Talk:List of United States Army tactical truck engines

start
Written in US English with day/month/year date format.

CAT
Excellent article...

Added a couple of bits & bobs I hope you think will add to it... Also linked to it from a couple of pages and if I get time, will add a few more links to it.

I think in the latest Oshkosh FMTVs the CAT engine is now designated C7. The C15 is also used in the PLS and @600hp. No torque figure is public domain, and I've even checked Jane's. The C18 is 700 hp in the 1070A1; can't confirm (or deny!) your torque figure.

Keep up the good work Wolpat (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Thank you. I don’t think it is of much use, more like a list. You would need a vehicle with several engines to come in from the top. Otherwise the truck’s article would have more engine info than this. I want to do bore/stroke, but am not happy with what I have tried yet. I also want to plug away at pictures.
 * I am obsolete from before 2000. I THINK that Cat’s site was a problem. They don’t do commercial trucks anymore, so I was trying to translate industrial and marine on multiple pages. Sound right? I can’t remember where else it could have come from. The torque number is probably garbage, feel free to delete it. Sammy D III (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am a bit of a military truck geek, so as time permits I'll make a few specific changes if you like - modern stuff. When you say images, do you mean of engines or the trucks they are in? Again, I'm happy to add the odd one every so often if that helps bulk things out.

86.186.100.225 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am surprised that anyone even found this, much less cared. I don’t really know new, help yourself.
 * I was just trying pictures of engines, but it is all free, do whatever you want. Thank you for asking.
 * I was talking about bore and stroke, but I don’t think it matters with trucks like cars. They are all undersquare (longer stroke than bore), and run pretty slow. I don’t know where 2100rpm comes from, but it was sort of an industry standard.
 * Military truck geek? Have you tried I think he is a gold mine.
 * Have a good time. Sammy D III (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I found an image and two TMs referencing early FMTVs with a Cat 3116, so I made it as a separate engine. Sammy D III (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Images as images, not an unreadable gallery
Per MOS:IMAGES and WP:GALLERY, I moved the images from the single merged gallery of small images to our usual placement through the article. Sammy has now reverted this change.

What do other editors think? IMHO, galleries are almost always a bad thing: they're too small, too confusing and they lose the link between sections and their relative image. Especially in a list article like this, where there's more connection from sections to individuals than there is between the group of images. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that tall images next to often very short tables can leave large blank spaces up and down between tables. As the screen gets narrower the images can’t fit next to the tables, and are shown above them, with more blank space.
 * This is meant as more of a list than talk. If I knew how to make it all one table, with the manufacturers names as sub-headings inside the table, I would have done that. Having the tables all the same width would look much better.
 * The gallery images were clearly captioned and arranged alphabetically. If you actually cared what the engine looked like, you could easily find it.
 * More footnotes would be fun. The References section would be a feet-long mess, but nobody has to scroll down to see it.
 * A section with trucks first and engines second might be fun, but there can be so many M numbers for a single chassis, which can have several engines. G numbers?
 * If people think this should be a weak article spread all over the place, so be it. Sammy D III (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's easy to make it all one table. However that would lose the section edit links, so becomes something of a pain to edit in the future. I don't see any advantage to it either - section headings have some value for the ToC too.
 * The images weren't "tall" as the portrait images used upright. Only in the couple of cases with two images for a maker did this generate noticeable whitespace. As to "blank spaces", then ask a book designer - whitespace isn't the enemy, it's often a valuable aid to clarity in reading. We're not on paper, we don't have to pay for this space. Nor is scrolling terribly onerous. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand sections, it puts the manufacturer's names in the upper left. I hate all the columns being different, but one table won't work.
 * The images aren't "tall" compared to images, but they are “tall” compared to a two-line table. And it gets worse fast, two images for three lines, etc.
 * I think that an encyclopedia about army trucks should be plain, boxy, and written in a monotone.
 * Or not. Sammy D III (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Each section could have it’s own gallery. A table could have images right over it or right under it. Sammy D III (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)