Talk:MIVEC

why is this a stub?

Only nine sentences of prose text, so strictly speaking it could qualify. WP:STUB says:

"A stub is an article that is too short to provide encyclopaedic coverage of the subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. To qualify as a stub it must at least define the meaning of the article's title. Often that means three to ten short sentences, but less text may be sufficient to qualify as a stub for articles on narrow topics, and complicated topics with more than ten sentences may still be stubs. However, in reality, many articles which are labeled as stubs are much longer than that. You can help Wikipedia by removing inappropriate stub notices.

Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub."

I'd say it's borderline, but I'm going to convert the list of current applications to a table just now, and I'll remove the stub template while I'm at it depending on how long the article is. --DeLarge 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

It might be a good idea of the editors edit warring here actually initiate a discussion and discuss in a civilised fashion what they perceive to be the problems. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying, I'm trying. See User talk:Justin5117#Edits to MIVEC last year, and lately on my own talk page. --DeLarge (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its best to keep artcile content disputes on the article talk page as thehy then inform the discussion should other interested editors wich to suggest ways of improving articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See here for explanation. If an inexperienced editor (c.120 edits) starts a conversation on my talk page, I think the best thing to ensure the lines of communication stay open is to keep it where it is, especially where no-one else is involved. --DeLarge (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far too detailed: MIVEC works almost identically to VTEC, Neo VVL, variocam, Valvetronic/VANOS, etc.

This article is far too detailed. with the exception of the specific mechanical details of the operation of the MIVEC system.... eg how the hydraulic system is controlled, where the oil is channeled into the cam system, the exact details of how the VVT system is engaged, etc. (all of which are *purely* differentiated to avoid patent conflicts).... MIVEC is functionally identical to everyone else's VVT+VVL system. The Valve Lift functionality is *never* different. All manufacturers adjust the lift by using 2 (or more) cam profiles that are switched during operation. This is the source of the ridiculous saying "VTEC just kicked in yo!" when at a certain RPM, the "extra" cam lobe takes over and the profile changes to one that could not be sustained at the low RPM conditions of regular driving. MIVEC uses the same principle, with a second cam lobe/profile that engages at a preset RPM. All of this information is contained within the Variable Valve lift/Variable Valve Timing articles.184.189.220.114 (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MIVEC. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MIVEC. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]