Talk:Volvo Modular engine

source links
A few source links


 * http://volvospeed.com/vs_forum/index.php/topic/127047-need-help-is-this-c70-a-lpt-or-hpt/page__p__1701110&#entry1701110
 * http://apps.volvocars.us/ownersdocs/2001/2001_VIN-VIC/vic2001.html

Jdavid net (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

is this american only? missing the 2.0 5 cyl versions for the 850s and whatever else. seems a very bare-bones article to say the least right now.--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

i think the hp/tq specs are backwards for the 1.9 engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.101.227 (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

missing many engines
this is missing many american engines too, it appears to only cover newer versions.


 * B5252FS was a 2-valve 2.5L 5 cyl version used on select early 850s
 * B5254FS was a 4-valve 2.5L 5 cyl version used on select early 850s
 * B5234FT
 * B5234T4
 * B5234T5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.82.47 (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Also B5234FS, maybe others from this list. Some"FS" variants are listed in the article, but this letter combination, or at least the "F" part, goes unmentioned in the "decoding" paragraph. Andyvphil (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Improvements
I've added quite a few engines, but there are clearly a lot more that need adding, and things such as standardization of the naming need improving (ie, whether Volvo S70 or S70 is the text shown). Lukeno94 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done an absolute crap-tonne of work on this. At some point, I'll get around to completely standardizing the prose... Lukeno94 (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we please remove repeated double entries for Mondeo Mk4 and XR5 in Australia as well as the S-Max 2.5T under B5254T6? These were 162kw (216/217bhp) B5254T3 as correctly shown in the appropriate entry and someone keeps adding them back into the wrong section. The T6 was 147kw which is 197bhp and does not tie in with what these vehicles had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyBlazE (talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

VVIS system
It appears there is contention as to when the VVIS system was discontinued from the naturally aspirated cars. I have provided 2 primary sources, both from Volvo cars that the system was used right up to year model 1997 although this has been called insufficient by another party who I can only assume believes that since the system was discontinued in the US in 1994 then no other country can be taken into consideration. I'm not sure if it's actually theoretically possible but can someone find a source for the continued use of the VVIS system more reliable and trustworthy than Volvo cars?Lotsofmagnets (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Style concerns
I deleted all access-dates in references where an archive-date was available, as one doesn't need both. I tried to converse on the anonymous IP's page, and then asked at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1 where there has so far been no support for providing both dates. An archive-date trumps an access-date and makes it entirely useless, only making the references very hard to decipher. In general, this article still suffers from severe WP:OVERCITE and WP:OVERLINK. Example: no need to link rpm more than once, if ever. No need to cite the power, the torque, and the engine speeds individually - I am sure that one source for all will suffice.

Lastly, I don't think that citing authors with their first names first is the norm, but if that's the way the article was originally laid out, then so be it.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  06:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In regards to the 1587 vs 1588 cc thing - fair enough. The printed mechanics books list either one, it changes seemingly at random for the different print years.


 * I strongly disagree with access-date serving no function. Following the guidelines for how to cite, citation style and everything else I can not find something that says that archive-date on it's own is a suitable substitute. Looking at other articles, featured ones and non featured ones, there are plenty that have both an archive-date (as is required) and an access-date. One reason why I think that access-date is sensible to have is to account for website changes. The archive is, hopefully, such that it accurately matches what was cited. But a website can change in that information changes slightly, or gets lost completely while the linked page itself remains. It also allows an interested reader to know when the citation was either created or seriously worked on. That's important as for example a several year old access-date on a citation indicates the need for a possible update or at least a look at the link. The archive-url and -date only show what once was, for when a website has gone down or a page gone missing.


 * Please do not hastily remove them from the article in the fashion that you have done. If there is previous discussion about the usage of access-date I haven't come across it. As I understand there is also a degree of flexibility on how these citations can be formatted, usually the first editor chooses a style to their liking.


 * As a random IP using 'my' talk page isn't likely to get a response in a timely manner. Will watch yours, that will work better.


 * regards, 2A04:4540:903:7E00:D406:A1D9:C1C6:30E2 (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The whole point of using an archived url is that it does all of those things access-date does, but better. It's like me saying that I read something in a back issue of New York Times twelve years ago - once we know which issue, then when I read it is no longer of any relevance. The page history provides enough if anyone absolutely has to know when a citation was added. I welcome other editors' opinions. Archived page do not "change slightly," they are as permanent as things get on the internet, providing a snapshot of the page at the time of archival. Also, do you intend the access-date to refer to when you visited the original page or the archive linked? A reference should only point to a page at one particular time, so that is a whole separate concern.


 * The downside is that it makes the reference section very hard to read, mostly a hodge-podge of dates. I understand your desire to provide maximum information here and I welcome it; but I feel that this particular addition serves more to obfuscate than elucidate. So far only two editors answered my question linked above, but they both share my feelings.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As it was the access-date was the date I visited the cited link and found it to contain what the citations is meant to support. Your NYT example is sort of what's my problem with not having access-date. The printed issue of the NYT, or a scan of that issue, will not change. Years in the future someone can read exactly what you read and there will not be a different version of that issue floating around.


 * You are correct and I completely agree that having up to three dates in one citation makes things more cluttered. It's indeed my desire to provide as much information as possible. For this reason the date a website was looked at can matter, I will try to give an example:
 * Volvo has a quarterly sales report where they release sales numbers. They have this across multiple different language versions of their website (en/en-uk/fr/de/nl/dk/sv) yet all link back to the same numbers internally. Every quarter the numbers change yet the link doesn't. How can I make this clear to someone wanting to look at the source for the 'made XYZ of model ABC'? Having an archive is all fine and good but I can't set the url as dead. Same issue when linking to virtual owner's manuals where updates got applied which sometimes results in the citation being wrong.
 * Was not my intention to say that the archive would change after it was created. Regards, 2A04:4540:902:B100:6047:D99A:6518:90B8 (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification needed for B5244S/S2 V70 1st/2nd gen
According to current information on this page (which is based on https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065345/http://www.carfolio.com/search/results/?engcode=B5244S2) B5244S2 were available only on V70 1st gen, however according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_V70#Engines_2 V70 2nd gen were also equipped with B5244S2. Please clarify this point