, as do flat-fours (alliteration, again). If we were starting with a blank article, it might be worthwhile to use "inline-4" (as long as we also used "inline-6" and "inline-8"), but at this point, I don't think it's worthwhile changing it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I won't bother voting, but please note that "...to keep it consistent with other Wikipedia pages" is absolutely no reason at all to have an article at a certain title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should go with the most common name as used by secondary sources, not what helps keep our own little filing system tidy. If that's your only reason for opposing, I'd recommend you strike your vote. Incidentally, a Google search of all variations ("inline/straight-4", "inline/straight 4", "inline/straight-four", "inline/straight four") suggests that "inline" is the more common term in each case; whether or not its majority—between 2:1 and 4:1—is sufficient to warrant the move is another argument. --DeLarge (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just had a quick read through WP:COMMONNAME, thought I out to highlight this important first line sentance (and I emboldend the important bit): "Convention: Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article, except where other specific conventions provide otherwise". So basically, even if it could somehow be proven that straight was the most common in say spoken English, I would have to say that the formal useage of in-line in textbooks complies with the specific conventions. Just like say the ibuprofen article is NOT called Bruffen or Nurofen. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • As I said above, "not only is inline-four the more common name, but it is apparently the formal one as well. So there goes that argument." OSX (talkcontributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't have any strong feelings on this, but shouldn't inline-four engine redirect to straight-four engine (or vice versa if the move were to be made)? I'm kind of surprised that there isn't already a redirect in place. swaq 20:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, that redirect was definitely missing. I've just put up redirects from Inline-four engine and Inline-4 engine. That won't resolve or dissolve this present proposal, but it should alleviate whatever dead-end-link effects might have been bothering Vegavairbob. I haven't made up my mind whether I favour the proposed move. I do see and hear both terms in widespread common usage, so I don't think either term can really be considered wrong. My unsystematic survey suggests Rockymtnguy may be correct that people might tend to select one word or the other depending on which number follows it. For instance, people seem to want to say "straight-8" rather than "inline-8" because the former rhymes. I don't think I agree with Vegavairbob that inline is necessarily more suitable or appropriate than straight, but I don't think I agree with DeLarge, either, for WP:GHITS seems to caution us against basing this sort of decision purely on Google hit counts. —Scheinwerfermann
      • It's an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions. In fact, the first line of prose text in WP:GHITS says "...using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is...", and that's all I was doing. You can occasionally get some anomalous results, but as a test of which is the more commonly used term, it's usually a reasonable barometer. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

