December 17, 201213 yr Simple question: Why did the Big 3 (or anyone else selling cars in America, for that matter) switch from cubic inches to litres?
December 17, 201213 yr Because the rest of the world uses metric for displacement? US market models have had metric displacement for 30 years or more... Edited December 17, 201213 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar
December 17, 201213 yr Author I know it's been done that way for a long time, I'm just wondering why... The US has not bowed to international pressure on many other products, the only metric I can think of in the US are 2L pop bottles - and they're still labelled as 67.some ounces.
December 17, 201213 yr I would assume it was because import automakers in the US market used litres...it didn't make sense to have two measurement scales in the same market. The US tried (and failed) to adopt the metric system in the '70s...I remember in school in the '80s only learning measurements in metric in science classes. It would seem weird to order a 0.47 liter steak in a restaurant rather than a 16 ounce one. Edited December 17, 201213 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar
December 17, 201213 yr I would assume it was because import automakers in the US market used litres...it didn't make sense to have two measurement scales in the same market. Close. When the imports first started coming here, they would list their engine in Cubic Centimeters or CC.
December 17, 201213 yr I would assume it was because import automakers in the US market used litres...it didn't make sense to have two measurement scales in the same market. Close. When the imports first started coming here, they would list their engine in Cubic Centimeters or CC. Ah yeah...like old motorcycles that were 50CC or so...
December 17, 201213 yr I would assume it was because import automakers in the US market used litres...it didn't make sense to have two measurement scales in the same market. Close. When the imports first started coming here, they would list their engine in Cubic Centimeters or CC. Ah yeah...like old motorcycles that were 50CC or so... Even in 1985:
December 17, 201213 yr Author It would seem weird to order a 0.47 liter steak in a restaurant rather than a 16 ounce one. Steak would be measured in grams or kilograms... which is our weight measurement, just like your dry ounces or pounds. Milliletres or litres are for liquid or volume, like your liquid ounces or gallons.
December 17, 201213 yr I think we should change the name of the GM 3800 to "Gallon Jug". The only reason I know that conversion is because of the 3.8 Liters/1 Gallon per flush printed on the top of some urinals.
December 17, 201213 yr Author Some of the engine sizes are really funny as cubic inches, because we're used to hearing cubic inches only for old muscle car era engines. Mine's 83! LOL
December 17, 201213 yr It would seem weird to order a 0.47 liter steak in a restaurant rather than a 16 ounce one. Steak would be measured in grams or kilograms... which is our weight measurement, just like your dry ounces or pounds. Milliletres or litres are for liquid or volume, like your liquid ounces or gallons. Ah, yeah...I remember that from a long time ago...I never really think about liquid vs mass weight or measurement of things for that matter.. I never think about buying a gallon of milk or 20 gallons of gas, I just buy milk or a tankful of gas.... Edited December 17, 201213 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar
December 17, 201213 yr The US tried (and failed) to adopt the metric system in the '70s...I remember in school in the '80s only learning measurements in metric in science classes. It all stems from this abortive attempt at standardization. The public rebelled, and we are left with artifacts of the attempt - this is one of them.
December 17, 201213 yr The US tried (and failed) to adopt the metric system in the '70s...I remember in school in the '80s only learning measurements in metric in science classes. It all stems from this abortive attempt at standardization. The public rebelled, and we are left with artifacts of the attempt - this is one of them. Things are weirder in the UK, they still use miles per hour for speed, but measure objects in metric and volumes in metric.
December 18, 201213 yr American automakers switched to aclimate once the imports began becoming a major market factor, in a vain attempt to 'go along with the flow'. Its a puzzler in that --as liters-- its a more innaccurate system (every tenth of a liter equals 6 cubes). Thats besides the point that there seems to be a lot more intentional flubbing of displacment to market 'cool' dispalcements with liters, than ever happened with CI.
December 18, 201213 yr Author You could have accuracy in liters too. There's no rule that says you have to stop at one decimal place. They could easily have said that my engine was a 1.364 - or even stuck with cubic centimeters or millilitres (which are the same thing) and called it a 1364.
December 18, 201213 yr You could have accuracy in liters too. There's no rule that says you have to stop at one decimal place. They could easily have said that my engine was a 1.364 - or even stuck with cubic centimeters or millilitres (which are the same thing) and called it a 1364. Naaaa, Americans are too lazy to care about a 6200CC engine. They would rather just say I got me the big one, 8.1L
December 18, 201213 yr You could have accuracy in liters too. There's no rule that says you have to stop at one decimal place. They could easily have said that my engine was a 1.364 - or even stuck with cubic centimeters or millilitres (which are the same thing) and called it a 1364. Naaaa, Americans are too lazy to care about a 6200CC engine. They would rather just say I got me the big one, 8.1L Disagree. 3800, often said as Thirty-Eight-Hundred, 3100, 3400, 3900... Americans would use those terms no prob.
December 18, 201213 yr Personally, I think that there is a marketing opportunity to be had by using CID rather than liters in certain vehicles.
December 18, 201213 yr Personally, I think that there is a marketing opportunity to be had by using CID rather than liters in certain vehicles. Examples please
December 18, 201213 yr I think we should change the name of the GM 3800 to "Gallon Jug". The only reason I know that conversion is because of the 3.8 Liters/1 Gallon per flush printed on the top of some urinals. AHAHAHA! I remember thinking that a urinal flush was the same volume as the 232 six in one of my AMC Gremlins. Let the hilarity ensue.
