Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ack. So I am really off. The 440 is much bigger than 6.2. It must be over 7 liters. Even the 383 is probably over 6 liters. So what is a 6.2? 427? What is a 454? - A lot of Liters.
Is 454 the biggest mass produced V-8?
The 427/428 is 7 liters (like in that Galaxie I posted earlier). A 400-403 cid engine is 6.6 liters. The 350 is considered 5.7 while the Ford 351s are considered 5.8 liters.
The Chrysler 440 was 7.2 liters. the 383 is 6.2 liters.
The 454 (7.4 liter) was not the biggest V8. Ford had a 460, BOP had the 455, but Chevy themselves had a 502 cid (8.2 liters) in some of the trucks (IIRC it was available in the Avalanche for one). Chevy sold the 502 and 572 cid (9.4 liter) V8s through their performance parts catalog.
Ack. So I am really off. The 440 is much bigger than 6.2. It must be over 7 liters. Even the 383 is probably over 6 liters. So what is a 6.2? 427? What is a 454? - A lot of Liters.
Is 454 the biggest mass produced V-8?
383-cu-in is 6.3 liters (rounded off).
426-cu-in is 7 liters.
440-cu-in is 7.2 liters
454-cu-in is 7.4 liters
I have and still use cubic inches. For a few reasons. One, I am used to it. For another, "426-Hemi" sounds a lot better to me than "7-liter-Hemi." "440-6 pack" also sounds better to me than "7.2-liter-6 pack."
Then just the way some displacements sound when you say the numbers: 289, 327, 340, 383, 390, 396, 409 (there is even a song about it, which sounds a lot better than "She's real fine, my 6.7 liter" would!), 413, 427, 429, 460, 472 and 500.
-Fleet
1966 Plymouth Fury VIP (383-4 bbl)
1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (472-cu-in)
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Limousine (500-cu-in)
1995 Lincoln Town Car (281-cu-in)
I'll agree with this. Having worked in the parts business in the 1980s and 1990s I know from experience what a pain it could be trying to figure out if a customer had a 229 Chevy or a 231 Buick in his mid-'80s GM vehicle since both were marketed as a 3.8.
But that doesn't matter now.
If you have 3.5L Honda you have a 3.5L Honda. There isn't a 3.45L Honda.
Actually the best way to compare engine outputs between brands would be to discard the use of displacement numbers to describe engines altogether and use horsepower and torque numbers instead.
What would all the ricer boys do if they couldn't squawk about hp per liter?
Actually the best way to compare engine outputs between brands would be to discard the use of displacement numbers to describe engines altogether and use horsepower and torque numbers instead.
No it wouldn't, because you'd have no base for comparison.
Example, my Jeep GC has a 4.7 liter HO engine, rated at 265hp and 330lbft.
My Cayenne S has a 4.5 liter engine rated at 340hp and 370lbft of torque.
Clearly, the Cayenne is a more powerful, yet smaller engine. But if you didn't use the liter size as your basis of comparison, the hp and torque figures don't tell you anything.
383-cu-in is 6.3 liters (rounded off).
426-cu-in is 7 liters.
440-cu-in is 7.2 liters
454-cu-in is 7.4 liters
I have and still use cubic inches. For a few reasons. One, I am used to it. For another, "426-Hemi" sounds a lot better to me than "7-liter-Hemi." "440-6 pack" also sounds better to me than "7.2-liter-6 pack."
Then just the way some displacements sound when you say the numbers: 289, 327, 340, 383, 390, 396, 409 (there is even a song about it, which sounds a lot better than "She's real fine, my 6.7 liter" would!), 413, 427, 429, 460, 472 and 500.
-Fleet
1966 Plymouth Fury VIP (383-4 bbl)
1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (472-cu-in)
1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Limousine (500-cu-in)
1995 Lincoln Town Car (281-cu-in)
I've always had a similar mindset when talking engines especially when we're talking common displacements. The current Chevy truck lineup has a 327, Ford Mustang has a 302, Dodge Challenger has a 392, etc. Generally when I think of V8 engines, I think in terms of cubic inches rather than liters.
I guess I refer to my Vette engine as an LS3 though and if you're talking about a Buick V6, I reference it as a 3800. There are outliers and when talking about a small engine, it's usually in the liter designation.
I use either/or when referring to cars, usually inches for older ones. I use liters about 90% of the time though, and even if I don't have the exact calculation on top of my head, I can guesstimate a conversion - just remember that one liter is just a hair over 60 cubic inches, and you'll do just fine.
No it wouldn't, because you'd have no base for comparison.
Example, my Jeep GC has a 4.7 liter HO engine, rated at 265hp and 330lbft.
My Cayenne S has a 4.5 liter engine rated at 340hp and 370lbft of torque.
Clearly, the Cayenne is a more powerful, yet smaller engine. But if you didn't use the liter size as your basis of comparison, the hp and torque figures don't tell you anything.
Power is power. If output is your concern, the basis is irrelevant. The HP:displacement ratio is really nothing more than a badge of honor for the designer of modifier of any engine. As a consumer all I care about is that the vehicle produces the power I need at the rear wheels.
Last edited by duster1979; 12-10-2012 at 03:51 PM..
Reason: spelling
I bought a 1976 Grand Prix with a 455 CID. By 1979 the one I bought was listed as 5.1 L (305 CID). I find myself mentally converting from liters to cubic inches.
Pretty nice day in the Valley today so decided to drive the 'Vette to the office. On my way, I stopped at my regular gas station to fill up my tank and get a coffee and doughnut. This college-aged kid pulls up to me in a 2000-ish Chevy Camaro in great condition and I complimented him on it. I also asked if it had a 350 in it and the kid looked at me puzzled. I pointed to the engine and asked if it was a 350 cubic inch...still looks at me completely flabbergasted. Finally he shyly says "It has a 5.7L V8" .
I'm 32 year old here...not exactly an ancient dinosaur. Do the younger generation not know what cubic inches are anymore when referring to motors? Is it a generational thing? When I was in my teens, we all referred to engines by cubic inches, not liters.
Do today's teenagers and young adults not know what a 302 is? Or a 454? 350?
Do you refer to engine size by cubic inches or by liters?
i refer to engine size as the manufacturer does. for instance ford doesnt call their old four cylinder engines the 140ci engine, but rather the 2.3 liter engine. about the only engine size designation i use interchangeably is for the old 302/5.0.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
