Liters or Cubic Inches?

[JuzaMe]

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!

Sponsored

 

[roaniecowpony]

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!

...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.

 

[T.Pigott]

I think of V8's in Cubic inches because the cars I grew up driving had things like 351s or 305's. When I started buying my own cars, they all had 4 cylinders and were in Liters so that's how I learned those. My first V6 was a 2001 Taurus. I don't remember it's displacement, but it had a 24V DOHC V6, my 1st ever V6. But regardless, for me V8s are CI and everything else is liters. I was so disappointed when I learned a 5.0 mustang was a 302 and not a 351.

 

[grimmjeeper]

I think of V8's in Cubic inches because the cars I grew up driving had things like 351s or 305's. When I started buying my own cars, they all had 4 cylinders and were in Liters so that's how I learned those. My first V6 was a 2001 Taurus. I don't remember it's displacement, but it had a 24V DOHC V6, my 1st ever V6. But regardless, for me V8s are CI and everything else is liters. I was so disappointed when I learned a 5.0 mustang was a 302 and not a 351.

Thing is, a 302 is actually 4.9 liters. It's just a few cc too low to round up to 5.0 but everyone calls it a 5.0.

Interesting fact, the old Ford 300 straight 6 is actually 302ci (same bore but a 4" stroke instead of the 3" stroke of the V8 so the displacement is the same). However, Ford calls it a 4.9.

 

[AcesandEights]

Not unlike caliber.

What's a .44M? What's a .45LC? 9mm same as a .380, same as a .38, same as a .357M? Round up when it's convenient.

Multiply or divide by six(ish) to get cubic inches or liters, easy-peasy.

 

[AnnDee4444]

 

[bjm00se]

Thing is, a 302 is actually 4.9 liters. It's just a few cc too low to round up to 5.0 ...

... the old Ford 300 straight 6 is actually 302ci... However, Ford calls it a 4.9.

Hmmmph. I'd like to Register a Complaint!

;-P

 

[calemasters]

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 can go either way, but I grew up with cubic inches. I am all for the metric system, but I like cubic inches because it is more accurate then when liters are rounded off to the nearest tenth of a liter.

For example, 6.4 liters is 390.55 cubic inches. So I prefer "392".

 

[AnnDee4444]

I can go either way, but I grew up with cubic inches. I am all for the metric system, but I like cubic inches because it is more accurate than when liters are rounded off to the nearest tenth of a liter.

For example, 6.4 liters is 390.55 cubic inches. So I prefer "392".

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

 

[grimmjeeper]

Hmmmph. I'd like to Register a Complaint!

;-P

Yeah, both are 301.59ci which is 4942cc. Even if you round to 302ci that's 4949cc, just shy of being able to round up.

 

[aldo98229]

Thing is, a 302 is actually 4.9 liters. It's just a few cc too low to round up to 5.0 but everyone calls it a 5.0.

Interesting fact, the old Ford 300 straight 6 is actually 302ci (same bore but a 4" stroke instead of the 3" stroke of the V8 so the displacement is the same). However, Ford calls it a 4.9.

Sounds like something Ford would do: make it sound better than it really is.

Chrysler has a long tradition of doing the exact opposite. For the longest time Chrysler used to understate the output of its V8 engines —Hemis and Magnums. They did it mostly for insurance purposes.

When I owned a 2012 Dodge Challenger 392 a few years back, people on the forums had dyno-ed their Challengers and found the factory numbers to be on the conservative side. The real output of the 392 HEMI is close to 500HP. The 470HP figure is to mostly to keep all parties happy.

Some of that mindset still exists to this day. For instance, the Mopar “2-inch” lift got me in actuality 3.5 inches of lift. Saying that it is a “2-inch” lift keeps insurers and state regulators off our backs.

Had it been Ford, they’d have called it, with a straight face, the “6-inch” lift... —much to the disappointment of Ford wives everywhere

 

[Heimkehr]

...and some GenX'ers that were wondering what the hell is 392 cu inches in liters. It's all about knowing your market.

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.

 

[Jmos4]

Hi,

Also better with cubic inches vs. Liters. Always heard a 427 was a 7.0 liter so with that premise I Always use 61 x liters = cubic inches, not exact but close enough for conversation

Also believe Hemis are figured with dome and head chamber as when the 5.7 Hemi's were introduced it should have been a 350 not sure how 345 is the actual figure.

Regards,
Jim

 

[grimmjeeper]

Hi,

Also better with cubic inches vs. Liters. Always heard a 427 was a 7.0 liter so with that premise I Always use 61 x liters = cubic inches, not exact but close enough for conversation

Also believe Hemis are figured with dome and head chamber as when the 5.7 Hemi's were introduced it should have been a 350 not sure how 345 is the actual figure.

Regards,
Jim

Displacement is always calculated as the swept volume. So bore and stroke and the number of cylinders is the only part of the equation.

The shape of the combustion chamber doesn't figure in. The combustion chamber, piston dish/dome, piston depth at TDC, and gasket thickness combine with swept volume to determine static compression ratio.

The 5.7 hemi has a 3.917" bore and 3.578" stroke. That makes 345 ci.

The 5.7 liter LS1 was a 346ci engine with a 99mm (3.898") bore and 92mm (3.622") stroke. The small block 350 it replaced had a 4" bore and 3.48" stroke.

 

[Jtclayton612]

I was born in the 90s so older cars that I learned about growing up I use cubic inches and newer cars I use liters.

Sponsored