User talk:Stepho-wrs/Archive/2021

Merry Christmas to my stalkers
&#x1F609;  Stepho  talk 02:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A bit late, but thanks!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Varsågod. Och gott Nytt År.  Stepho  talk 04:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A small 'thanks'
Hey, wanted to acknowledge that I appreciated your reversion of my removal of the inquiry about 'how you make your cars' on the General Motors talk page. I had speedily skimmed the message, and hadn't seen the mention of 'when i grow up'. I lean strongly towards terseness and bluntness, particularly with IP users, because there's so much crud that accumulates both in article space and talk space. But a less blunt path was certainly desireable in this case. So, thanks, and cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem.  Stepho  talk 21:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Help needed
Hello Stepho-wrs I've filed a dispute resolution request Dispute resolution noticeboard and listed you as one of the eiditors involved due to your very good analysis of the Talk:Nissan S30 disagreement on lead units. The same thing has happened on Talk:Berliet T100, if you'd be kind enough to comment on the dispute noticeboard above Title: Nissan S30 Berliet_T100. On another subject, I have two sibling and numerous cousins in Perth. Avi8tor (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Slippery slopes
I see what you fear about using horsepower allowing other old units to return. However, I do not think there is much cause for concern. Power output is so essential to a car that its emotional power and relevance is very different from dimensions or weights (with notable exceptions, such as Ford fans getting mad when 302 cubic inches converts to 4.9 and not 5.0 liters...).

As an example, I happened to be doing some Daihatsu Taft research recently and was reading old Canberra Times. It wasn't until after this dispute had started that I realized something peculiar: This 1978 article uses metric throughout, with imperials in parentheses, except for the engine dimensions which are all metric and the horsepower - which is the only imperial measure to lead. I think the horsepower has a bit of a special place. I suppose this is why the horsepower was a metric unit from the earliest days of automobile history. The WP style guidelines, however, do not give much thought to these intermediate units. In Sweden we have our own "mile", which equals 10km - this unit is still used in legislation, even though it is not technically speaking officially recognized.

As for other units reverting to inches or whatever, I don't really see a risk since what I am arguing for here is to use a metric unit (when appropriate), just one that is not in the SI set. I guess someone might someday try to write that an old Datsun is 181 in long just because their source is an old Autocar, but I do not find it likely and we could easily write the guidelines to preclude this. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: McLaren F1 speed record
It's cool that you were involved with EFI software. I never dealt with the software side of things but I was certainly responsible for a share of the calibration team's headaches. It's nice to see knowledgeable people interested in the details and giving their opinion. Thanks for the good discussion. IPBilly (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Mostly the low level side (interrupts, memory management, scheduler, UDS, XCP) and how MatLab/SimuLink got translated to C and then into binary. The calibration stuff generally went over my head. Cool to see another professional here too.  Stepho  talk 22:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Making sure this Toyota vehicle is real and has enough reliable sources
Hello Stepho! I have a notability and reliability questions about this Toyota. It's called the Toyota Yaris Adventure, and I found some sources to go with it (1, 2, 3). Source 2 is actually a page on Toyota's website, and it is another one of those April Fool's joke vehicles, like the Toyota PieAce; it's not an actual production vehicle, but a joke. If this car is good enough to be on Wikipedia, it would be created as a redirect to a section in Toyota concept vehicles (2020–2029). I am also pinging because they have also been helping me on that article. Andra, you are also free to respond to the question here as well. Thank you! DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would treat this exactly the way we treated the Toyota PieAce - ie, put it on the relevant concept page and on the relevant Yaris page but clearly mark it as an April Fool's joke by Toyota. It does remind me of my first car, a Datsun 1200 ute and also reminds me of the Suzuki Mighty Boy ute. It would probably sell if it was made.  Stepho  talk 20:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

