On this page
Start hereThis guide explains how to assess the identity evidence. Our missing-data guide deals with a different question: what to do when a specification inside an established record is not known.
Four claims need separate support
| Claim | Evidence question |
|---|---|
| This identifier exists | Where is the exact designation documented? |
| It belongs to this manufacturer/family | Does the evidence establish that relationship? |
| It was used in this vehicle/application | Does a source support the particular mapping? |
| This specification belongs to it | Does the source state that field for that variant and context? |
Evidence for one row does not automatically prove all the others. A real engine code can still have a wrong application or a specification copied from another unit.
Start with a traceable source
Look for the exact designation in relevant manufacturer documentation, an applicable official record or another source whose origin and scope can be assessed. Record the document, section, date/version where available and the claim it supports.
Do not treat repeated text on several websites as independent confirmation if they appear to derive from the same unsupported entry. A source list is useful only when its documents actually support the record.
These are the standards in our Editorial and Sourcing Policy, not a claim that every existing record has already passed a complete audit.
Treat plausible patterns carefully
A naming convention can help you recognise a possible identifier, but it cannot show that a code exists. A code is not documented merely because it fits a family pattern.
When an exact designation cannot be confirmed, preserve the uncertainty. “Not yet verified” is more accurate than claiming either that the code definitely exists or that it must be invented.
Do not confuse an unsupported field with an invented identity
A missing compression ratio does not establish that an engine code is invented. Likewise, a known code does not make an unsupported compression ratio true.
Use precise language when reporting the issue: “I cannot find evidence for this identifier” or “this vehicle mapping conflicts with this source” is more useful than a broad accusation without a reference.
What a useful report contains
- The EngineCode page address.
- The exact identifier or field questioned.
- The claimed manufacturer, application and date context.
- The evidence you checked and what it actually says.
- Any alternative interpretation that needs investigation.
Use Report a Problem. Do not include unrelated personal data or treat the report as an enquiry for an engine.
What should happen when evidence is insufficient?
The record's status and the significance of the uncertainty should be assessed. An unsupported value may need to be removed or labelled. A questionable identifier or cross-brand mapping may require the record to be withdrawn while investigated.
A justified correction should reach linked applications, FAQs and structured data as well as the sentence a reader first noticed. Our Corrections Policy sets out that process.
What readers can safely conclude
A documented source can strengthen a specific claim within its scope. It cannot certify every other field, guarantee the physical engine's condition or establish replacement compatibility without further application-specific evidence.
Use the database to organise research. For a purchase or repair, obtain the appropriate confirmation for the individual vehicle and supplied item.