![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bore and stroke as listed give 35.8 litres (2187cuin), not the 32L (1940) in the article. AMCKen ( talk) 21:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Two spots, two different numbers. Which is correct? AMCKen ( talk) 21:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Allegedly the Homare and Sakae have the same cylinders, just 18 in the first versus 14 in the latter. In which case the displacement should be in the ratio 18:14 (128%). Yet the articles list the actual ratio as being (115%) so the cylinders must be different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.32.96 ( talk) 12:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I have flagged the key numbers which seem controversial (number built, displacement) as being Dubious until they can be resolved. There are two contradictory values for number built on the page, and the displacement seems to be contradictory with the bore x stroke x no.Cylinders B0ned0me ( talk) 12:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
This whole discussion is pointless - feed the japanese page http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%AA%89_(%E3%82%A8%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B8%E3%83%B3) through google translate and even with the usual ropey translation you get a far more comprehensive and infinitely better-cited article, which contradicts at least half the numbers cited on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.30.50 ( talk) 12:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bore and stroke as listed give 35.8 litres (2187cuin), not the 32L (1940) in the article. AMCKen ( talk) 21:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Two spots, two different numbers. Which is correct? AMCKen ( talk) 21:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Allegedly the Homare and Sakae have the same cylinders, just 18 in the first versus 14 in the latter. In which case the displacement should be in the ratio 18:14 (128%). Yet the articles list the actual ratio as being (115%) so the cylinders must be different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.32.96 ( talk) 12:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I have flagged the key numbers which seem controversial (number built, displacement) as being Dubious until they can be resolved. There are two contradictory values for number built on the page, and the displacement seems to be contradictory with the bore x stroke x no.Cylinders B0ned0me ( talk) 12:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
This whole discussion is pointless - feed the japanese page http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%AA%89_(%E3%82%A8%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B8%E3%83%B3) through google translate and even with the usual ropey translation you get a far more comprehensive and infinitely better-cited article, which contradicts at least half the numbers cited on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.30.50 ( talk) 12:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)