Liters or Cubic Inches?

[Tank the Jeep]

...and some GenX'ers that were wondering what the hell is 392 cu inches in liters. It's all about knowing your market. They're not selling V8 jeeps to econo car drivers.

I’m a Gen X and I know there are 61 cubic inches per liter. Now put on your reading glasses and look it up in an encyclopedia.

Sponsored

 

[LKG]

2.0...3.0...3.6...392?

Personally, I'm old school and like using cubic inches rather than liters when stating engine displacement, and of course 392 sounds Mucho Macho compared to 6.4. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at FCA when engine displacement description was being discussed regarding the 392. I'm sure a few with OCD were pulling their hair out!

I'm thinking a 220 emblem on the hood of my 3.6 would look almost as badass as the 392, .

 

[Heimkehr]

2.0...3.0...3.6...392?

A fair observation.

I'm reminded of the shorthand that runners use: 5K, 10K...but for marathons, they revert to Imperial, or 26.2 miles. If using "5K" sounds more impressive than saying one jogged just 3.1 miles, why not use 42 kilometers when discussing marathons?

Just another idiosyncrasy, it seems.

 

[Sean L]

2.0...3.0...3.6...392?

Personally, I'm old school and like using cubic inches rather than liters when stating engine displacement, and of course 392 sounds Mucho Macho compared to 6.4. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at FCA when engine displacement description was being discussed regarding the 392. I'm sure a few with OCD were pulling their hair out!

392 CI is a historically used displacement with HEMI engines. Not as famous as the 426 but predates that motor. Used in cars like the Chrysler 300C in 1957

If it wasn't for that motor, I'm pretty sure they'd just say 6.4 liters.

 

[Coltron_Actual]

My mom's GTO has 6.6 Liter "Litre" on the emblems, aka the 400.

There's no logic to it. But I bet in the sixties, using liters sounded "exotic" and Pontiac did steal "GTO" from Ferrari.

 

[Sean L]

Maybe it should be like motorcycles... 6,417cc

Even then it usually gets rounded to the nearest 100 cc. My Yamaha is 1300cc or 80 CI... but I don't think its either in reality.

 

[Hennessey17]

I'm Gex X, I know both... I don't care as long as it's fast. And can turn... which is why I probably lean more towards liters if I did care

 

[Heimkehr]

Even then it usually gets rounded to the nearest 100 cc. My Yamaha is 1300cc or 80 CI... but I don't think its either in reality.

...or the nearest 50cc, in the case of my Suzuki DR650, which is actually 644cc.

...or not at all, in the example of the Yamaha YZ 426.

It may depend on the brand, and/or the presentation they want for a particular market.

 

[Sean L]

...or the nearest 50cc, in the case of my Suzuki DR650, which is actually 644cc.

...or not at all, in the example of the Yamaha YZ 426.

It may depend on the brand, and/or the presentation they want for a particular market.

Yes, rounded to 50cc for the little engines, lol. I've just about put my old 650 out of mind even though I still have it.

 

[Heimkehr]

I've just about put my old 650 out of mind even though I still have it.

The V-Star 650? My neighbor/riding partner used to own one. I'd judge how far he was behind me by the fading sound of his V&H pipes. He cleaned it up and sold it one Spring, getting a fair price.

 

[Sean L]

The V-Star 650? My neighbor/riding partner used to own one. I'd judge how far he was behind me by the fading sound of his V&H pipes. He cleaned it up and sold it one Spring, getting a fair price.

Yeah, it was good for a beginner but was screaming on the highway, lol. When I upgraded, my wife insisted on keeping the 650 so she could learn... she never did but she suddenly wants to learn whenever I ponder selling it.

 

[No IFS]

The 2.0 is actually 1.9L would be 116 ci or 1995cc that’s not Impressive. Motorcycle size.
Better stick with the 2.0 ???

 

[grimmjeeper]

The 2.0 is actually 1.9L would be 116 ci or 1995cc that’s not Impressive. Motorcycle size.
Better stick with the 2.0 ???

Convention is to round the value, not truncate it. Companies even take some liberties in how they round and are a little more generous than they should be. See the discussion about the Ford 5.0 above.

 

[multicam]

Go forward one generation, for accuracy.

Xers like me were the last generation of free-range children. As we grew, we were also exposed to and occasionally owned the original muscle. For many years, my hometown had a cruise circuit that on Friday nights was functionally a moving car show. Chevelles, Camaros and the rest.

I remember. I was there.

Yes, I think you’re correct. People forget that “Millennials” aren’t kids anymore- someone born in 1981 is a Millennial.

I think the Millennial generation is the most wrong in terms of difference between extreme ends of the spectrum… for instance, I was born in ‘89 but I don’t really relate to the people born in ‘96 who barely remember 9/11 and never used a corded phone on the wall or had to listen to dial up internet connecting. On the other hand, I completely relate to Gen-Xers and early millennials who don’t spend all day glued to FB, Tik Tok and Instagram.

Someone born in 1981 has almost nothing in common with someone born in ‘96 but they’re both millennials.

What’s the generation after Millennials? They’re the true weirdos… lived their whole life with high speed internet, cell phones, and social media.

Eh, who cares, it’s all made up anyway.

 

[Coltron_Actual]

Convention is to round the value, not truncate it. Companies even take some liberties in how they round and are a little more generous than they should be. See the discussion about the Ford 5.0 above.

4.95 liters rounded to 5.0 is egregious?

I guess it's if you divide by 61 or 62. (61 is the correct answer)

302 is actually 301.6 ci (Ø4"x3"), and the 300 is 300.06 (Ø4"x3.98")

Sponsored