All right, thank you very much! Agreeing that it would sell well, being one of the, if not only, vehicles in subcompact truck class. But not sure if I would get one... DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR on Vickers Vimy
Where is the consensus for changing the reference format on Vickers Vimy? (and fix the small text on your talk page - it makes it difficult to read)Nigel Ish (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads up. I will answer on the Vimy talk page.
 * What small text? It's the same size as al other Wikipedia pages and I haven't done anything to change it. Perhaps your browser has chosen a different zoom level. Try typing ctrl+0 to restore to 100%.  Stepho  talk 09:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The text size below the template definitely looks smaller than on other talk pages. It looks like when someone forgets to close a small tag.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like my /header template was missing a couple of |} at the end. Not sure why it didn't show any problem for me. Maybe my standard CSS hides the problem and your CSS makes it more obvious. I can't see any difference with the fix in place. Hopefully it looks better for you.  Stepho  talk 10:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems to have fixed it.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking that for me.  Stepho  talk 12:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You removed my edit and you are wrong about your reasoning
On the supercar wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar), i gave information as to from where and when the term "hypercar" originated. You removed my edit wrongfully. When you mentionned that it is referenced in 1993 and 2005, that is wrong. The term is used today to describe those old cars as hypercars, but when the cars first came out, the term hypercar did not exist yet, hence the Mclaren f1 and bugatti veyron were not called hypercars before the 2010's decade. As for you saying that a wiki not a valid source, I cannot find a valid source anywhere on the internet. The "need for speed fandom wiki" is the best I could find. Here is a youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvNOr969Pus&t=31s) video in which at the 0:31 mark you can see the 5 tiers of cars which were in the game. The hyper tier contained all of the cars which are known are hypercars today (bugatti, f1, koenignsegg...). I cannot find a source for this but I can assure you that what I am saying is true because I have the game myself and I can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.119.78.59 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the article's talkpage.  Stepho  talk 22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Camry XV70
I saw your recent reversal of the units on this page. I clicked a couple of sources and only found PS or hp listed. Reference #17, for instance, specifies 183 PS for the 2AR-FE, and 178 PS for the A25A-FXS. Not sure what this correlates to in the table, which is unreferenced itself and eschews metric hp entirely. Also, is it really correct to state that the A25A-FKS has 151.5 or 153.5 kW? Those look like numbers that were fudged to get the desired hp output. I can't even tell if the base unit was originally PS or hp? I don't particularly care about new Camrys (sorry!!!), but I always think that it is best to at least convert from the correct unit, no matter which unit leads in the output. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  21:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The places that I changed didn't have an obvious reference (although I didn't search very hard) and violated the MOS general rule of metric first, so I thought it was an American trying to force their units on us. I did check that the old and new versions were just the same numbers flipped. I have no problem if the conversions are redone using hp as the input - just as long as there is a corresponding flip to make metric show first.
 * And yeah, I'm not keen on anything with the modern look either - far to edgy and jarring.  Stepho  talk 22:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, I just expected the table to have originated with you. Take it as a compliment.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nissan GT-R, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RML.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Saab 401
FYI, the Saab 401 was a military prototype between the late 50s and 1964. That description that you restored came from the son of an engineer on the project, who has been trying to promote his father's importance by puffing things up on Wikipedia. If anything, it's an invented description; I never saw the "Hovercraft project" description anywhere when looking for sources to improve the Saab 401 article. --- Possibly (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! I don't have any problem if you want to change the description. Just something more descriptive than a model number.  Stepho  talk 10:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. I thought the article title should be changed to Saab 401 Hovercraft, but then I saw that we have Saab 900 and Saab 340, and many more. Do you think Saab 401 Hovercraft is better? --- Possibly (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with that personally. I would normally suggest raising the idea on the 401's talk page. But in this case, the target audience is so small that I'd just do it outright. See WP:BOLD.  Stepho  talk 11:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please retain the 9A engine
Good morning to you Stepho, I assume it's morning where you're at considering your profile says you're located in Australia.

I'm writing to you to implore you to please genuinely consider retaining the 9A section in the Toyota A series engine page. Your reason for reverting it, as I understand it, is that tuner engines are not manufacturer made and therefore do not belong, else the entire page would fill with information specifically about tuning. I'm here to convice you otherwise.

Primarily, the 7A-GE engine is still under the 7A banner. I understand it makes much more sense to include the 7A-GE, since someone could become potentially confused after hearing someone mention a 7A-GE only to go to Wikipedia and so absolutely no mention of it. This does not, however, deminish the fact that it is still a tuner engine with a significant amount of development to boot. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as 'off goes the FE head and on goes the 20v". It would be nice if it was that simple though.

