Sign in to follow this  
Uncle_Buck

This is the USA...

Recommended Posts

...and thats how we let everbody know whats under the hood....!!

Hats off to Chrysler for putting the cubic inch displacement of the Hemi under the hood on the new Challenger. Ford gets a nod too. The re-introduction of the Boss Mustang 302. Thank you very much Chrysler & Ford.

GM, your turn. Loved those flag emblems from the mid-sixties...!!

Beer comes in oz. and quart containers - not litres. Litres are for measuring wine in Europe - not engine displacement in the United States...

post-67240-143138470446_thumb.jpg

post-67240-143138470449_thumb.jpg

post-67240-143138470454_thumb.jpg

Edited by Uncle_Buck (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, GM's 7L and 6.2L V8's are at the top of the entire game beating anything from Mopar or Ford in terms of HP/TQ, they don't need a different number just to be the same like Mopar and Ford. Although I agree that putting 427 on the Z06 would be sweet :D

Anyway, God bless America just for us having cars like this in this day and age!

As far as the metric system lol, that's a different discussion entirely...

Edited by 92GTA (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did we really run out of 25 year old cars to talk about?

I don't think Uncle Buck was talking exclusively about cars of today, but rather, the link from the past that that can't be suppressed or taken lightly - even today.

Good post Uncle Buck...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ummm, GM's 7L and 6.2L V8's are at the top of the entire game beating anything from Mopar or Ford in terms of HP/TQ, they don't need a different number just to be the same like Mopar and Ford. Although I agree that putting 427 on the Z06 would be sweet :D

Anyway, God bless America just for us having cars like this in this day and age!

As far as the metric system lol, that's a different discussion entirely...

Umm, this post IS about the metric system, not horsepower and torque. Yes it is nice to see cubic inches instead of liters. Gives them a more American feel and link to the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I guess you'll have to forgive Pontiac for putting 6.5 L on the GTO emblem going back to 1964, and those T/A's with 6.6 on the shaker scoops.

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And yet....

This emblem came on a 1966 Ford Galaxy.

a162567_large%2B1966_Ford_Galaxie_7_Litre%2BEmblem.jpg

Joe, My husband had one of those when they were new. Bright copper color and I believe it had a black vinyl top. His favorite car EVER.

I know that if he ever finds one in good shape he will be wanting to get it. He always looks for them and at them when he finds one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether its cubic inches or Litres, you can't help but love these powerful old machines....

Although, I admit, I prefer the cubic inch designations better....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you'll have to forgive Pontiac for putting 6.5 L on the GTO emblem going back to 1964, and those T/A's with 6.6 on the shaker scoops.

Don

Yeah, a few cars in the mid-sixties wandered from the reservation, such as the 7 Litre Galaxie and the GTO.

I do know the Beach Boys could not find a rhyme for She's real fine, my 6.7, so the song came out as we know it, She's real fine, my 409.

And finally, when I see a Mustang with the 5 point Oh on the fender, I'm conditioned these days to think of software levels, such as Windows Explorer 7.0...

I'm ready for the good old days. Cars with V-8's and rear wheel drive should have cool flag emblems with their engine CUBIC INCH displacement proudly displayed to honor the linkage to the heady days of Detroit Muscle and give a nod away from the mistaken direction to the metric system

post-67240-143138471758_thumb.jpg

Edited by Uncle_Buck (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya can't argue with cubic inches, even in Canada. Litres are fine for milk and bitty engines of under two of them. However, I still think in terms of c.i.d. as applied to big pumping pistons of about one quart each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Yeah, a few cars in the mid-sixties wandered from the reservation, such as the 7 Litre Galaxie and the GTO.

------------------------------------------------------------------

How so? If they were the first to use the designation in regards to the metric system here, sounds like they were leading and not wandering. Everyone uses it now. I work with both systems no problem, but metric is easier. I get the feeling that it's more a European/Asian beef you've got going.;)

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yeah...just doesn't have the same ring to it as "BOSS 428" or BOSS 429".