T·C20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC) A long time ago, I made some choice with agrement of several Wikipedians. "Inline" has not exactly the same sense in aviation and automobile. In aviation "inline" is opposed to "radial" thus a "V12 inline engine" makes senses for an airplane. Ericd (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  • 'Comment The issue here is not the redirect. The issue is the name of the article. I have not seen a 4 cylinder inline engine referred to as Straight-4 in ANY publications (Road & Track, Car and Driver, Road Test, Motor Trend, or ANY engineering reports in 40 years. It is incorrect. The article should titled inline-four engine with the re-direct for Straight-four. Is this going to be based on opinion or what is widely used? Why should this site use the less common name for any article, including an inline-four engine? If you want to improve the auto articles on this site, start with the proper names of the articles, instead of individual preferences, and if one is found and proven to be widely used, use that one. I haven't read one statement here that states Straight-four is more widely used than inline-4.Vegavairbob (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Careful, Vegavairbob, you appear to be making some errors. The most substantial one is that you are conflating what you remember having personally seen with what is correct. That's not tenable, either in the real world or on Wikipedia. We have had editors in this discussion state they have seen and heard "straight four"; your gainsaying them doesn't make them wrong, doesn't make you right, and doesn't help advance your case. (You needn't believe me on this one; here and here are some reliable sources using straight-4 engine or straight-four engine.) You also seem to be conflating what you don't happen to like with objective incorrectness; that's also problematic. Moreover, please keep in mind that America does not have a monopoly on terminology in English. As at least one other editor has noted, prevalence of straight-4 or inline-4 may well vary by English-speaking region.
We have here a discussion about two names that are both about equally defensible, technically and linguistically. That makes it a relatively unimportant battle. Which is not to say your ideas are unimportant or not valued, just that you may want to have a cuppa tea, lower your voice (please; you are veering near to the edge of incivility), and think carefully about whether winning this particular battle will be worth the cost. To get a sense of what a relatively important terminological question looks like, please see here and here (the latter is an example of how a very involved, impassioned editor can change his mind and pursue a third option satisfactory to all parties to end a fruitless tug-o'-war).
Also, please, for the nth time in as many months, as you have been repeatedly asked by numerous editors on your talk page and elsewhere, make all your edits in one go rather than making an edit, then editing your edit, then editing your edit of your edit in a series of little tweaks. As has been explained to you numerous times, your endless series of little tweaks is disruptive because it creates edit conflicts and makes it difficult for others to contribute to the discussion. As I type this, I am on attempt number six to contribute to the discussion; faced each time with an edit conflict caused by your changing your comments one word or punctuation mark at a time. Please stop it. Thanks (again) for trying to edit coöperatively. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I have not seen Straight-4 or Straight-four used to describe an inline -4 engine in 40 years of publications and engineering reports. In the 70's when a V4 was available in Europe it might have been used then (in Europe) but its never been used in America to describe an inline-4 engine.Isn't that where the Straight 6 and Straight 8 designations came from? Even the 1962 Chevy II 153 cubic-inch 4-cylinder engine was referred to as an inline-4.Vegavairbob (talk)
Comment Let's pick a world-wide Auto publication, Road & Track. They have never used Straight-4 to describe an inline-4 engine. If you want to know which is "correct" you would have to use the leading auto publications as setting the example instead of an opinion of a few of the editors here, including me. I'm saying its correct only because they use it. Who do you want to go by. Don't take my word for it. Pick up a copy of Road and Track and look at their annual specifications pages issue for world-wide cars from ANY year. They use inline-4.Vegavairbob (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Please remember, we work by consensus here, number one. Consensus does not require unanimity, and sometimes the consensus goes against our personal opinions and preferences. Number two, Road & Track is an American publication. It's probably sold worldwide, but that does not make a worldwide publication, nor does it make it authoritative with respect to this particular snippet of English usage. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Road & Track may be sold worldwide but it is based in the USA and uses USA terminology. I have personally read and heard both terms in common use (Australia tends to get both American and British terms because we get publications from both). This argument really comes down to a coin toss over which is more technically correct. In which case consistency with the other articles becomes the tie-breaker. Stepho-wrs (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, Scheinwerfermann, you seem to have done a little 'fishing' - referring to your Google books search. Basically, what I am trying to say - if you wish to find a 'minority' point of view, then if you keep looking long and hard enough, you will eventually find something to support it. Whilst I don't have a problem with that approach per-se, in this particular issue, it is actually unhelpful on two grounds. Firstly, you did not include a similar Google books search to look for 'inline four', 'inline 4', 'in-line four' - etc, for comparision. Secondly, from the books thrown up in your quoted Google books search, in the face of it, the overwhealming majority seem to be North American publications - and so do not represent a worldwide view. Therefore, the 'weight' of their value as evidence should be appropriately lowered. Thanks for reading. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both terms are technically and linguistically sound, no apparent advantage either way. Redirects do an adequate job of ensuring coverage without confusion. —Scheinwerfermann T·C23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Change to Neutral. I no longer have a strong objection to the proposed move, but neither do I see particularly compelling reason to endorse it. It does appear that inline (no hyphen) may be more common, but this remains a rather inconsequential debate, for both terms are apparently correct. The Society of Automotive Engineers (website, paid subscription required to search full archives but quick/limited search is free) considers straight four/straight 4 equivalent to inline four/inline 4, and accepts either term without preference in technical papers and books they produce, edit, and publish. It has been demonstrated that both terms are technically and linguistically sound and are in use. Relative popularity appears to vary by region, so ENGVAR suggests to me we should probably stay with the present title in the absence of compelling reason to change. —Scheinwerfermann T·C21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Which one is more widely used? I'll give you one guess. No one here has shown current name of article is correct, more widely used, or preferred by car authorities ie. Road & Track and auto companies engineering reports. Personal preferences are illogical for this site. So be it. A lot of the auto related material on this site leaves a lot to be desired. I'm trying to help, but sometimes maybe things are better just left alone. It's easier.Vegavairbob (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, inline four is by far the most used, but the reason for using "straight-four" is only for consistency with the other straight-x articles. Using the Olympics as an analogy, most people use the terms "Sydney 2000 Olympic Games" and "Beijing 2008 Olympic Games" as opposed to "2000 Summer Olympics" and "2008 Summer Olympics" titles used here only for consistency. I guess the only way the change is going to happen based on current responses is to rename every other article to inline-x. And by using a quick Google test and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), you may have a chance:
  • Support it's an inline-4 and a straight-6. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - with hyphenation of in-line - Looking at a formal academic textbook (officially approved by all UK colleges and Universities) - Hiller's Fundamentals of Motor Vehicle Technology (how do you 'reference' a printed textbook ???), page 47, 2nd column clearly states:

