Talk:Monobloc engine

Alleged schoolboy understanding

What a mess.

Where to begin?

Who decided on a whim, apparently, to merge "cylinder block" into "monoblock", titling the slop "monoblock" whilst going on and on in the first few paragraphs about how people don't use the term "monoblock", but instead, "engine block" or simply "block" are the preferred, accepted and common term(s)???@@!

And then, some schoolboy understanding of what exactly a block is becomes the basis of an encyclopediac article????

This is sooooo messed up, I don't even want to try to fix it. It calls, screams, begs, for a total rewrite. I just want someone to explain how this is allowed to happen. And since when are "most engines" monoblock? Totally ignoring all the aircraft and motorcycle and small two-stroke engines that litter the landscape.

And to do this without ANY DISCUSSION whatsoever????????

Show me the discussion page where this mess was proposed.

Speaking of schoolboy understanding: Schooling you

1. Regarding "do this without ANY DISCUSSION whatsoever???": Show me the alternative universe where WP:BOLD doesn't exist.
2. Regarding "what a mess": Show me the alternative universe where the versions of monobloc engine, engine block, cylinder block, cylinder bank, crankcase, and PCV valve that existed before today's edits WEREN'T childish pieces of crap. Speaking of schoolboy understandings.
3. Regarding the nomenclature including pagenaming: You may object to the current pagename, but that's the ONLY thing anyone could object to. And the current redirect directionality could be reversed in a flash so that "engine block" is the name of this article, and then no one could complain about anything. The CONTENT as it currently exists is completely accurate. I challenge you to find specific pieces of the CONTENT of this page that are inaccurate.
4. Regarding "schoolboy understanding of what exactly a block is": I was lying under vehicles and crawling inside engine compartments busting knuckles and spitting out rust flakes 20 years ago. I was machining engine parts not long after. What are your creds? Please do tell.
5. Regarding "sooooo messed up": Again, other than changing the current redirect directionality and reversing it in a flash so that "engine block" is the name of this article, what else would you change, specifically? If you can't come up with specific points and list them here, then I guess you're FULL OF SHIT.
6. Regarding "want someone to explain how this is allowed to happen": Again, show me the alternative universe where WP:BOLD doesn't exist.
7. Regarding "since when are 'most engines' monoblock? Totally ignoring all the aircraft and motorcycle and small two-stroke engines": Since when do ALL aircraft and motorcycle engines comprise discrete crankcase castings and individually cast cylinders? I wasn't ignoring shit regarding aircraft and motorcycles. Now, on top of that, how many hundreds of millions of cars, light trucks, vans, heavy trucks, tractors, construction equipment, military vehicles, diesel generators, multicylinder motorcycles, multicylinder lawn and garden equipment and ATVs, and boat engines are currently out there? Do you think that maybe their engines outnumber the single-cylinder engines plus the multicylinder ones that have 1920 construction? And even counting the single-cylinder engines, what percentage of all those total count of engines do you think comprise separate crankcase castings and individually cast cylinders, subtracting the few that have cylinders with integral heads (which are also one of the types of monobloc design)? Now what do you think about MOST ENGINES? When was the last time you worked on ANY vehicle or piece of equipment that had a discrete crankcase casting and individually cast cylinders? And was it TYPICAL? Even if you're a damn vintage fixed-wing aircraft mechanic or a vintage bike enthusiast, vintage fixed-wing aircraft and bikes DON'T OUTNUMBER THE REST OF THE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ON THIS PLANET. Weed wackers and chain saws? I don't know, I didn't have those on my mind today when I was sifting through the existing crap coverage, but really, do they change that engine-counting equation? School me. Last one *I* took apart had a damn integral-crankcase-and-cylinder engine block!
8. Do you ACTUALLY have any idea what you're talking about? Have you actually worked in garages and machine shops and read car mags and machining trade publications for decades?
9. Again, show me specific changes you would make to this article besides changing its title to "engine block", tweaking the lede minorly, and having "monobloc engine" redirect to it.

