Why are US engine sizes metric?

[the_yellow_dart]

Simple question: Why did the Big 3 (or anyone else selling cars in America, for that matter) switch from cubic inches to litres?

[Robert Hall]

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, 2012 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[the_yellow_dart]

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.

[Robert Hall]

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, 2012 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

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.

[Robert Hall]

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...

[Drew Dowdell]

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:

[the_yellow_dart]

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.

[Drew Dowdell]

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.

[the_yellow_dart]

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

[Robert Hall]

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, 2012 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Camino LS6]

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.

[Robert Hall]

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.

[balthazar]

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.

[the_yellow_dart]

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.

[G. David Felt]

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

[Drew Dowdell]

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.

[Camino LS6]

Personally, I think that there is a marketing opportunity to be had by using CID rather than liters in certain vehicles.

[G. David Felt]

Personally, I think that there is a marketing opportunity to be had by using CID rather than liters in certain vehicles.

Examples please

[NeonLX]

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.

[Drew Dowdell]

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

[Robert Hall]

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, 2012 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

I dunno, I'd drive a Three Sixty Six or a Three Seventy Eight.

They do have a 427 out there.

[Camino LS6]

And they have a 326 (5.3)

Could have fudged it to 327...

[balthazar]

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.

[NeonLX]

Homogenization is boring.

[balthazar]

Jump-starting an '89 toyoyo the other day, engine decal underhood said "121.9 CI".

[Drew Dowdell]

There's no replacement for 0.9 CI of displacement.

[cletus8269]

[balthazar]

^ 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, 2013 by balthazar

[cletus8269]

yeah, "T.A. 6.6" comes to mind

[balthazar]

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).

[Camino LS6]

Either way, that Formula 455 you posted is so beautiful that it's painful.

[cletus8269]

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.

[GMTruckGuy74]

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???

[cletus8269]

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?

[Robert Hall]

IIRC at one time ('80s?) the Camaro had 5.0L badges for the 305 didn't it?

[balthazar]

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 :

[Robert Hall]

I wonder if that 8.2 is the biggest displacement badge ever on a production car..

[balthazar]

^ 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.

[Robert Hall]

^

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.

[G. David Felt]

Interesting history, great to read!

[balthazar]

^

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)?

[Robert Hall]

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.

[NeonLX]

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:

[NeonLX]

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).

[G. David Felt]

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

[NeonLX]

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...

[Robert Hall]

Neat...IIRC the XJ Cherokee had a 4.0 Litre badge at one point...wouldn't mind scrounging one up for my GC.