    In-line The cylinders are arranged in a single row, side by side, and parallel to one another. They may be vertical, horizontal or inclined at any convenient angle. In-line engines usually have four or six cylinders but five- and three-cylinder engines are used, with a few eight-cylinder in-line engines produced in the past.

    It goes on to describe Vee and Opposed engine configurations too. From what I can gather, describing an engine as a straight-whatever is simply slang language, perpetuated through 'fan sites', forums, blogs, and the likes - and has never had any official meaning in automotive technology nomenclature. Rgds 78.32.143.113 (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Somebody finally came up with something. Thank you for this research. You made my day. I was getting frustrated trying to prove "Straight" is not the proper title for the article. Straight-four engine would redirect to Inline-four engine. Let's get the title change done please.Vegavairbob (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, it's not very good research. From what I can gather, describing an engine as a straight-whatever is simply slang language, perpetuated through 'fan sites', forums, blogs, and the likes - and has never had any official meaning in automotive technology nomenclature. It's a bit of a jump to say that whatever is not used in official and technological literature is slang, but even so it's not true... the term straight eight has a long history as the normal way to distinguish single-bank engines from vee engines, particularly in luxury and racing cars, such as the Leyland Eight or Duesenberg J. Sales literature is quite official, and is where the term straight eight was popularised. I'm guessng that the term inline was originally used to distinguish single-bank aero engines from radials and rotaries. Both terms have a history, and both are in current usage. In Australia, inline four is particularly used to describe motorcycle engines. Andrewa (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Huh, well if a University approved textbook is "not very good research", then do please state what IS????? !!! <shakes head in amazement> OK, me describing straight as 'slang' may appear a little insensitive or whatever, but you have still FAILED to cite any authoritive sources to prove that straight is used today as a formal description. I accept your point on the Leyland and Duesenberg - but there use of the term straight was 80 to 90 years ago!!! - and just like today in the 21stC, 99.9% of men no longer doff their cap to a pretty lady, straight has NO formal useage in automotive technology. Things evolve, and just because there was some minority historical use of a straight eight (but NOT four or six cylinders), that, in my humble opinion, bears absolutely NO justification for its continued use in a supposedly dynamic enclyclopaedia that is Wikipedia! But I do thank you for the motorcycle issue - all motorcyles use the term inline or in-line. Rgds 78.32.143.113 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • There is little likelihood of straight eight engines being renamed inlne even if the term straight were to be abandoned for all other purposes, as the design is one of great historical significance, winning many races and powering many flagship vehicles, but is now out of use (fifty years or so, not ninety) and of mainly historical interest. Those interested in these classic engines tend to use the terminology of the period, as in any similar field. Andrewa (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment The titles of the three engines do not have to match. Straight Eight is not being considered for a change now or in the future. Straight Four is is in question here.