I might quibble with "With either wet or dry liner designs, the liners (or sleeves) can be replaced, allowing overhaul or rebuild without machining of the block itself." Have you, in all your years of experience, actually managed to pull a dry sleeve out of a block without having to either first machine it out or re-machine the block to re-insert a sleeve? Especially a sleeve that you put in the freezer overnight while you left the block in a very warm room, letting the block expand, the sleeve contract and still having to pound it all together for a tight fit? Children resort to name-calling and swearing, adults discuss things, calmly. Which was a major point above...where was the discussion?12.73.239.14 (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding the liner and sleeve PITA factor. I failed to discuss how the theory of remove-and-replace doesn't match the reality. That'll need some revising, either to explain more or to put the lid back on the can of worms by explaining less. But your comments about children versus adults, and name-calling versus calm discussion, are very hypocritical. Take a look at how YOU (not I) started this discussion thread. Did you calmly discuss various points like an adult? Or did you call me and my efforts names with swearing-style punctuation (???!!!@@##) and with terms like "mess" and "schoolboy understanding"? Please don't start a pissing contest with me about logic or hypocrisy or patience. Very few humans can win that contest. I think my reply last night may have been the most I've EVER lost my patience and got cranky in a Wikipedia talk thread. I wouldn't have thrown a fit if someone else hadn't first thrown a fit at me. I apologize for rolling with the flames instead of dousing them; I know that humans need to resist that urge as much as possible, because it's destructive to everything, i.e., nose-cutting to spite face from a species-wide perspective. But although I'll apologize for joining the flame-throwing bandwagon, I won't stand down from calmly pointing out the hypocrisy of the child-vs-adult, discussion-vs-name-calling themes. It's no big deal—no lasting offense taken—but it's absolutely no display of any high-road superiority on your side of the discussion. Also, regarding discussion vs WP:BOLD, there is a dynamic—but valid and enduring—tension between WP:BOLD and discussing edits before making them. If Wikipedians waited around for pre-content-development talk page consensus about large, difficult content-development moves (that is, multi-step moves involving page moves/splits/redirects/lede revisions/WP:SUMMARY/WP:SPINOFF/WP:CFORK), Wikipedia would have never gotten built at all, and could not continuing growing and evolving in the future. So thank [deity of choice] that we DON'T do it that way. I stand by my BOLD-vs-talk quotient 100%. — ¾-10 14:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

1. By the way, if you happened to read my user page comment about tangential vs especial interest in the topic, don't kid yourself that it has ANYTHING to do with any lack of metalworking or auto, truck, and tractor repair knowledge. The ONLY thing I was referring to there was that I don't give a CRAP about the classic car hobby anymore, because I realize how pointless worshipping pieces of machinery is. Machinery serves a utilitarian purpose, costs money, makes enough money to pay for itself if you're SMART & LUCKY, and then goes to the SCRAP YARD. I know, I've SLEDGEHAMMERED a few iron castings into pieces in my day so that I could get them into small enough pieces to manhandle and SCRAP. Worshipping cars doesn't pay the bills or put food on the tables of the 10% unemployed. For every one wheeler-dealer-flipper who makes money off it, there are 30 religionists pissing what should have been their retirement savings and/or [grand/]kids' college funds into a money pit. THAT'S what I was talking about there. Until you compare notes with me on your machine tool operation experience and mechanic work experience, I'll plan to figure that I know more about engine blocks then you ever will. Rebuttal PLEASE. — ¾-10 04:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm the author of the original article, pretty much as it was here, and where it was stable for six months. It covered the historical use of the term "monobloc", when this was a term actually in use and of interest.

The new article, as of yesterday, has abandoned this. It now appears that "monobloc engine" is a term only of relevance to V8s with monobloc crankcase & blocks. It also makes the claim that "monobloc" originates with the Ford Flathead - basically false, unless we choose to exclude any other engines just because they weren't produced in thousands. It also introduces an uncited and unsupportable claim that the poultice head (i.e. one head across all cylinders) is also described as a "monobloc".

This article is now a disaster. In particularly, it has collapsed into the usual wikimorasse of an unreadable article with no structure.

To say I'm gutted would be an understatement. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy, some of the claims that you're saying the article makes, it doesn't. Please bear with me below, as I respect you as a fellow Wikipedian, and I want to offer light at the end of the tunnel up front by saying that the concerns about this article CAN be addressed and satisfactorily resolved. And since I'm the one who changed it, I'll take the responsibility for refining it in that direction. I have some ideas of how to unkink the pinch points. OK, that said, back to specific points.

