Convert liters to engine size?

snipped-for-privacy@recorddeal.com done axed:

Assuming you meant a way to convert cubic inches to cubic centimeters (liters):

1 cubic inch (ci) = 16.387 cubic centimeters (cc) = 0.016387 liter (l). 1 l = 1,000 cc = 61.0239 ci. 61 cubic inches per liter is a good rule of thumb for conversions.

- Max - ======= Number one in the 'hood, G!

Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!

Ah yes.. that's what I meant. Thanks.

-Mike

I'm too lazy to do math so I just

Look at me being educated here. :-) Thanks, Max.

Mike, you were fine. I've just always taken 61 as the measure. I don't know why I assumed this. I did know that 305 was a real 5.0, and I guess just assumed through that bit of failed logic that it was exactly 61. Why I'd even remotely think that an SAE to Metric conversion factor would end up being an integer is beyond me... I know that no such thing exists...

JS

Google will calculate and convert. Simply search for:

427 cubic inches

Or search for:

7 liters in cubic inches

"liters" are Metric measurement system.

1 liter = 1000cc's (cubic centimeters), a cube 10cm x 10cm x 10cm. Cube is a "box" with all sides the same, like a die (one of the pair of dice).

"cubic inches" are English measurement system. One cubic inch is obviously a "box" with 1 inch square sides.

Since 1 inch = 2.54 cm (close enough for this):

1 inch x 1 inch x 1 inch = 1 cubic inch [is the same as] 2.54 cm x 2.54 cm x 2.54 cm = 16.38 cc Therefore: 1 cubic inch = 16.38 cc.

Try an example:

289 cu in = 289 x 16.38cc = 4733 cc = (about) 4.7 liters.

It just ain't that hard.

61 cubic inches x 16.38 cc = 999.18 (OK - almost 1 liter, real close - but why not know where that number came from??).

But this message is to show all why "Math is Important" - a principal that the modern US education system seems to have forgotten, except in private and parochial schools, and a few rare good school systems.

I await the anger and criticism from the mentally lazy or deprived who will complain about this message. Keep flippin' your hamburgers.

Ciao Brian in Seattle

As a systems analyst, I make a good living basically doing math for folks who didn't pay attention in school. But it's not my ability to do math that's the money maker -- it's my ability to not be a dick about it while I'm showing folks the answer.

Keep poundin' away on Usenet.

- Max - ======= Number one in the 'hood, G!

Just Say No to 6:5 Blackjack!

Touche :-)

//Mike

1993 BMW 525i of all the old cars

Close enough? It's exact! 1 inch = 2.540000000000000000 . . . cm.

Because to me, it's rather irrelevant. I could sit down and figure that out on my own, using the power of the internet to guide me to some conversions. Or, I could use the power of the internet to find out that the number is really something other than the 61.000 I was using for my own personal rough calculations.

But, for me, it's close enough. I take the liter number, multiply by 61, and come up with a rough guesstimate cubic inches. Since the numbers listed on car engines stop after the first decimal (in the case of liters) or even at the decimal (in the case of cubic inches), the calculation won't be exact anyway. To really get to the heart of the matter, you need the bore and stroke numbers to compute exactly what size the engine is.

Using the standard 4" bore and 3" stroke of a 302, and rounding PI off to

3.14159265, we come up with 301.5928944 cubic inches. Using your formula (with an assumption all its own by your own admittal, though it was clarified by another poster and I refuse to look it up), the liter number of a 302 is 4.9400916. So, the troll, claiming that 302 is 4.942, was also wrong, and refused to check his math to the next level. He was only slightly off for all intents and purposes, but he was more correct than I was with 4.9508196.

I agree that math is important, and it's nice to be able to do things and know why it works. In the case that I was using 61, I guesstimated, and assumed, and did all of those other things that you shouldn't do in math but can usually get away with. It was exposed to the entire world that I don't take the time to check my math very well when responding to Usenet trolls. I'm ok with that.

Much like Max, the way you stated your message is just begging to be flamed. You'll probably have few takers - those who are mentally lazy probably won't take the time to respond coherently anyway. There are good teachers and bad teachers. The shove-it-down-your-throat style never worked on me. A teacher with an attitude like yours is the type of person who would get their hamburgers spit on.

But not by me. The only hamburgers I flip are the ones I make when I cook out. Which reminds me... time to get the pool cleaned up and the grill ready... summer's coming quickly. Lighten up a little. Or, change the world and be a math teacher if you're convinced there are no good ones. My girl's trying to do the same, for the very same reason.

JS

And I would like to add to JS's very intelligent response....

bite me.

-Mike

98 Mustang GT

Yes.. a "not so intelligent" response. So what. I'm lazy.

conversions.