          • The purpose of this move proposal is to determine whether inline or straight is the most widely used name overall. Even if straight-8 is more common than inline-8, the ubiquity of inline-4 / 6 is enough to displace its popularity considering it is no longer used, and a very rare configuration even when it was. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support/Comment Because Im not native english speaker its slightly hard to say something... but I would use the most common

term, which seems to be inline-4 per google research...we should not use straight-4 if the only reason to use it is consistency with other straight-x engines --Typ932 T·C 15:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I totally agree with that and I couldn't have said it better.Vegavairbob (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I also agree the common one should be used & it also follows WP:COMMONNAME. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy¤ 01:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have striked my oppose vote above, but I am reluctant to switch to an immediate support without some explanation. Here in Australia, "straight-six" and "inline-six" are both widely used (as opposed to "straight-four" which is used a lot less). I know this by the reading of auto magazines and web sites over the years and by the Google test ("straight-six" OR "straight-6": 13,900 results (Austr. only); "inline-six" OR "inline-6": 10,400 results (Austr. only)). What I need to know is whether or not "inline-six" is used as much as, or more than "straight-six" internationally. I know the Google test above shows that "inline-six" is more common, but Google may not be accurately representative. Could any other editors from countries outside of Australia confirm the results of the test below? If yes, then I'll change to support for the renaming of ALL straight-x articles to inline-x. OSX (talkcontributions) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for striking out your original vote. But can I ask what/how Australian textbooks officially use? Just because a word is widely used (weather that be inline, straight or whatever), it doesn't make it an 'offical' or 'formal' word. The Aussie term Ute springs to mind - Ute may be exceedingly widely used in Australia, but that doesn't make it formal nomenclature. Rgds 78.32.143.113 (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The [[WP:NC|policy] here is to prefer widely used terms to official names in any case. Andrewa (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Hey, I can be a broken record as well (this is like the 5th time you've rephrased that): "not only is inline-four the more common name, but it is apparently the formal one as well. So there goes that argument."
        • To answer your question 78.32.143.113, the usage of "straight-6" in Australia is probably attributable to the Ford straight-6 engine as fitted to the Ford Falcon since 1960. This term is no more widely used, but they are both used (only in Australia though) about equally. H O W E V E R . . ., globally, this seems not to be the case (I spent some time yesterday reading various publications). OSX (talkcontributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
        • For which "ute" is not, and 78.32.143.113 was never suggesting the title be renamed. Andrewa do you actually know much about these engines? Considering that all your comments seem to be a rephrase of "WP:official names says...", it appears you do not. Unless you can present some evidence in favour of retaining the current name, I suggest you stick to what you know. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment The discussion is over Straight-4 vs Inline-4 NOT the variable writings of a 6 cylinder engine with the pistons in a straight/inline array. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy¤ 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Inline 4 seems to only be used commonly in America to represent a 4 cylinder engine, the rest of the world uses straight-four. Redirects deal with the people who search for inline 4 and both terms are factually correct and commonly used, therefore the move would be redundant. Matty (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That is completely incorrect. If you are going to make sweeping statements like that, you are going to have to back it up. Using Google and a UK-restricted search: "straight-four" (3,030); "straight-4" (7,300); "in-line-four" OR "inline-four" (8,550) and "in-line-4" OR "inline-4" (9,200). The evidence speaks for itself, but to your argument's benignity Google is not always right). OSX (talkcontributions) 06:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, at least my argument is a little stronger than "This isn't what I want, change it.". I'm merely saying that i've never heard of a four cylinder engine being called an inline 4 outside of American publications, and that both of the terms are interchangeable and will always be and therefore moving the article is redundant. I don't care about this article's name enough to google search how many times the name comes up in each country, i'm just letting my voice be heard. Matty (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please point to where I said, "This isn't what I want, change it." I never said that. If you have "never heard of a four cylinder engine being called an inline 4 outside of American publications" then I suggest to take a look at the evidence: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Is that not evidence enough? Every major Australian publication and the UK publications that I know. OSX (talkcontributions) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I wasn't referring to you in that statement. I guess that it is mentioned outside of the US but the fact of the matter is that, well, it doesn't matter. Both titles are correct, and both are commonly used. Therefore the move is redundant and is not going to improve anything. Matty (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Changing the name will not improve anything. Both terms seem equally obscure as this is the most common type of a 4-cyl engine nowadays, commonly referred to as simply "4-cylinder engine" or I4. Moreover, the whole article is written in a way that consistently refers to this engine as straight-4, so changing the title will require some re-writing. I would recommend keeping it as is and leaving the rest to redirects. CFHerbert (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be happy to re-write it, correctly. That's why I proposed the change.Vegavairbob (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
You make it sound like it's not already correct. Matty (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

Please note Wikipedia:Canvassing.