• "It now appears that 'monobloc engine' is a term only of relevance to V8s with monobloc crankcase & blocks."
  • That claim is not made in the article at all. But I guess that I do need to revise things so that readers don't misinterpret it that way.
• "It also makes the claim that "monobloc" originates with the Ford Flathead"
  • That claim is not made in the article at all. But I guess that I do need to revise things so that readers don't misinterpret it that way.
• "usual wikimorasse of an unreadable article with no structure"
  • This one stings because it is itself a form of name-calling that only seems justified to the name-callers, but is actually incorrect. How can you say that the article has no structure? That's just crazy if you step through it and read it. The thing that it does have, which really sets people off sometimes, is etic classification analyzed and then cross-referenced to emic classification. Wikipedia HAS to have that, because of the Blind men and an elephant problem of human epistemology. Local populations of humans live in a world of limited contexts where it seems like emicness is EVERYTHING, that is, that their map of the territory IS the territory, which is just a metaphorical way of expressing the idea that the model IS the reality that it's trying to model. Human language and cognition are almost designed to lead us down that specious path, because it conveniently reduces the complexity of reality (which takes full-blown sciences like physics and linguistics to model accurately, and the models are complex) to a specious appearance of simplicity, just as an elephant is easy for a blind man to understand—no complex model needed—when all he has to do is imagine that it's a tree. And he can call it by the name "tree" his whole life, and never be "wrong" (from an emic perspective, among his local population). THAT especially is what leads to arguments on Wikipedia. But Wikipedia HAS to analyze and cross-reference the differences between etic and emic classifications and nomenclature, because Wikipedia articles make declaratory statements in their ledes such as "A is B" and "Xs eat Y", and then the people on the other side of the planet—in whose local context A is not always B, and not all Xs eat Y (only some of them)—feel like Wikipedia is "lying to them". But explicit analysis and cross-referencing of etic to emic classifications often just feels viscerally like cheese-moving (with no discernible value) to individual people or local populations. I understand that, and I need to work toward ameliorating it, which is much easier said than done. More examples of why Wikipedia HAS to belabor nomenclatural analysis (because the arguing blind men can never understand the elephant's true nature until we do it) are at the talk page Talk:Nazi Party. They're all over that page, regarding what name the party should be called by (this affects pagenaming and redirect choices) and whether "right wing" labels even make sense as a label for it (because they mislead just as much as they explain, because different readers interpret their meanings differently).
• Again, I just want to sum up by saying that the concerns with this article can be significantly soothed with some more work, which I'll dig into since I've obligated myself by opening the can of etic-vs-emic worms to begin with. I'll put up some "under construction" tags during the work. It'll be too hard to visualize the analysis and cross-referencing all at once with one large multiply previewed edit; I'll have to do it iteratively with discrete edits. I'll start today. — ¾-10 14:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, much of the amelioration has already been accomplished

... via targeted reversion, content moving, and other tweaks. Please note that "monobloc engine" has been reverted to its state from yesterday (2010-12-26) before I started substantively changing it. (Sigh of relief starts ... now.) The discussion of DFM (e.g., Ford flathead V8 engine et al) and modern variants of integrating engine elements into engine blocks is now going to live at "engine block", which now no longer redirects to "monobloc engine". This preserves the emic nomenclatural usage wherein the terms monobloc and en bloc retain their historical context clearly connotatively tied to them. OK, we should already be feeling less grumpy. Do tell if you don't agree; I am sincerely committed to arriving at a state of [pagenaming/content development/cross-ref wikilinking] that satisfies all involved, because I recognize that everyone is acting in good faith here (other than temporarily flying off the handle a bit in the heat of the moment). More improvement to come today and later this week. — ¾-10 17:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't claim that you've "reverted" it when you haven't. Then don't start edit warring when it is correctly reverted.

The article at Cylinder block was indentified a long time ago as a poor article in need of rework. I'm glad to see that someone has started re-working this, although I still fail to see why you thought that new content couldn't go under cylinder block where it belongs. In particular, I don't understand why an article on monobloc engines had to be the target for this unstructured dump.

As to your CAPITALISED RANTS against other editors, then I see "Nazi Party" and simply apply Godwin's Law. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, whatever, Andy. Boy is that facile, and specious. My pointing to the epistemological/nomenclatural considerations discussed at Talk:Nazi Party had nothing to do with the Godwin's law principle. It was just a recent example of pagenaming/terminology/content disputes. It also happens at hundreds of other WP articles that have nothing to do with Hitler. My pointing to that link really and truly was NOT any instance of Godwin's law. I hope you can see that (logic-wise), whether or not you're too miffed to admit that you can see it.