Going off of that principal, it wouldn't be ludicrous to include the 9A engine. I added it myself because as I was searching for information, I couldn't find any information easily available to read up on. The only mainstream coverage I've really seen of it is a single video made by a youtuber on the history of the 4A-GE, who goes by the name of 'driving4answers'. He covered it for all of about 2 minutes though, and it wasn't very informational.

The A series of Toyota engines would not exist as it were today if it were not for tuning culture. I think both you and I can agree to that. Is it not a reasonable request to leave the 9A at the literal bottom of the page? It's written so that perhaps one of the absolute first things an inquirer would read on the engine is that it is not mae by Toyota, but rather is a custon tuning engine. Anyone who is genuinely interested in the information is more than welcome to read up on it. Isn't that what Wikipedia's purpose is? If not with a website as large as Wikipedia, then where?

It's not as if the 9A-GE is a new concept either. The original mention of this engine on Wikipedia was deleted nearly 11 years ago, but it was not really quality in terms of information. It supposed the possibility to create the engine. As opposed to now, where a New Zealand company sells a 9A-GE engine kit for 10,000 NZD plus options.

I await a favorable respone, Justaguywholikesflowers Justaguywholikesflowers (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you for your polite response. I understand where you are coming from. I own an AE86 Sprinter with a blacktop 4A-GE and an MR2 with a big port 4A-GE, so I too follow the A engine. However, WP:NOTAMANUAL says that we should not be describing how to do things. Wikipedia lists the engine made by Toyota. Maybe it is okay to have a short section to mention that custom engine are sometimes made based on factory parts but at most it should only be a paragraph or 2. Under no circumstances can we call it a 9A - at best it would be a variation of the base block used (eg 7A). I'd even be wary of that because once the precedence is set of allowing 1 or 2 variations (eg 7A with 4A-GE head or bored 7A worth 1ZZ crank and 4A-GE head) then other editors take it as permission to add every conceivable combination. This is something that is more suited to web forums than Wikipedia.
 * As a counter example, look at the Ford and GM V8 engine articles. They would have to be the engines with the most tried combinations on the planet. Yet their articles list only the factory versions.
 * But you are always free to raise the point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 23:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I see now why you've decided to remove the 9A section. It seems it isn't necessarily a matter in your control. How open would you be to creating a small 9A subsection, similar to the 7A-GE, under the 7A section? I still feel it's important to leave some mention of what it is somewhere, just so it doesn't retain this mythical, unobtanium status, especially since it's basically just a bored and stroked 7A-GE to 2.0 liters.


 * I await a favorable response,
 * Justaguywholikesflowers
 * Justaguywholikesflowers (talk) 09:55, 15 July ::2021 (UTC)


 * I can't see any circumstances where we can call the custom engine a '9A'. Toyota never released a 9A engine, therefore we can't call it that. However, we could add something in the 7A section that says some enthusiasts have used a bored 7A block with a 4A-GE head, a 1ZZ crank, 1ZZ rods, custom pistons and custom machining. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this because we could also make similar claims for the A, 2A, 3A, etc. It's getting beyond just swapping a few obvious parts like with the faux 7A-GE. But you can certainly raise the question on the A engine's talk page to see if other editors like the idea or not.
 * Out of interest, how similar is the bore spacing of the 7A and 1ZZ?  Stepho  talk 22:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Good evening Stepho,
 * I've been looking around in response to your curiosity, and I've found that the 1ZZ-FE has a bore spacing of 87.5mm. The 7A-FE and 4A-GE have identical bore spacing because the 7A is essentially a 4A with a longer deck height. Their bore spacing is also 87.5mm apart on the 81mm bore A series engines. This is the primary reason why the 1ZZ crank works in the 7A block. You have to grind away a tad towards the bottom of each cylinder wall, where it opens up into the crank case, in order to clearance the connecting rods, and you have to grind away the areas where the crank sits to recenter it properly, but if you know the exact measurements, you can take it to most reputable machine shops and have them do the work for you. Or, since you are in Australia, you could probably get a 4A specialist shop to do the work as well.