The following campaign appears to violate the guideline, in that it openly seeks votes in a certain direction.

The contributor in question is relatively new, and possibly doesn't know that this is frowned upon. I have left a note on their talk page. Andrewa (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I only contacted editors to check out the discussion and vote! Didn't know I couldn't ask others to participate. It is posted in the WikiAutos page. Thank you Andrewa. Vegavairbob (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspected as much. The problem is, we have better things to do with our time than to conduct such campaigns. If it weren't for this guideline, I suppose I could now conduct a similar campaign to solicit oppose votes. As it is, we now just have to ask the closing admin to try to sort out whether the survey has been influenced by your canvassing, and how much if so. Andrewa (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Only one editor has voted as a result of my messages. Half of them are editors I contacted after they posted comments and didn't vote but sounded in favor so I wasn't trying to change anyone's opinion. I dought it had any influence and I'm sure the remaining editors on that list won't vote at this point.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The closing admin will take into account this and will more than likely invalidate any votes made by people you have canvassed, even if they would have found the discussion and voted support by themselves. You're only hurting your cause. Matty (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I had voted here BEFORE Vegavairbob messaged me on my talk page, as the timestamps here and on my talk page will show - I'm just leaving this comment here to make the Admins job a little easier. Thanks. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Vegavairbob, it is not canvassing if you just say something like, "I noticed you commented but didn't vote, your vote would be appreciated" and don't single out people who you think will vote the way you want. However, on my talk page you said: "I need your vote, please Support." This is trying to get me to vote a particular way, which is against Wikipedia:Canvassing. swaq 16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I should also mention that decisions are made based on consensus, not on the number of votes. I read a few of your other posts on talk pages and it looks like you expected that having a larger number of votes automatically would make your viewpoint win. This is not how it works. While it can help, generally the decision will be made based on the strength of the arguments as opposed to the raw number of votes. See also: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. swaq 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The other thing to avoid so as not to be accused of canvassing is selectively notifying people who are likely to support you, and not those who are likely to oppose. And it's difficult to prove this either way, but the benefit of the doubt generally goes against anyone who posts similar messages to a list of users. Much better to use other means, such as wikiproject talk pages and the village pump, if you want to broaden the discussion base.
My personal solution is to keep reminding myself "If we can't get consensus either way, then it doesn't really matter which way we go". It's not a principle that everyone can live with all the time, but it works well if you can. Andrewa (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the editors here for their help. Can we get back to the title of the article? I made a mistake. Sorry for the sorting out that will be needed. Of the editors I asked to support my change, only one of the editors posted to the page (Support). Again I apologise for the improper Canvessing. ThanksVegavairbob (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to title discussion[edit]

