Metric issue

I've been thinking of getting rid off my non-metric wrenches and sockets I accummulated over decades but I am not sure if all the new cars are now metric. I don't want to be sorry if my next car is not.
Anybody knows?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add to your current set but buy tools that go to the 1/32 level. With a good set the tools are virtually interchangeable. I've had a few manufactures that deliberlty screwed with the fitting sizes (they wanted to sell their tools) but the 1/32 trick worked even on their stuff.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 07/09/2012 09:50 AM, NotMe wrote:

if manufacturers abandoned fractional decades ago and went metric, and if, because they're commonly used, metric tools are cheaper than 32'nd fractional, why on earth would anyone not use them? is it a nostalgia thing? or is decimal math just too hard?
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I wouldn't dump them, there is still a lot of fractional stuff out there; not all necessarily automotive related.
If they are in the way, give them a light coat of oil, and store them out of the way somewhere... they'll likely come in handy some day.
Erik
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have a very different problem. My Triumph is old school so I have to find BSF, AF/Whitworth, and metric...Probably should replace all with metric and simplify the situation...But.....I like watching people borrow my wrenches and return screaming with frustration....Its fun! DaveD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
cameo wrote:

Reading this thread made me curious about something else. My only connection with American cars was a vauxhall (part of GM) back in the sixties and the engine capacity was quoted in cubic inches whereas every other manufacturer on this side of the pond (including Ford) used litres although usually quoted as cc. Do you still have them in cubic inches over there?
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim beam wrote:

Thanks for that. As you probably know we have gone metric for a lot of things over here, makes it easier dealing with "the neighbours". For years though we had the silly situation where you would ask for 6 foot of 3x2 inch timber and they were selling it as 1.8 metres of 3x2 inch. Farcical it was. I was told by a guy who worked there at the time, that Fords had a stack of car bodies that were built in Dagenham (their English factory) and made the doors for them in Germany. When they tried to marry them up they found that the bodies had hinge mountings that had meen welded on using Imperial measure (feet and inches) and the door hinges had been welded in position using metric measure. That apparently resulted in much angst and overtime.
--
Tinkerer

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not for newer cars, no. Modern engine-displacements are always quoted in liters. Automaker specs mostly still give cubic-inch equivalents, but these are not used in everyday dealings with anybody.
If an engine was originally sold with a cubic-inch designation, it usually continues to be known as such. Engines built in-and-around the year 1980 may be referred to by either, since that period was the changeover.
For examples, 1) the famous Ford 302 cu. in. V8 was billed as a "5.0 liter" (it's actually closer to 4.9) around 1980, but at the time was often still referred to as a 302; 2) Pontiac's 301 cu. in. V8 was sold as a "4.9" when combined with a turbo and installed in the Firebird, but was otherwise the same 301 that had been sold previously.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I just thought of a couple of exceptions to my own statement: GM's 4300 and 3100 V6's. Those are cubic-centimeter displacements, and these engines are known by those figures.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tegger wrote:

Thanks for that Tegger. Over here I think Vauxhall (GM) were the only ones that used Cubic Inch although even they tended to use cc in their advertising, hence my 1960 Vauxhall Victor was advertised as 1508cc but the documentation stayed with inches. I haven't had a Vauxhall since but I'd be very surprised if they still used inches. I know that even pre-war Fords over here were classified in cc, the Ford Pilot V8 having a 3622cc side valve lump.
--
Tinkerer

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Up till roughly 1980, it was common to see non-US cars with model designations that echoed their engine displacements in cc. My first car was a 1975 Toyota Corolla 1600.

We'd have called that the 221 cu-in flathead. Mercurys got a 239-in version of that engine, and after the war all Fords got the 239 until 1954, when the Y-block replaced it.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.