December 18, 201213 yr Personally, I think that there is a marketing opportunity to be had by using CID rather than liters in certain vehicles. Examples please 302 455 500 350
December 18, 201213 yr Personally, I think that there is a marketing opportunity to be had by using CID rather than liters in certain vehicles. Examples please 302 455 500 350 or more realistically for some of today's GM engines, for example.. 110 122 146 153 220 366 378 Doesn't sound as good as 2.0, 2.4, 3.6, etc does it? Edited December 18, 201213 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar
December 18, 201213 yr I dunno, I'd drive a Three Sixty Six or a Three Seventy Eight. They do have a 427 out there.
December 19, 201213 yr Wonder why the imports moved from CCs to liters? Used to be pretty much all the former, now no one uses CCs. Agree with Camino/ Olds that there's a very good opportunity to utilize the very proprietory CI in some instances. Homogenization is boring.
February 15, 201313 yr Jump-starting an '89 toyoyo the other day, engine decal underhood said "121.9 CI".
February 17, 201313 yr ^ Pontiac was the first US marque to do that, but it really never caught on; the engines were referred to by the public for what they were: 389, 400, 421, 428, 455, etc. Maybe because Pontiac used it intermixed with CI designations : ...on later GTOs, too. Edited February 17, 201313 yr by balthazar
February 17, 201313 yr Right, the 389 GTOs wore '6.5L' badges, the OHC six Firebirds wore '3.8LOHC" badges, the Grand Am wore '7.4L" badges.... and the later T/A 6.6s, but in between we had many '428's, '400's, '350's, '326's... Pontiac played it a bit loose with switching the displacement systems up; the GTO kept using the emblem cletus posted above in '67-68, even tho the cars were then 6.6L (400s).
February 18, 201313 yr hmm never noticec the 3.8 and 7.4 badges. will have to keep an eye out for those at the next shows i go to.
February 18, 201313 yr hmm never noticec the 3.8 and 7.4 badges. will have to keep an eye out for those at the next shows i go to. Wait, you don't remember the 7.4L SS that Chevy Trucks offered in the early '90s???
February 18, 201313 yr yes i do. cause i owned a 1990 example, but the advertising on the side was the correct CI heheh. ford also did the metric thing back in the 60's with the galaxys and the fairlanes correct?
February 19, 201313 yr hmm never noticec the 3.8 and 7.4 badges. will have to keep an eye out for those at the next shows i go to. In '68 the OHC-6 went to 250 CI : before that it was 230 CI : 455 Grand Am : These are the ones (beside the GTO & T/A) that spring to mind WRT Pontiac. Cadillac used the '8.2 Litre' badging on the Eldorado when the 500 CI came out in '70, it was used at least a few years after that :
February 19, 201313 yr I wonder if that 8.2 is the biggest displacement badge ever on a production car..
February 19, 201313 yr ^ Production car displacement badge; I believe so. There were larger production engines, but I don't believe they wore badging (beyond cylinder count). • • • cletus :: >>"ford also did the metric thing back in the 60's with the galaxys and the fairlanes correct?"<< Briefly yes; the Galaxie "7-Litre", new for 1966 : "7-litre Sports Package" was offered for '67, but the actual badging reverted to "428" that year. The factory race Fairlanes, the '64 Thunderbolts, were 427s, but I see no evidence they wore badges. However, they were commonly lettered with '427' designations, and the '63 Galaxie lightweight race cars wore '427' badges, too. By the time the production Fairlanes/Torinos got RPO 428s (at least by '69, maybe earlier), they were badged as '428's.... so in the 60s at least, Ford seemingly only dabbled with liter designations for 1 year on 1 model.
February 19, 201313 yr ^ Ford also used 7.0 Litre badging on the '68 Cougar GT-E. I'm not sure any other Mercurys used such badging for the 427/428.
February 19, 201313 yr ^ Ford also used 7.0 Litre badging on the '68 Cougar GT-E. I'm not sure any other Mercurys used such badging for the 427/428. Thanks for the addition. Still a very brief experiment within the 60s. I don't think ChryCo touched it in the 60s. What imports started using separate liter call-outs (as opposed to part of a model name)?
February 19, 201313 yr Mercedes comes to mind.... the W109-series 300SEL in the '60s had badging for different engine sizes...3.5, 4.5, 6.3.. I'm sure there are others.
February 21, 201313 yr AMC showed the displacement of engines on the rear sail panel of Gremlin Xs during the 1971-'76 period. Here's an example of a '74 with the "5-litre V8" (304 CID). If "3.8 litre" was displayed, the car had the 232 CID inline six, and "4.2 litre" denoted the 258 six:
February 21, 201313 yr Imagine the Beach Boys singing, "She's real fine, my 6.9"... (not too far off conversion-wise; I think the 409 would have been ~ 6.7L).
February 21, 201313 yr AMC showed the displacement of engines on the rear sail panel of Gremlin Xs during the 1971-'76 period. Here's an example of a '74 with the "5-litre V8" (304 CID). If "3.8 litre" was displayed, the car had the 232 CID inline six, and "4.2 litre" denoted the 258 six: That is one sweet ride. Very sharp
February 21, 201313 yr This one was mine. The logo on the sail panel said "4.2 Litre", so mine had the 258 six. Gobs of torque for a 2800-lbs. car. Tire-frying fiend, it was...
February 21, 201313 yr Neat...IIRC the XJ Cherokee had a 4.0 Litre badge at one point...wouldn't mind scrounging one up for my GC.
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.