This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Locomotives Mid‑importance Trains Portal DYK 2007-08-29 This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This redirect is supported by the Locomotives task force. Technology This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

In comparison to the common 351 CI (5.8 L) Ford V8, with a 4.0 in. bore, 3.5 in. stroke, this engine has more than twice the bore size, more than 3 times the stroke. When using the industry standard to calculate an engines total cubic inch displacement would equal 16030 CI (262.6 l)

3.14 x R² x stroke x # of cyl.

(R² = ½ cylinder bore, x ½ cylinder bore.)

Wasn't sure if this information was suitable for the article but posted it here just in case someone was really interested.

--DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The latest ad in Railway Age confirms that EMD has re-branded the 265 engine as the 1010 engine to reflect the cu in displacement instead of the bore diameter. I suggest that the article be renamed to reflect this.Sturmovik (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

If the 567, 645 and 710 have separate pages, 265 and 1010 should have separate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.132.80 (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why if both engines are part of the same family. The 265 has a 1010cu in displacement, but was given a metric designation. The 1010J is an improved version of the 265(1010)H. This is consistent with the 567A->567B->567C->567D and 645E->645F evolutions. Finally neither page has enough information to stand on their own. The H block was a failure with all US examples scrapped. Combining the 1010 engines together will make for a better user experience.Sturmovik (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply