[15RT]

I can remember when i was 16 and my father got a '78 Trans Am "6.6". No it was a 400.

All fallout from the friggin 70s gas crunch, marketing smaller numbers and at the same time competing with the influx of imports.

A "392" has so much more appeal than 6.4. Admittedly, 345 sounds like an oddball compared to the more familiar 5.7, but on another note I think Dodge blew it by not resurrecting the legend of the 340. Even the 6.1 could have been changed slightly in displacement and marketed as a 383.

And a Mustang 5.0 sounds better to me as a 302.

Is it me or do you guys also not like the metric displacements?

 

[PaVaSteeler]

I can remember when i was 16 and my father got a '78 Trans Am "6.6". No it was a 400.

All fallout from the friggin 70s gas crunch, marketing smaller numbers and at the same time competing with the influx of imports.

A "392" has so much more appeal than 6.4. Admittedly, 345 sounds like an oddball compared to the more familiar 5.7, but on another note I think Dodge blew it by not resurrecting the legend of the 340. Even the 6.1 could have been changed slightly in displacement and marketed as a 383.

And a Mustang 5.0 sounds better to me as a 302.

Is it me or do you guys also not like the metric displacements?

Not you; I agree completely.

I'm re-badging mine (when it finally arrives...someday soon I hope). Taking off the 6.4L Bee's and replacing with a custom vinyl calling out the 392. I'll have to wait until I get my hands on my car (when it finally arrives...someday soon I hope) to see if I'll like having the 392 HEMI badges on the scoops.

But yea, describing engine size in liters seems very contradictory to a car based so heavily on the "retro" look. Cubic Inches is the only way to describe these American Muscle Cars.

 

[Hal H]

The metric designations appeared back in the 60s as well...

the GTOs had 6.4 liter badges on them for the 389

Ford had the Galaxie model designated as the 7 litre when it received the 427 engine in that line.

By the start of the 80s, pretty much was the change-over to the metric designations.

 

[1970FJ6T/A]

Pontiac was using the metric system in 1969, a high school friend had a 1969 GTO JUDGE that had 6.5 litre (400cu) on the door panel emblems

 

[15RT]

Interesting. I don't ever remember seeing metric callouts before the 77 Pontiac Can Am and Trans Am, but my distaste for them is just the same.

 

[Slidd]

True on Pontiac. My buddy in high school had a 68 Goat and on the bottom of the fenders emblem said 6.5 litre. Was kind of a big deal because the 400 emblems were no longer on the hood even though they were on firebird thru 69. I don't mind it too much now but didn't care for it one bit when after 76 the trans am went to litres...was just something about seeing that 400 or 455 on the shaker that no 6.6 liter could ever replace.

 

[shaker2014]

da numbers

I can remember when i was 16 and my father got a '78 Trans Am "6.6". No it was a 400.

All fallout from the friggin 70s gas crunch, marketing smaller numbers and at the same time competing with the influx of imports.

A "392" has so much more appeal than 6.4. Admittedly, 345 sounds like an oddball compared to the more familiar 5.7, but on another note I think Dodge blew it by not resurrecting the legend of the 340. Even the 6.1 could have been changed slightly in displacement and marketed as a 383.

And a Mustang 5.0 sounds better to me as a 302.

Is it me or do you guys also not like the metric displacements?

To are so right on the money! 340! 383! that would make a great marketing + memory hit!

 

[Drag City]

The part that got me was having to buy a whole new set of tools to work on the damn things over the years when they went metric. There was a time when part of the car was metric and the other was standard... what a pleasure that was.......



HOT ROD ON

 

[GaryT]

Pontiac used the 6.5 designation for the 389 as far back as 1964. So, how does this work?

6.5=389
6.6=400
6.4=392??

 

[c26bt34c]

They used 6.5 for 400 ci



Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App

 

[Old Busted Hotness]

It's never been an exact science. You'd think just do the math and get the number, but then that number has to be wrung thru the marketing department. Chevy's "396" was really a 402. 396 sounded more butch, I guess. The Ford 5.0 comes out closer to 4.9 but marketing gave it a 0.1L boost.

The 3.6L maths out at 225 c.i, same as the old ****** six, except it's really 220.

They used 6.5 for 400 ci

Except when they used 6.6. Guess the math was too hard and they just ballparked it? 6.6 covered both the Pontiac 400 and the Olds 403.

I'd love to see them go back to the old 225, 340, 392 nomenclature. Liters are for Frenchmen.

