Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chrysler Hemi engine: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:14, 20 January 2008 edit64.107.58.130 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:07, 9 July 2024 edit undoSable232 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,774 editsm broken anchor resolved 
(101 intermediate revisions by 48 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Not a forum|Chrysler Hemi engines and related matters}}
== Real history of the hemi ==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Automobiles|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{merged from|Dodge hemi small block}}


==Archives of past discussion==
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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{Time|12:12, 2006 November 26}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->
''']'''<br/>
''']'''<br/>
''']'''


==Image==
: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. ] 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
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? —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>03:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)</small>


: 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? ] <sup>]</sup> 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
== Unencyclopædic text removal ==


==Where are the forgotten Hemi???==
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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. --] 15:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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??
] (]) 03:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Francois Cote


== modern hemi engines ==
'''Update:''' I have now removed the same text dump for the ''third'' time. --] 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Are the modern hemi engines cast iron or aluminum? --] (]) 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. --] (]) 17:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
'''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 Misplaced Pages rules. --] 14:38, 19 October 2007 (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.--] (]) 02:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
'''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. --] 20:23, 19 October 2007 (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 ], 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 ] sources, and then you can and should add it to this article…all in just a couple of minutes! —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>&middot;<sub>]</sub><small>05:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)</small>


== Hemi V6? ==
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.


Chrysler designed a 3.6L Hemi V6 in 1951, but it was not produced.
: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 ] or ]. 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 ]. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages project at large. Also, please remember to ]. --] (]) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


== Cross-flow contradiction ==
::You are an armchair lawyer who doesn't really know the law. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 where you will find that my references/source meets Misplaced Pages 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.


As it stands the article contradicts itself. I personally agree with the bracketed statements, but the article should be one way or the other. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Well, I'm only one of the many editors and administrators who disagree with your flawed understanding of how Misplaced Pages works and what constitutes a reliable source. Your apparent unwillingness to contribute coöperatively to Misplaced Pages is regrettable. But regardless of what you may think of me, or of any other editor or administrator, or of Misplaced Pages 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 ] properly. --] (]) 05:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


:FYI, ] did an extensive comparison between a 2-valve crossflow head and 2-valve ] head in 1964 when they designed Cosworth SCA series, which had a SOHC counterflow non-hemi design similar to ] FWE engine. 1498cc SCB was built for this purpose to compare against ]-based 1498cc Cosworth Mk.XVI, which had a DOHC crossflow hemi-head on the same Ford block and the same forged crank and rods.<br>
::::Well, You seem to be the ONLY editor and/or administrator who disagrees with my perfectly good understanding of how Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and in clear violation of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
: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.<br>
:I am not familiar with American V8s and have no intention of editing this article, but thought this would be of interest to you. ] (]) 16:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
::"proven wrong at least in these two designs"? according to what you've written, it was proven wrong in the one design they tested, and then released in the other design, and successfully used, but not A/B tested. ] (]) 03:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


== Incorrect displacement figures ==
::::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?
The displacement figures for the DeSoto Fire Dome hemi engine are wrong. I checked on this website () and it lists 276 ci, 291 ci, 330 ci, 341 ci, and 345 ci. On the Misplaced Pages article it is 287 ci, 306 ci, 312 ci, 324 ci and 345 ci (the 345 is correct). The Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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 ] to learn how to do that if you don't know how already. <b><span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #A200FF, -4px -4px 15px #00CCFF;">]</span> <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF0000, -4px -4px 15px #FFF600;">] ]</span></b> 01:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


== Split article ==
::::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?


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, ] (]) 13:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
:::::Signing your comments on talk pages is a matter of courtesy. Please keep your comments ]. Namecalling doesn't accomplish anything. --] (]) 02:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
{{not done}}


==Rename proposal==
::::::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?


I think the title of the article should be changed as there are currently no Chrysler vehicles available with any of these engines. Perhaps FCA Hemi would be a more accurate title, which would also allow for bringing in some of the other brand names' hemi- headed engines from the European brands that have been rolled up into FCA. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::And ''Behold'' - we have ] and ] in progress. --''']''' ( <sup>]</sup>/<small>'']''</small> ) 19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:'''Oppose:''' This smacks of recentism. The firepower, RedRam, etc. engines are definitely not FCA. ] <small>(])</small> 00:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


:::I think FCA lawyers would strongly disagree with you, they now own all the trademarks. And what is wrong with that? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::Perhaps ] would be interested in Misplaced Pages's article on ]. ;-) --] (]) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


:'''Oppose:''' Clearly the article is about the lineage of the original Hemi and not about the disparate hemispherical engines of various Chrysler owners. Those other engines have no meaningful relation and we don't want to rewrite the article every time Chrysler corporate structure changes. ] (]) 19:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
:'''Strong Oppose''' I have a better idea: ], where you can detail all the various types, including the ], the Simca 136ci (based on the Ford flatty), all the FCA variants, all the '50s & '60s Mopars, the Donovans, the Arduns, & anything else under the sun that might apply. You can then leave ''this'' page for its subject: the Mopars, up to the elephant. ] ] 05:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::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.


