0Navy Blue

http://www.metric-conversions.org/vo...bic-inches.htm

Above is a link to a metric conversion site.


Here are some conversions:

5.70 liters = 347.83 cubic inches (C5)
6.00 liters = 366.14 cubic inches (C6)
6.40 liters = 390.55 cubic inches (Z06?)
6.50 liters = 396.54 cubic inches (Z06?)
7.00 liters = 427.17 cubic inches (Blue Devil?)
7.45 liters = 454.63 cubic inches (?????)

My questions:

1) If Chevy is as American as apple pie and it's the new "American Revolution", why are we referring to our engines in liters, yet we still buy our gasoline by the gallon?

2) If 5.7 liters is 347.83 cubic inches, why do many enthusiasts refer to the C5 LS1 as a 346?

3) Why are some people referring to the C6 engine as a 364 and not a 366?

4) With Chevy's great history with numbers like 283, 327, 350, 396, 427, and 454 why is the C5 a 5.7 liter and the C6 a 6.0 liter?

5) For marketing purposes why didn't GM make the base engine in the C5 a 350 cubic inch instead of a 348 cubic inch?

6) For marketing purposes why didn't GM make the base engine in the C6 a 396 cubic inch instead of a 366 cubic inch?

7) As a red-blooded American would you be more excited about owning a new Corvette with a 427 or a 7.0?

8) I have a career in high-end sales and marketing and for the life of me I cannot understand why we going down this path with the Corvette (America's Sports Car) - Am I the only one that is confused?

xs650

The industrialized world, except for the US, has been metric for some time. Many if not most of the parts on our Corvettes are metric.

Anyone who walks on their hind legs without their knuckles dragging in the ground should be conversant with metric and US systems of measurement.




[Modified by xs650, 11:54 PM 4/5/2004]

0Navy Blue

Jaggeedfire on the C3 forum answered most of my questions...

1) The world over is changing to metric. Check your nuts and bolts in your Vette and tell me you dont have at least one metric!!!!
2)First off its all about buid specs. If you take the bore (4 in) x stroke (3.48) x 8 cylinders you actually get 349.84775~ ci. Taking that and converting to cubic cent. you get 5732.9776~.

1000 cc = 1L

5732.9776 = approx 5.7 liters.

The LS1 is actually only a 5.665 L which rounded is 346!!

3) As above most of these are rounded to sound good.

4) Bigger is better........most of the time! With better valve train timing and better engineering they can achieve better fuel consumption and keep the epa happy. So they can make a bigger motor that only burns max fuel 30% of the time burn cleaner than the engine that burns less fuel but at all ranges of the performance spectrum.

5) GM isnt playing on the nostalgia as much as mopar is with old engine numbers. Its the hey..were new attitude..Moving forward instead of backward kinda thing although the LS cars are still pushrod powered...go figure

6) Not every American can afford the insurance on a factory 427 sports car!!!!
If thats what you want, go with the Gulstrand Vette- in the price range of a Ferrari. Again thats why they limit it to a smaller size. Sales volume!! The original ideal of Chevy was the Corvette is the sports car all Americans can own. The exotic is coming ...By Caddy!

Mr Mojo

Better yet, try and find one standard bolt or nut, pretty hard to do.

I've had to expand my tool collection to include more metric since none of my standard wrenches fit anything(except the oil drain plug and it's not really a good fit).

I even had to buy metric screwdrivers(it's a joke).

Nathan Plemons

It's simply a matter of rounding and what units it was originally measured in.

Your 5.7 Liter engine is actually slightly more than that, they just round it off. It's easier to say 5.7L than 5.7234, etc.

If you start with english units and keep proper significant figures you'll come up with a different number than if you start with the rounded metric final answer and work backwards.

redwing76

Metric, SAE, and Whitworth.
Years ago you had to have two sets of tools, SAE, and British Whitworth.
British cars had thier own set of tools and SAE tools didn't work.
There wasn't that many British cars ever so it wasn't a problem.

Then the Japanese brought cars over here by the boat load and they needed thier own set of tools. Hence today most cars have metric bolts. Its called out the lowest bidder.
Its been said that the inch system is old skool? So does that mean that English is next?
The metric system is easier to use, ie 10mm -13mm as opposed to 7/16th -
1/2in. English like the inch system is harder to learn than Espanol.

