Talk:Volvo Engine Architecture

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 14 March 2016 by reviewer Insertcleverphrasehere (talk · contribs).

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

B4204T6 and B4204T7 engines

What type of engine is B4204T6? It seems to have been introduced to S60 and V60 cars already in 2010/2011, so it's not a VEA engine? B4204T7 could be a similar case even if Volvo V60 -article lists the engine as 'VEA'. --Sivullinen (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The B4204T6 and B4204T7 engines are 2.0L variants of the Ford Ecoboost engine family. They have a 1,999cc displacement and 87.5mm/83.1mm bore/stroke so are definately not a VEA engine. Mistake in the V60 article has been corrected.2A02:2028:73A:5101:71D9:A9E1:2999:9CBE (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP

The IP who owns this and other Volvo articles has already been told: There is absolutely no need to include accessdate when there is an archivedate. See Volvo Modular engine talkpage for our existing conversation. I assume that it's the same IP, as they both edit in the same very weird style, with the same inability to communicate or collaborate. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This claim that there had been no support for the usage of both access-date and archive-date is not as clear cut as you may wish it to be. Going through the archives there is no clear do or don't decision for using both. Looking at previously featured articles, which at the very least are of better quality than most other articles, using both parameters seems common. The old discussion that was mentioned over on the VME talk page didn't really end and the outcome (removal of the access-date parameter from citations) was unilaterally decided by the editor above. As no consensus has been reached for this article the parameter will be reintroduced. Regards, 2A04:4540:905:BE00:C118:7818:1182:91AC (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for consensus I think that using both parameters is pointless. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw a single editor support the inclusion of both. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop adding both. The references are already massively cluttered, please stop adding the needless accessdates. It is boring and time consuming but you are making me consider reporting your behavior. Mr.choppers | ✎ 23:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table redesign

I suggest this page should be redesigned as a table. It is hard to read and find information. Especially since most things are repated over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.237.95 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]