  • Comment Comments made that Straight-four is used in Europe, but to what extent? in 2009? Only inline-four is used in the US as per my comment about all US printed publications (in the past 40 years) and engineering reports. The more common name is inline-four, and the more common name should be used for the title of the article as to not mislead the reader. Anyone believe Straight-four is more common? And I'm not asking about six or eight cylinder engines, past or present. The article title in question is Straight-four. I have only seen it here so I guess its not too common. And the Straight Six article title (although used probably as often as Inline-six) is next for a change. Straight-Eight gets left alone of course-it started this mess of sometimes naming the Six (and here, the Four) with its "Straight" title, incorrectly, for convenience.Vegavairbob (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Europe vs. U.S. is not relevant; English is spoken worldwide, and the English-language Wikipedia is a global project. I am looking into this further and may change my vote; please stay tuned. —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment So, wait a minute. "straight" and "inline" are equally-used for sixes, yet you want to go and change it next because you think it's "incorrect." Such a statement makes it quite difficult to think that the purpose of this request was any more than personal preference. --Sable232 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I said "Straight" has been adopted for convenience on the four and the six (from the Straight-eight) and yes it is used on the six probably as often as Inline-six and that doesn't mean in publications. Inline is still how the six is described in print. But it has been suggested that "Straight" is slang (explains why is isn't used in publications) which makes it unsuitable for this site regardless that is is used more often on the six than on the four. The issue here though is as we go down the line, on the four, Straight-four is used only rarely and incorrectly. Inline-four and Inline-six are proper for this site, aren't used for convenience, and in the four's case, Inline-four is certainly the more common one than Straight-four.Vegavairbob (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, not just in Australia, and not just Ford even here. See http://www.hotsixes.com/ for example Forum and informnation site for straight and V6 engines..., or do a search on holden straight six or commodore straight six. I actually have more of a problem with the arguments being used than with the move itself; The move has something to recommend it although on balance I'd leave it as is. But most of the supporting arguments quite simply ignore the facts, and seem to boil down to a desire to have Wikipedia adopt the terminology preferred by some US-based enthusiasts. No great damage if we do in this case, but it's a bad precedent and further similar move proposals can be expected, first six cylinder and then maybe even eight. The idea of having the Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost engine described as inline rather than straight is a little bizarre. Andrewa (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WHY[edit]

How could this be changed back to Straight four without a discussion?(Vegavairbob (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

Very bad and rusty photo at the beginning of the article, should be changed[edit]

I have seen the very bad looking photo of the ford-inline-four with cylinder-head removed at the beginning of the article. Then i looked at the wiki-articles for other engine-configurations like inline-6, V6, V8, or V12 and they have all very nice engine-photos. So why has the article for the inline-4, which is one of the most often used engine-configurations on the planet, such a bad picture? I think it is time to change this rusty looking picture.

I searched in the net for a better picture and these are my recommendations:


Number 1:

photo found at: http://www.lancerregister.com/showthread.php?t=240719

detailed photo-address: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/APT/Evo%20Bits/EvoBlockBuilt001.jpg

With a subtitle like: "Mitsubishi Evo VII inline-four without cylinder-head and accessories"


Number 2:

photo found at: http://www.ssgti.net/specs.htm

detailed photo-address: http://www.ssgti.net/other/eng2.jpg

With a subtitle like: "Suzuki inline-four cutaway"


Number 3 (which is a nicer type of the original photo):

photo found at: http://themgclub.org/showthread.php?t=233461

detailed photo-address: http://gallery.mg-rover.org/data/3409/mgtf_head_1.jpg

With a subtitle like: "MG TF135 inline-four with cylinder-head removed"


I would be very happy if the rusty original photo would be removed. Unfortunately i don't know how to change a picture in a wiki-article, but i spared you some time by looking for a nicer picture.

i wish you a very long and lucky life Kerl23BRB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.85.246 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in general. But wikipedia is not allowed to copy pictures from webpages. The author must give permission for the picture to be used on WP.  Stepho  (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


I have send all three photo-owners a email with asking for the permission to use this photo

in wikipedia. If they agree, is a copy of there email-answer at this discussion place enough, to use the photos? Kerl23brb, 02:15, 16.01.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.12.226.207 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I'm getting out of my depth. Offhand, I'd say that adding the images (assuming permission is given by the original authors) with a statement saying that the original author (insert real name) has given permission to use it. Publishing of their email address is not advised. But read through the various WP image help articles to get better knowledge than I have.  Stepho  (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Displacement and notable examples[edit]

