Talk:EMD 265

That's Impressive!
In comparison to the common 351 CI (5.8 L) Ford V8, with a 4.0 in. bore, 3.5 in. stroke, this engine has more than twice the bore size, more than 3 times the stroke. When using the industry standard to calculate an engines total cubic inch displacement would equal 16030 CI (262.6 l)

(R2 = ½ cylinder bore, x ½ cylinder bore.)
 * 3.14 x R2 x stroke x # of cyl.

Wasn't sure if this information was suitable for the article but posted it here just in case someone was really interested.
 * -- DP 67  ('talk'/'contribs') 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

EMD 265 Engine Rebranded 1010 Engine
The latest ad in Railway Age confirms that EMD has re-branded the 265 engine as the 1010 engine to reflect the cu in displacement instead of the bore diameter. I suggest that the article be renamed to reflect this.Sturmovik (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If the 567, 645 and 710 have separate pages, 265 and 1010 should have separate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.132.80 (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain why if both engines are part of the same family. The 265 has a 1010cu in displacement, but was given a metric designation. The 1010J is an improved version of the 265(1010)H.  This is consistent with the 567A->567B->567C->567D and 645E->645F evolutions.  Finally neither page has enough information to stand on their own.  The H block was a failure with all US examples scrapped.  Combining the 1010 engines together will make for a better user experience.Sturmovik (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)