 * I didn't know that the A series engine page had a talk board, so I'll bring up that subject there. One thing I wanted to run by you was including something in the 5A. Way back in the 90s, HKS had a limited run of a stroker crank for the 4A to bring it to 1.7 or 1.8, I can't remember exactly, but they called it a 5A-GE. An old video option or hot version tape has a clip showing Keiichi Tsuchiya and a few other men with their 86s, and one of their engines had a 5A-G carbureted. It never made sense to me at the time why someone would go through the hassle of putting a 4A-GE head on a 5A-F engine, but they actually used that HKS stroker crank, so in reality it was probably a 1.7 liter. Modern day stroker kits for 4A-GEs also call themselves 5A as well. I wanted to add a small section towards the bottom of the 5A saying something about how 'Some tuning companies made a stroker kit for the 4A-GE and marketed it as a 5A, which is not to be confused with the genuine 5A engine series. It is simply a stroked 4A-GE'. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that matter. This matter also ties into why the bored and stroked 7A should still be called a 9A. Simply put, if the community chooses to call it a 9A, then that is what it will be known as. It wouldn't have to be very confusing either, something simple such as, 'Some tuners have taken their 7A-GEs ever farther, and installed either a custom made stroker kit, or retro-fitted a 1ZZ-FE crankshaft and bored out their cylinders to 83mm. This brings the displacement up to 2.0 liters. These custom tuners engines are known colloquially as 9A-GE engines, but Toyota has never made such an A series engine with that name. It is entirely fan-based.' I'd also like to hear your thoughts on this matter as well, since it should (hopefully) not fall under the discretion of 'Telling people how to do things'.


 * Also, the 7A-GE is unfortunately not as simple as, 'off goes the economy head and on goes the 20v'. It would be fantastic if it was the case though.


 * I await a favorable response,
 * Justaguywholikesflowers (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Questioning your reversion of my edit to PGM-11 Redstone
Yesterday you reverted my edit of PGM-11 Redstone with the explanation that "Explorer 1 was launched by Jupiter-C, not Redstone", followed by pointing out differences between the two. I disagree with this reversion. Yes, there are differences, but my claim was that it was a rocket in the Redstone family that launched Explorer 1, just as Alan Shepard's Freedom 7 flight was launched by a rocket in that family. The differences you mention aren't big enough to justify excluding the Jupiter-C (renamed "Juno I" for satellite launches) from the family. In particular, the Jupiter-C's engine was not as different from the Redstone's as you seem to think; it was merely a minor variant of the same Rocketdyne North American Aviation 75-110 engine that had been used throughout the Redstone missile's development. The use of Hydyne fuel doesn't mean much; Redstone engines had been flown with Hydyne as well as with alcohol. The Jupiter-C's greater length was shared by the Mercury-Redstone, since both needed longer propellant tanks to achieve their missions. The main reason the Mercury-Redstone didn't also use Hydyne was because that fuel was more toxic than alcohol and there were safety concerns about employing it for a human-crewed launch. It's notable that discussions of the Redstone family such as John W. Bullard's History of the Redstone Missile System, the NASA report The Mercury-Redstone Project, and Wernher von Braun's autumn 1963 article "The Redstone, Jupiter, and Juno" in Technology and Culture treat the Jupiter-C as a member of that family. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your polite discussion. Agreed that the Jupiter-C/Juno are part of the Redstone family. However, it was worded as the Redstone rather than Redstone family. While I follow spaceflight and aeronautical engineering in general, perhaps I have gotten slightly over my head. It might be better if you repeat that on the article's talk page. I will follow the consensus. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 22:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just repeated my query there, with some minor tweaks. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  Stepho  talk 22:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron
Thank you for correcting mistakes made by me for the I frequently  make errors while typing on this new device as it auto corrects and becomes slow at times. But I do not understand how moving the pictures to the end of the article keeps it in the relevant article space and how keeping it at the top in a typical way does not do so. ගොඩය (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It's the and  templates that forces the next section to be after the end of any images, tables or infoboxes.  Stepho  talk  09:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Toyota Land Cruiser Ovar plant - info source
Source: https://www.razaoautomovel.com/2021/05/toyota-celebra-50-anos-de-producao-nacional-da-fabrica-de-ovar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.144.139 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you.  Stepho  talk 21:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Chevy Nova page
The Chevrolet Nova page is incorrect. There are only 5 generations of Novas, not 6. 1973-74 are part of the 3rd generation. 1st = 1962-65 2nd = 1966-67 3rd = 1968-74 4th = 1975-79 5th = 1985-88