I think the Displacement section can be shortened significantly. There's currently a rather long list of engines there, whereas I think it would be more to the point to say: generally speaking up to 2.4 in cars, and much larger in diesel engines. And maybe citing one or two exceptions to the rule. And as for the notable examples, why are they notable? According to whom? I think the article would be better with less examples, a bit more facts and to try to stick mostly to the theory side of it, such as the excellent Balance and smoothness section. Vince (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This "list" adds nothing, it's not formatted to be recognisable as a list and it's a spam magnet.
I suggest significant pruning (probably best done by starting from scratch). I'd suggest these as entries:
  • Smallest inline four we can find
  • Smallest "production" or "practical" engine (Honda racing motorbikes of the '60s?)
  • Smallest production car
  • Typical motorbike
  • Typical car (this is likely to be the range of 850cc-3l) Maybe list the two extremes with named examples, but there's no value in listing commonplace cars in the middle.
  • Ferrari F2 cars of the 1950s (a rare return to the four-cylinder)
  • Largest motorbike
  • Stationary diesel engines
  • Largest inline four we can find
Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
JFDI! --Biker Biker (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
How about something like this for the Displacement section: "This inline engine configuration is the most common in cars with a displacement up to 2.4 L. The usual "practical" limit of the displacement of inline-four engines in a car is around 2.7 L. However, Porsche used a 3.0 L four in its 944 S2 and 968 sports cars. Early vehicles also tended to have engines with larger displacements to develop horsepower and torque. The Model A Ford was built with a 3.3 L inline-four engine. Inline-four diesel engines, which are lower revving than gasoline engines, often exceed 3.0 L. Larger still inline-four engines are used in industrial applications, with displacements well in excess of a thousand liters.[11] Displacement can also be very small, as found in kei cars sold in Japan, such as the Subaru EN series; engines that started out at 550 cc and are currently at 660 cc."

Basically, shorten it, less examples. A modern classic example, a vintage example, rule of thumb for diesels, and industrial engines. And finally, they can also be very small. Regarding Andy's list, a lot of those can already be found on the list of automotive superlatives. And regarding the Notable list, I don't see the point of such a list and it seems more like a list of engines owned by people here who wish to sing their engine's praises and list them here. What do you guys think of dropping the Notables completely? Vince (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Representative" is better than "Notables", just because it looks like a list that's soon bounded and complete. "Notables" is a spam magnet, as everyone likes to think their own car is notable and there's no reachable condition for "this list is now full". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Practical limit?[edit]

The article says the usual "practical" limit of the displacement of inline-four engines in a car is around 2.7 L. But then it goes on to mention quite a few I4s that are bigger than 2.7L -- including the De Dietrich 17 L engine. (That must have been a monster!)

The overall effect is to make the reader severely question the idea of a 2.7 L practical limit. The article should either provide a better explanation of this "practical limit" -- how the 2.7 L figure is arrived at, and the disadvantages of exceeding this limit -- or stop mentioning this "limit" altogether. 75.163.129.243 (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

So what? It's a practical limit. The De Dietrich is impractical. Impractical doesn't mean "impossible", it just means that there is no rational case where such an engine would be constructed, for the typical scope implied by the context of the article.
That context is a "modern" engine for "cars" with modern fuels. The limits on building it are mainly in balancing the piston linear velocity (keeping it low enough for the piston ring seals to work) against the output rpm (needs to be within a reasonable geartrain of the wheel's rotational speed) and the geometrical factors of the combustion chamber size (diameter and stroke being comparable) along with a high rpm (i.e. cycle repeat time) for efficiency of more burn cycles/cylinder.
Bore and stroke have to remain comparable or combustion geometry suffers. The rpm is the same for current production "domestic" or "performance" engines, according to the sophistication of the ignition and porting systems available (big end bearing speed is no longer the limit, getting the mixture in and out is). The maximum stroke (for a given rpm) is limited, or the piston rings fail. This all gives a single maximum capacity for a cylinder in a petrol-engined "car" with a conventional transmission. Four of those is about 2.7l.
The De Dietrich ran extremely slowly, so its extra-long stroke was below the even lower piston ring speed limits of the day. Its fuel chemistry was crude, so combustion was slow and so rpm (cycles / second) also had to be, and the long stroke of such engines wasn't yet a limit on flame propagation.
Modern large ship Diesels are closer to using the Diesel cycle than the Otto cycle (NB - most diesel engines after 1920 use the Otto cycle, not the Diesel cycle). This means they can run far more slowly (combustion cycles / cylinder / second) and still run efficiently. They can also use long strokes in proportion to their bore. So the cylinder limit on a Diesel-like Diesel is much greater than a car's petrol engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
...and where is any of this documented? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)