By the way, as for being facile, so was the edit summary "Uncited" as an explanation on this diff. If you actually look at the content you removed there, it doesn't say anything that you haven't said yourself, either right there in the article or at talk—it merely explains it more. For example, YOU said (I'm using the caps for tonal emphasis, not for any Godwin's law–related reason) the term "falls from favour" when not referring to the historical usage. So in other words, since en bloc construction became common, some retronymy has occurred in the words that people use to talk about the objects. If a citation is needed for that, then I guess you better go remove your own contribution too ("falls from favour" etc), since it expresses the same concept. And by the way, the sky is blue. Another example is that I added the phrases "during the Machine Age" and clarified what the contemporary practice was (discrete castings). How did that not agree with what you'd already written ("falls from favour" etc)? It was merely clarifying it. If I need a citation for my wording, then you need a citation for your wording, because they're expressing the same idea simply a la "in other words". As for the part where you deleted my cross-ref wikilink to engine block, how is that even an improvement? And what was wrong with the sentence? It was as simple as could be, about like "the sky is blue". Considering that after the initial flames, I calmed down and attempted to work in good faith, I find it odd that you're still attacking me ("Please don't claim [...]" ... "Godwin's law", etc). Do you want me to switch out the redirect direction so that "engine block" redirects to "cylinder block" rather than vice versa? I'm OK with that. I don't know why you need to act like my having it the other way around is such a malicious imposition.

As for your question "I don't understand why an article on monobloc engines had to be the target for this unstructured dump": Well, first of all, as I already pointed out, it wasn't unstructured; but leaving that aside (as not the main point here), I believe that the reason I did the 2010-12-26 revamp at "monobloc engine" as opposed to at "cylinder block" or "engine block" was simply that "cylinder block" led me over (via a link) to "monobloc engine", and I read it and figured, "OK, well, if this is the place where castings that integrate the various machine elements are discussed, then I'll do the content development here." After all, the presence of your own text regarding the usage distinctions made that seem natural ("In most cases, any use of the term describes a deliberate single-unit construction, opposed to the more common contemporary practice. Where the monobloc technique has later become the norm, the specific term falls from favour. It is now usual and un-noteworthy practice to use monobloc cylinders and crankcases"). And by the way, I like that text and I think it's totally necessary to keep it (although I think it's more helpful to laypeople with the minor additions I made that you reverted for being uncited). So you see, in summary, none of the edits I've made in the article namespace have been anything but good-faith and non-sinister. I admit I took offense at your the initial flames ("mess", "schoolboy") and shot some flames of my own back. But I calmed down quickly, and other than that, everything I've done—including all of my article edits—has been good-faith. Are you ready to stop sniping at me yet? — ¾-10 00:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, regarding "sniping", at least you were civil about it here. Thank you. — ¾-10 00:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never described your edits as "schoolboy", that's another editor.

I haven't even read most of your comments on this talk: page. I see bulk BLOCK CAPS and I ignore on sight. The article content changes haven't encouraged me to revise this view. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've corrected above at the strikethrough. As for "haven't encouraged", I stand by my contributions and their value to the coverage. — ¾-10 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

One more update for the content-development record (for any reader now or later who may care) before I leave this article: I had done exactly what I claimed I would do—revert, and then make a few more improvements [by which I meant one or two benign, non-major ones] later that day or in following days. One subsequent minor tweak was reverted, although, if one looks carefully at the merits of the tweak, the reversion seems a step backward in article quality. But that was really the last bit of content development that I had that will concern this page, so I'm OK with just leaving without that tweak. No point in trying to work on this page given its current semi-ownership, especially if one of the semi-owners proudly refuses to read most talk page comments. For someone who bemoans the WP user experience, he has done more to contributing toward degrading it (along biting and owning lines) than most other editors do. However, I'm hoping most of this chalks up to just being driven to crankiness by editors who really do dump cluelessness into articles (of which I am not an instance, which my WP record shows). Perhaps just an instance of a cop (who's done a lot of good patrolling) being driven into jaded impatience by the thin blue line's being too thin for our own good (ie, of any of us). As for my flame response, it was very rare for me, driven by defensiveness after having my efforts called a "mess" (they were more accurately some good development that just needed some revision, pagenaming-wise and otherwise, which they subsequently got). Anyway, this article is "safe" from further contributions from me, and I hope that gives some stress relief to its main contributors. I sincerely wish all a happy new year—perhaps a wikibreak or two mixed into it—and a stronger Wikipedia with every passing year (which is the larger goal, our temporary squabbles aside). Here at the moment of one decade of Wikipedia, I'm very proud of what we've built and maintained so far, despite any "unfinishedness" that anyone might rightfully point out. WP is an awesome epistemological and pedagogical achievement that beats all hell out of the formerly normal alternative (which was its absence). Regards, — ¾-10 15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR

