Talk:Ford FE engine/Archive 2

Maintenance templates
I have replaced the valid maintenance templates removed on 17 May. To address concerns regarding their excess number, I have consolidated them such that they appear only at the relevant section headings, not in each and every subsection. This article is making great progress with high-quality material and expanded coverage, but it's still essential that assertions be verifiable by reference to reliable sources. The maintenance templates are to call attention to particular sections that need improved citations. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 15:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored those tags again today. To request citations and references for information is not out of the ordinary.  In fact, it is what we mean when we say that all information on wikipedia should be verifiable, and that we do not include original research. Athanasius • Quicumque vult  19:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from 15 July

 * 12.73.240.231, your edit summary when you removed (again) the maintenance templates reads Aspersions cast without a direction or target presented. WHAT exactly is the problem with this article? Therre ARE references. Please ID specific faults. Please remember that maintenance templates aren't "aspersions". You appear to feel these templates and tags are a negative judgment of the quality of the article, but that's not so at all. In fact, they're a tool to focus and accelerate the improvement of the article. They call attention to the parts of an article most in need of development and improvement, making it likely to happen sooner. In this particular case, the sections of the article dealing with specific variants of the FE engine are largely devoid of appropriate references to reliable sources. That's holding back the quality of the article, because it means some of the assertions may not be verifiable. Contrary to your edit summary, the templates are specifically and accurately targeted and directed, and they do identify the specific faults. Please don't remove templates or tags without fixing the problem they indicate; doing so is considered vandalism. More importantly, doing so hinders the improvement of the article. Thanks for editing coöperatively. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So, for fellow editors, you claim to be discussing this issue. Here, on the actual discussion board associated with the article, you have discussed NOTHING. As per your usual MO. Please, pray tell us oh great lord and master what sacrifices, how many vestal virgins, what oaths, fealties and great words must we speak to gain your favor. Oh speak great one so that we may listen and learn...and please keep your response under 1,000 words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.159.130 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The maintenance templates really do speak for themselves; they point out areas of the article containing unsupported assertions. I can't imagine what further explanation will help you to understand, and I will not get in a quarrel with you. When you decide you want to discuss the matter seriously, without pointless snark and sarcasm, I will certainly be happy to do so. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 02:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Discuss it with me and all the other editors who have contributed to this article and now are wondering what it is you're complaining about. You seem to be the only editor with issues regarding this article.  So, tell ME and everyone other than your fencing partner what exactly you find lacking.  Please be specific.  Thank you for your cooperation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.242.192 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whom you consider my "fencing partner", or what that's supposed to mean, but it's probably not relevant. What is lacking is reliable support for assertions in the tagged sections. For example, here we see the following:

None of those assertions is supported. Likewise, here we have:

Not only is there no support for any of these assertions, but there's also a particularly problematic POV opinion ("it provided good performance"). If road tests in reliable sources concluded it provided "good performance", then that statement could be supported. If not, it would likely have to go away.

Here we have:

No support for any of the above assertions.

Here we have:

No support for any of the above assertions.

Here we have:

Zero support for any of the above assertions. The rest of the tagged sections have exactly the same issue: unsupported assertions and possible original research. Does this help you to understand why the templates and tags are present, and what needs to be done before they can be removed? —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 14:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, Let's just finish this
So obviously, you have some kind of grudge against this article, and this article alone. Because in a different article in which you have an interest, those types of missing citations don't bother you nearly as much. So, to try to wrap this contretemps up, if the citations for the sections you've listed above are provided, you will finally be satisfied?


 * Most articles on Wikipedia are unfinished. This is just one amongst many articles with assertions in need of additional support from reliable sources. This is still not a matter of my being somehow "satisfied"; I'm not on a quest for satisfaction. And I still have no "grudge" against this article — I've repeatedly commented on the excellent progress it's been making. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 17:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I consider that a "non-answer".  Will citations added for the above statements clear the tags at the heading of this article or is it your intention to leave them there forever because it is YOUR OPINION that all articles on Wikipedia are "unfinished"?  Should I just start hunting down random articles and tagging them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.236.198 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to evade your question, it's just that the answer really won't change substantially no matter how many times you ask it. If you don't believe me, or you think I'm acting in bad faith, you may want to check with additional experienced editors and administrators other than those who've already contributed to this present discussion and past ones on the same question. If you feel my behaviour is disruptive or otherwise problematic, you may want to open a Wikiquette alert or a Request For Comment/User.


 * Once again: appropriate citations added to the reasonably questionable assertions presently unsupported in the templated sections would fix the problems indicated by the templates, so the templates would no longer be needed. In the past few days, unsupported and reasonably questionable assertions were added at various places in the article; some of these have been individually flagged with . Common sense is an ever-present guideline; nobody demands support for each and every sentence in each and every article. And I'm not just stating my own opinion that most Wikipedia articles are unfinished — that's the nature of an open-ended project like this one. Ask around amongst experienced editors and administrators, and you'll get pretty wide and consistent agreement on that point.


 * BTW, thanks for pointing out some of the shortcomings of Automotive lighting. That article's incomplete, too, and warrants similar templates and tags; those've been added, and you've inspired me to add more refs. We don't own articles here, but there is definitely a place for article stewardship, and good stewardship calls for adding citations where we can, and reasonable tags where we can't. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

360 truck engine--taller deck height like the 390, or low block like 332, 352 & 361(E) engines?
Was the 360 truck engine block of raised deck height (like 390, 410, et. al.), or did it use the lower deck height like the 332/352/361(Edsel) engines? I seem to remember it being a raised deck but can't say for certain.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poly318 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ALL FE blocks have the same deck height (except for a few custom-cast by aftermarket suppliers). The displacement changes were all bore and stroke related:  smaller bores and shorter strokes for the lower displacement versions.  FE's in the earlier years used connecting rods which were slightly longer than used later, with shorter compression height pistons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ford Motorsport parts.
Among the many parts Ford offered through their Motorsport catalog were roller camshaft bearings. For the FE series, they were direct replacements for the standard plain bearings. For the Windsor engines the cam bore had to be enlarged. A hard steel camshaft was also required as the hard needle bearings would quickly wear an iron camshaft. Provision for getting pressurized oil past the splash lubricated roller cam bearings was left to the installer. Bizzybody (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

pictures
I agree with all of the pictured vehicles pictured as available with the FE engine except the 1961 pickup. The first FE in a pickup truck was the 352 in 1965. Limegoldf100 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)