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


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
::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 Misplaced Pages policy and intent I'm sure.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707191357/http://www.automobile.com/daimlerchrysler-announces-winner-of-zany-what-can-you-hemi-contest.html to http://www.automobile.com/daimlerchrysler-announces-winner-of-zany-what-can-you-hemi-contest.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
== The First Sentence Is Not Very Clear ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
<i>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>


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 11:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
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:


==Auto news==
<i>A Chrysler Hemi engine is an internal combustion engine built by Chrysler that utilizes a hemispherical combustion chamber.</i>
<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 18:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC) ''Happy 16th day after the Ides of March''
:Not that this isn't funny, but are April fools day articles really worthy of mention? ] (]) 02:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


== Holy replacement engine, Batman ==
If the three families/generations really do need to be mentioned up front, how about following up with the sentence:
Is mention of the ], planned as a replacement for the low-volume 426, warranted? (I'd have put it in a "see also" section, if there had ''been'' one...) ] ] 11:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
<i>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.</i>


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
from the end of the intro. End the paragraph there. So the next paragraph starts:


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
<i>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... </i>
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kolossochryslerjeepdodgeramwi.com/2009-mopar-performance-catalog.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916011533/http://www.media.chrysler.com/dcxms/assets/specs/2011_Challenger392_Specifications.pdf to http://www.media.chrysler.com/dcxms/assets/specs/2011_Challenger392_Specifications.pdf


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
If no one objects, I'll make these changes.] (]) 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
: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.<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 01:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
::I made the changes and did some other cleanup. It could use more cleanup.] (]) 20:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:::You didn't link to the Misplaced Pages 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:

::::<i>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.</i>

::::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.] (]) 17:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

::::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.] (]) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

::::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.] (]) 14:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::"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 Misplaced Pages: 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? ] (]) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

], please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is a coöperative venture, not a competitive one. It is ] a forum for credentials-wielding oneupsmanship, nor is it appropriate to beat editors over the head with the rules. The ] and ] 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 ], remember to ], and ]. 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. --] (]) 06:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

::::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 and leave me the request on my ]. 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. --] 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


::::::Here's the deal. The registered editors of Misplaced Pages 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.

::::::: How can I help you? --] 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

::::::::You can make this article conform more to the spirit of Misplaced Pages, which my understanding is, is a compedium of knowledge from everywhere, without regard for registered status. People like myself who know a lot about a few things, who are willing to contribute, but who aren't interested in Talk pages or status or much of anything else other than getting the facts out, and correct. I don't understand how people who obviously don't know the subject are allowed to block users who DO, from correcting things.

::::::::I think you should also start, I don't know the procedure, a code-writing effort that scans changes made each night to all the articles against a spellchecker, flags questionable spellings and automatically fixes unquestionably wrong spellings...it seems like a lot of manhours being wasted reading and correcting things at random. Just produce a list each morning and let people work from the list, or assign the list, whatever.

::::::::What you can really do is fix this article, or let unregistered users fix it for you. I've identified at least two areas that need correcting for you already. People are reading the article to restructure it already, why can't they just fix it while they're reading it for structure issues? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 00:07, 9 July 2024

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chrysler Hemi engines and related matters. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chrysler Hemi engines and related matters at the Reference desk.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAutomobiles Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contents of the Dodge hemi small block page were merged into Chrysler Hemi engine. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3

Image

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 ·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 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are the forgotten Hemi???

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

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 ·C05:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hemi V6?

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

Cross-flow contradiction

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)
"proven wrong at least in these two designs"? according to what you've written, it was proven wrong in the one design they tested, and then released in the other design, and successfully used, but not A/B tested. 76.33.171.135 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect displacement figures

The displacement figures for the DeSoto Fire Dome hemi engine are wrong. I checked on this website () and it lists 276 ci, 291 ci, 330 ci, 341 ci, and 345 ci. On the Misplaced Pages article it is 287 ci, 306 ci, 312 ci, 324 ci and 345 ci (the 345 is correct). The Misplaced Pages 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

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)  Not done

Rename proposal

I think the title of the article should be changed as there are currently no Chrysler vehicles available with any of these engines. Perhaps FCA Hemi would be a more accurate title, which would also allow for bringing in some of the other brand names' hemi- headed engines from the European brands that have been rolled up into FCA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.176.249.163 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: This smacks of recentism. The firepower, RedRam, etc. engines are definitely not FCA. Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I think FCA lawyers would strongly disagree with you, they now own all the trademarks. And what is wrong with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.176.249.163 (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: Clearly the article is about the lineage of the original Hemi and not about the disparate hemispherical engines of various Chrysler owners. Those other engines have no meaningful relation and we don't want to rewrite the article every time Chrysler corporate structure changes. unixxx (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Strong Oppose I have a better idea: Hemi engine, where you can detail all the various types, including the Chrysler IV-2220, the Simca 136ci (based on the Ford flatty), all the FCA variants, all the '50s & '60s Mopars, the Donovans, the Arduns, & anything else under the sun that might apply. You can then leave this page for its subject: the Mopars, up to the elephant. TREKphiler 05:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chrysler Hemi engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 11:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Auto news

Ferrari to Begin Using Hellcat Engines 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Happy 16th day after the Ides of March

Not that this isn't funny, but are April fools day articles really worthy of mention? Carguy1701 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Holy replacement engine, Batman

Is mention of the Chrysler ball-stud hemi, planned as a replacement for the low-volume 426, warranted? (I'd have put it in a "see also" section, if there had been one...) TREKphiler 11:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chrysler Hemi engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories: