It doesn't work for any kind of accuracy.

A 5.0L 302 is 4942cc (4.94L) for example.

The best method is to find bore and stroke measurements and calculate from there.

 

You want accurate? Here you go: 1 liters = 61.0237441 cubic inches

 

FordLover55 seemed to be asking for an easy way to convert litres to cubic inches and thats what I gave him. Ford and other manufacturers do not have a problem with rounding cubic inches off to the nearest number that suits them ie; 428 cid, 4.13 bore X 3.98 stroke computes to 426.54 using the formula that I found in a high performance engine publication produced by Ford.
Ford also used similar thought when naming/identifying the 427 cid engines because when using the same formula the 4.234 bore by 3.78 stroke computes to 425.77 cid.
I'm sure Ford did not want to identify their new engine as the same as Chrysler's 426 wedge and the soon to be announced 426 Hemi so they just added 1.23 cubic inches and called it a 427 and as everyone knows bigger is better Ford was hoping to capitalize on the bigger engine.

 

And very few people called the 302 a "4.9L V8", which is what it was as Big Bad showed the actual displacement. 5.0 obviously sounds better than 4.9.

 

...or 16.39 cc per cu inch.


Much easier displacement conversion calculator than previous...

(cubic inches x 16.39) / 1000 = Liters

(liters x 1000) / 16.39 = Cu Inches

As has been stated previously, mfg tend to fudge their figures a bit for marketing purposes. The only way to get an exact displacement is to figure it from the bore/stroke dimensions.

Brad

 

I'm way late on this, but to respond to a couple of posts about my early post...if you have something that is really nice and you want to put it down even though you know it's the ***** you say you'd buy two, in blue and burn the both of them. It's sort of a put down that means it's t*ts. You know you can't do better than, so you'd buy two, in blue and burn 'em both. So, it's not really a put down as much as an admission to how cool it'd be. I know, doesn't make sense, just to me.

Also, I always just multiply by 61 and figure I'm close. Ford's 302 and GM/Chevy's 305 were both 5 liters...as far as I'm concerned.

 

Aaahh, thanks. That hindered me a while...

 

I believe that GM labled the basic daily driver 305s to avoid the confusion of having two engines that are approximately the same size and have a lot of chat about being ripped off because they didn't get a Z-28 engine in their grocery getter. Ford tried the Litre designation on the 428 powered Galaxies calling them 7 Litre engines. The poor old country boys that we Americans are either didn't get it or didn't want it so for the Mustang CJs they called them 428s and we liked it.

 

Yeah if a engine is old, or was an old design that made it into the liter displacement days(late 70's early 80's) I like to call it by cubic inches. For example many older 60's and beyond engines made it into the Liter displacement days, but nobody ever says 4.9, 5.0(Mustang excluded), 5.8, 7.5, 5.2, 5.9, 5.7, 6.6 or 7.4 Liters, They say 300 6, 302, 351, 460, 318, 360, 350, 400, or 454.

I never say I have a 4.9 I6 in my truck. However when it came to my 06 F-150 I called it a 5.4 Liter, because nobody ever calls it a 330 or 331(forgot the CI). I had a Buick LeSabre, and now my DD is a Grand Am, and I never said or say 3800cc, or 3400cc I always say 3.8 or 3.4.

BTW I actually used a engine calculator once, and it may have been Chevy biased because 305 was straight up 5.0(not 4.98), and 350 was straight up 5.7(not 5.69).

 

there is a great convetion progam for free just google josh madison convert

 

For a lot of Nascar the upper limits were 430 cubic inches, it wasn't until the late 60s and defintately the early 70s that restrictions were placed on cubic inches and car weight...

As for the numbers used to come up with 427:

427 block "cylinder grade D" upper tolerance limit is 4.2364" diameter. This is a standard 427 bore, the tolerance range of which goes from 4.2328" to 4.2364". From 1958 through about 1967 there were 12 cylinder bore grade steps (12345678ABCD) of .0003" each, and from about 1968 through 1978 there were nine cylinder bore grade steps (123456ABC) with .0004" increments. I believe the number of steps was decreased because newer pistons used better thermal expansion technology.

390/406/427 crank journal offset is factory blueprint specified to be 1.892" plus-or-minus .002", making the 427 crank stroke upper tolerance limit 3.788". This is a standard 390/406/427 stroke, the tolerance range of which goes from 3.780" to 3.788". Note that the tolerance range of a 391FT crank is 3.782" to 3.790".

(( 4.2364 / 2 ) ^ 2 ) * 3.14159265 * 3.788 * 8 = 427.153 CID

427.153 CID * 2.54 * 2.54 * 2.54 = 6999.788 cc = 6.999788 Liters.

By plugging in the lower tolerance limits for the 427 engine you get 425.527 CID.

Heck, the upper tolerance limit for the 428 is (( 4.1336 / 2 ) ^ 2 ) * 3.14159265 * 3.988 * 8 = 428.146 CID


And there you go,

Josh

 

Thanks you guys. As noted, I'm "old school" and hate the metric system. This is America. Not Europe.

LOL .. I'll never change ... but for sure, I do call my 4.6 a 4.6 rather than by cubes. Of course, when towing my fully loaded trailer and being tail gated by some nerd with a 454, it's easier to quantify my lack of acceleration, in comparison. A turbo might help, but then I'd always have my footpedal on the floor ... which would decrease longevity of both me and the truck.

 

i love the 460 but it is kinda cooler to say "i gotta v10" i would rather see ford keep the v10 and just have small v8s.

 

way i do it is figure every .1 litres is 6 cubic inches.thats rough estimate.hope it helps.