Please correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.74.154 (talk • contribs)


 * I will ask for further advice at Talk:Chevrolet Chevy II / Nova.  Stepho  talk 21:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Volkswagen Kommandeurswagen
A Leadscrew and a Worm drive is the same thing? Tomatenbrille (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Tomatenbrille (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * My mistake - I stand corrected.  Stepho  talk 21:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , I just saw your summary comment for Volkswagen Kommandeurswagen at . As noted above, I admitted my mistake, so I have no problem with the revert itself. But I don't understand why your comment was caustic.  Stepho  talk 09:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Named references
I think you were confused in. You tried to use a named reference which you hadn't defined. In the previous version there weren't two references defined as number 1; the ref was defined, then reused, see WP:named references. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oops. I well understand how multiple uses of the same reference works (I often merge duplicated reference done by other editors). But this time I misread what was 2 separate references side-by-side and took them for a single reference. Thanks for correcting it.  Stepho  talk 11:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"Toyota Noah (AH30)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Toyota Noah (AH30). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 114.10.9.143 (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Atari 810
Sorry, pinged without the "wrs" on the name. See this talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

V-8 Engine
Thank you for reverting my edit on V8 engine because you questioned whether hand-starting a V8 in 1912 would be harder than crank starting the typical 4 cylinder engines of the day. Your argument that a V8 might have the same displacement as a 4 is good, although there would be no point, the usual reason to use more cylinders is to make the engine bigger. Bigger engines are obviously harder to hand-start for reasons too obvious to mention, but even if the 8 cylinder engine had the same displacement as a 4, there are 2 reasons why it's harder to crank start an 8 than a 4. One is that the single firing piston has to compress the remaining pistons which are not yet firing. Imagine an engine with 50 cylinders. Would the 1 firing cylinder produce enough energy to compress the remaining 49 which are not firing? Of course not. That applies to 8 vs. 4 though not as much. The other reason is the number of degrees of crank for each piston with the person's arm. A 4 cylinder engine gives you 180 degrees of turn on the hand crank for each piston. (The 720 degrees in the Otto cycle divided by 4). The average person would be able to give a good amount of turn of an engine with only one compression on a 180 degree pull on the handle from bottom to top. On an 8 cylinder engine however, there would be a new compression to overcome every 90 degrees of pull on the crank. I don't think 90 degrees is enough time to get the engine turning fast enough to start before the arm has to overcome a second compression. I've seen early literature on the subject, not only Cadillac but Buick was holding off making a 6 cylinder car until they had an electric starter as well, the first Buick 6 was in the 1914 model 55 which had a whopping 331 cubic inches, and of course their first electric starter. Pierce Arrow made a massive model 66 with a 6 cylinder engine with over 800 cubic inches (not a typo) but only after they had an electric start. It is utterly impossible to hand start a Pierce Arrow 66, ask me how I know MorganDWright (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I feel the discussion is better done at Talk:V8 engine.  Stepho  talk 00:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Will do MorganDWright (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Toyota B58 involvement
Would you mind listing where tetsua tada ever claimed Toyota was responsible for many of the B58s design changes over the N55, especially considering the S55 already incorporated most of these and BMW never confirming any such changes because of Toyotas involvement ? The article you've used as reference doesn't cite any sources for that 2001:16B8:242D:CC00:8053:53BE:F445:4100 (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Holden FX - thanks and advice
Hi, thanks for the fixup of the cite to the source directly - I wasn't sure the best way to handle that, as the direct link is to a google drive pdf, which seems to be used to outsource storage for the hrc site I linked to. The version I changed it from had the pdf on the hrc site directly (but was since 404'ing) and I basically split the difference - feeling that referencing the hrc site in some form was worthwhile. I still think that would be worthwhile in fact, but I'm not sure how to handle it. Thoughts? …/NemoThorx (💬 • 📜) 00:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was worried about that too. It wasn't clear whether the article originated with the HRC website and later got moved to google docs or if it originated elsewhere and HRC just copied it. Best to put the question up on the 48-215 talk page to see what others think.  Stepho  talk 00:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)