 

[Stantz]

I sorta imagine this thread looks like this in real life

I'm pretty sure the next topics will be taxes, and that loud music those kids are playing

 

[Old Busted Hotness]

Get off my lawn!:11:

 

[Stantz]

Get off my lawn!:11:

I'll try to stay 4 meters away from your lawn at all times

 

[30below]

I remember I never could get used to that 7 litre Ford thing.Just leaving for a show with our 340 Cuda.By the way,im the one in the middleimp:

 

[R/T Bee]

IDK... I went ahead and put on those cool Hemi 345 Half Covers from Luke! I grew up with "ci" numbers so I am sticking with it!

My cars have these......
* 1954 Plymouth with a huge 117 ci Flat head 6 .. with a whopping 100 HP!
* Chevrolet Apache has a 261 ci straight 6
* 1977 Plymouth sports a 318 ci V-8

 

[beamg5]

Years ago, I asked the same question, having not seen the value of the metric system as a very young man. However, and prior to any involvement in management, I studied electronic engineering. Allow me to assure you that the metric system is "our friend." Exponential increments of "10 to the various powers of +3/-3, +6/-6 +9/-9, in addition to the numerous Greek prefixes, are a "Godsend" when applying mathematics to [digital] electronics, and yes..........engineering "on the whole."

I'll "take" 6.4L over 392 everytime if the trade-off also allows us to describe our HDDs, for instance, as having a capacity of 1.5 terabytes, as opposed to having to say "1 and a half trillion bytes" -or- expressing (while comprehending) the number: 1,500,000,000,000 !! Consider as well, referencing a miniscule period of time, for instance, by saying (and comprehending) .000000022, or 22-billionth's of a second vs. the metric simply saying "22 nanoseconds."

Then again..........perhaps some would prefer to refer to that internal combustion "thing," under the hood as a 391.49 in addition to referring to the HDD in their 430/730 media center as having a capacity of 40,000,000,000 bytes !!

To each their own :scratchhead: !!

Regards,

Gary aka "beamg5"

 

[IDMTfirefighter]

I sorta imagine this thread looks like this in real life

I'm pretty sure the next topics will be taxes, and that loud music those kids are playing

yep every topic has been beat to death and we are finally left with this (metric vs ???) to complain about....err...discuss I mean

 

[Old Busted Hotness]

Years ago, I asked the same question, having not seen the value of the metric system as a very young man. However, and prior to any involvement in management, I studied electronic engineering. Allow me to assure you that the metric system is "our friend." Exponential increments of "10 to the various powers of +3/-3, +6/-6 +9/-9, in addition to the numerous Greek prefixes, are a "Godsend" when applying mathematics to [digital] electronics, and yes..........engineering "on the whole."

I'll "take" 6.4L over 392 everytime if the trade-off also allows us to describe our HDDs, for instance, as having a capacity of 1.5 terabytes, as opposed to having to say "1 and a half trillion bytes" -or- expressing (while comprehending) the number: 1,500,000,000,000 !! Consider as well, referencing a miniscule period of time, for instance, by saying (and comprehending) .000000022, or 22-billionth's of a second vs. the metric simply saying "22 nanoseconds."

Then again..........perhaps some would prefer to refer to that internal combustion "thing," under the hood as a 391.49 in addition to referring to the HDD in their 430/730 media center as having a capacity of 40,000,000,000 bytes !!

To each their own :scratchhead: !!

Regards,

Gary aka "beamg5"

You need to change your avatar, then :browsmiley:

 

[beamg5]

yep every topic has been beat to death and we are finally left with this (metric vs ???) to complain about....err...discuss I mean

While realizing that far more interesting topics than this have been covered over the past few years, I can't help but see it as at least as thought provoking as any of the following sample of other relatively current topics, such as .............

When is the Hellcat going to become available? (x 100)
How much will the Hellcat cost ? (x 100)
How much power will the Hellcat make? (x 100)
I'm gonna' run right down and buy a Hellcat
I'm going to leave my family and sell the house (or body parts) to get a new Hellcat
How are you going to pay for your Hellcat?
What would you change on the new Hellcat?
How will they ever sell another Viper now that the Hellcat makes 707HP ?

Or two of my favorites: My Dealer will be adding $10K above MSRP on all Hellcat sales - while another simultaneously reports.........I have a deal locked up on a Hellcat for MSRP !!

Ya' see? Based on the repetitive threads mentioned above, I find this thread just a bit, refreshing; kind of like a pleasant conversation regarding the weather.

Regards,

Gary aka "beamg5"