Let us not forget 440 SIX PACK.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to mention the 66-67 Ford 7 liter when I read this thread last night. I always use it to convert liters into cubic inches: 7 goes into 428 about 61 times. so a liter is about 61 cubic inches

Edited by Dave Mellor NJ (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's funny how manufacturers played the cu.in. game. For example, because Pontiac was not aware until after tooling was made that the 1964 GM "A" body cars were limited to engine size no more than 330 cubic inches. When the 63 Tempest engine was originally cored it was to have a bore of 3.78. With Pontiac's 3/4" stroke crank it gave a displacement of 336 cu. inches. They still badged the car with 326 emblems. The 64 Tempest bore was cut to 3.72 giving 326 inches. Pontiac circumvented the whole rule with the Tempest-LeMans GTO 389 engine by making the GTO a option on the LeMans.You see options by each division did not require corporate (14th floor ) approval. The corporation was furious at Pontiac, but could not turn a blind eye to the profit, so they told Olds, Buick and Chevrolet to make their own version of the GTO. The Pontiac 350 engine really isn't a 350. The engine has a bore of 3.88 and with that 3/4" stroke crank gives a number of 354.71 or 355 inches. The Pontiac 428 has a bore of 4.12 and a stroke of 4", that gives a displacement of 427. Finally the Pontiac 455 has a bore of 4.1525 and a stroke of 4.21 which isn't a 455 it's a 456.

Now wouldn't it be much easier to do calculations in metric? Now instead of saying 389, just say what the GTO badges have said -6.5 L;) When the 389 became the 400, we called it 6.6L, it's on the shaker hoods of T/A's and Can Am's and Grand Am's. To confuse people Pontiac put 455 on T/A shaker hoods, they should have put 7.5L to keep it consistent.

Don

Edited by helfen (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the sixties, the Beach Boys harmonized about the '409' and Ronnie and the Daytona's were excited about the '389', then Paul Revere and the Raiders sang about their '396'.

In the intervening 40 some years, nobody has ever sung a song about their 6.6L or 7.5L or for that fact, pick any number and insert here: n.nL - to this day, no song has surfaced that waxes nostolgic over their something or another Litre car...

Just sayin' :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was going to mention the 66-67 Ford 7 liter when I read this thread last night. I always use it to convert liters into cubic inches: 7 goes into 428 about 6.1 times. so a liter is about 6.1 inches

Dave... I'm not trying to replace your math teacher way back when, but I think you need to move the decimal point one place to the right (61 ci instead of 6.1).. Otherwise your 7 liter engine has a displacement of around 42.7 cubic inches, not the 428 it is said to be.

If it is indeed 42.7 inches, man oh man are they squeezing some power outta that thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's funny how manufacturers played the cu.in. game.

I was going to ask how the 389 Pontiac could be a 6.5 liter engine while the new 392 Hemi is a 6.4 liter... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cubic inches are best for V-8s, IMHO, but ccs are the best for European four cylinders. Admitting I have a .948 litre motor in my morris feels much more emasculating then using BIG numbers...It's a 948.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't imagine calling a "J" Duesenberg anything other than 420 cubic inches! It would be criminal to express it in litres, plus no one would know what the heck you were talking about. --Bob

Edited by Peter J.Heizmann (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the sixties, the Beach Boys harmonized about the '409' and Ronnie and the Daytona's were excited about the '389', then Paul Revere and the Raiders sang about their '396'.

In the intervening 40 some years, nobody has ever sung a song about their 6.6L or 7.5L or for that fact, pick any number and insert here: n.nL - to this day, no song has surfaced that waxes nostolgic over their something or another Litre car...

Just sayin' :rolleyes:

When I grew up a liter was something a hog had....:D .and BTW, they don't right songs about Volvo's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this