An easier world would be one of Espanol and the Metric system.
But its Un-American. Those who believe in the global village have seen thier jobs go over seas. And the drive to the un-employment office is often done in a Japanese car? With an American flag on the rear lite.

America is the big loser in the global village.

Kale

jmho, the english measuring system is lame. Give me metric any day.

It has nothing to do with patriotism. We didn't invent inches, feet, and miles - we're just the last ones to get with the times and catch up to the rest of the world. :rolleyes:

Bruthish

and whats up with foreign speaking people? can't they all convert to English? :lol: that was a joke BTW.

TO me I prefer the old system because thats what I grew up with...but it is a lot easier to say to your kid "get me a "10" instead of "9/16" " and it's easier to determine what the next size down from an "8" is instead of working it in your head everytime.


[Modified by Bruthish, 1:50 PM 4/6/2004]

bogus

Litre to CI conversions are at the best, inaccruate. There isn't a single constant. I have messed with that for years...

and I still haven't resolved it!!!!

To be honest, I could care less... I am used to the standard measure... a mile makes more sence to me than a click... and inch is the same to me as 26mm.

I do prefer metric on my car, but I prefer miles on the road.

And for weight, I prefer pounds over kilos... donno why, just do.

and the brits are the same way! They do their road measures in miles!

Nathan Plemons

You won't get any argument from me that the English system of measurements makes no sense. But I'll tell you metric is just damn inconvient. A neat concept of making everything based on 10, but the prefixes for everything.

A micro meter, a nano meter, pico meter ? WTF? There is absolutely no confusing an INCH from a FOOT. The distinct naming to me is a nice benefit. Unfortunately there is NO reason why there are 12 inches in a foot as opposed to 10.

Like you say a mile means something to me, a kilometer really doesn't. Call me a stubborn American, but I'll keep my fractional measurements.

86_RedRider

i'll take metric anyday. much easier to do engineering calculations.

MikeLayman

I am glad you brought this up, as i was thinking about getting a set of those 3560 racing flag chrome insignias and adding them to my 87
'
I miss the old days with the 327s, 409s etc

ignore the metrics , lie about whats under the hood :flag :bs :_dupe:

MikeLayman

oops 350 flags :smash:

Mr Mojo

Hey Bogus, remember when the first opened Route 1 in DE? They called it the metric highway, they had KM markers instead of mile markers, but the signs said, "Next exit 1/2 mile" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Clemson Vette

yea there's 61.403 cubic inches in one liter. so if you add that up you can get your size in anything. now as for the messed up sizes, there's a certain degree of error in calculating it unless you take a really large amount of decimal places. just take into account the 5.0 liter engine. ford has the 302, chevy has at least 3 of em; 302,305,307 and i believe that all of em were listed as 5.0 liter engines. it's just a method of conversion. metric is much neater and organized, but i do like the traditional cubic inches. lol i just thought of something, i'm building a gokart with a 500cc engine on it that came off of a ninja. there are 1000 cc's in a liter so that means i will have a 0.5 liter go kart! awesome. lol :D

xs650

61.0237 cubic inches/liter

2.54 cm = 1 inch exactly, then calculate from there.

1996man

OMG! all this math hurts my head! ill just stick to saying i have a 350 under the hood!

olefam

Personally, I wish we would just go 100% metric with everything and get it over with. Metric is far easier to deal with, and millimeters are a more precise unit of measure than 1/16 inch. It also converts from liquid to solid to weight very nicely. For example, 1 cubic centimeter of pure water weighs 1 gram. To my knowledge there is nothing in the English system that converts so easily.
As an RN by profession, I hope we never go back to dispensing medications by drops, minums and drams.
Glen

JasonL

As others have said, the English system is basically junk. It's non-intuitive, it doesn't scale, it requires way too much calculation.

Nathan, the scaling prefixes are the beauty of the metric system, don't you see? :) How many inches in a football field? I couldn't tell you quickly w/o a calculator (edit: well actually I could, but much slower than calculations in metric)



[Modified by JasonL, 10:45 AM 4/7/2004]

xs650

One of many problems with the English system (really, the American system, since the English have been smart enough to largely abandon it), is that with all the bastard mismatched types of units you end up with a lot of stupid conversion factors in calculations.

That masks the elegant simplicity of all sorts of engineering and technical calculations. It also conditions people to blindly accept silly little unexplaned conversion factor numbers calculations. That makes it harder to understand what is actually going on in the calculation.