If you have sources for the changes you made (particularly, poultice heads ever being described as monoblocs), you know how our citation policy works.

I do appreciate the changes you've been working on recently, but I'm still puzzled why your work that's clearly in relation to cylinder block couldn't just be placed on that article, where it belongs. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It did end up there, where (you're correct) it belongs. A mere cross-ref link from here to there is fine. My placing it here was a temporary mistake caused by an innocent train of thought described above. But if you want to skip reading it, that's OK. I just recorded it there defensively to prove that I'm not an idiot. As for WP:TLDR, I do understand and sympathize with the readers' end on that topic. But I think some of the loquaciousness of the writers comes not from pretense but rather only from the fact that you have to hash out the multifaceted thoughts before you can figure out how to hide the nonvital details. Hmmm, maybe I'll ponder adding that viewpoint at WP:TLDR ... succinctly ... — ¾-10 17:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monobloc engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127185645/http://perr.com/honda.html to http://www.perr.com/honda.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910153233/http://www.saito-mfg.com/top.htm to http://www.saito-mfg.com/top.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph added, discussion about scale modelling as a primary source (June 2020)

Hello everyone,

Added a section on currently manufactured engines with "monobloc" cylinders. The monobloc is NOT dead, since it is still used in general aviation. I'm not sure where the idea of its passing comes from except from some background in automotive engine development or use.

There is another issue that troubles me. I have seen too many articles lately that cite scale models as primary sources for end products in major technology when it is not the case. Here in this article is a prime example. I made a minor edit in the first sentence to accommodate the reading flow from my entry, but did not remove the reference or discussion of the product. I can't say if the addition of that paragraph was intended as a shill for that scale model engine or if it was truly based on a limited knowledge of the subject matter, but think the OP should re-edit the paragraph in light of actual engine technology in existence.

Johnnyrev (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Still could be clearer

I am quite sure this would be very confusing a layperson who wasnt already familiar with most of the content. The article first mentions that the term applies to three different meanings without explaining how they can variously overlap or supercede each other. Then the bulk if the first part of the article discusses monobloc from a perspective that it refers to a contiguous head and cylinder. Then it suddenly starts talking about monobloc as applied to cylinder blocks, showing a number of drawings of engines: one of an engine with monoblock cylinders but a separate head, and two showing engines with separate cylinder blocks, but with single piece heads. No explanation offered. Are these included as a comparison with the monobloc cylinder picture, to show what non-mo0nobloc cylinders look like, or are they meant to be examples of engines that can also be described as monobloc, per the first half of the text, in spite of being the exact opposite from the "monobloc" engine discussed in that section? I must assume the former, since no attempt is made in the photo captions to explain that they in fact do have monobloc heads and also qualify as "monobloc" engines under one of the definitions of this article. Personally, I think "monobloc" exclusively refers to cylinders cast into a single unit, with or without a crankcase. I think the practice of referring to one-piece heads as "monobloc" is a more recent error, from people mistaking the meaning of the term. I would also not that under our present definition of the term, almost every single engine that I can think of that DOESN'T qualify as monobloc in terms of cylinders DOES qualify in terms of heads. I can't think of many engines wit cylinders cast into separate pairs or triples that also has separate heads. Separate heads almost universally trailed after the adoption of the monoloc cylinder casting. I am sure there were a few exceptions, and I have an image in my mind of a V12 with 4 sets of three cylinders and 4 different heads, one for each set. But most often separate cylinders means continuous heads, and less commonly, vice versa. So pretty much any engine that isn't a mnobloc IS a monobloc, and any engine that is a monobloc ISN'T a monobloc, wikipedias definition.

64.222.112.139 (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)