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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.