To the best of my knowledge, Pontiac never used 6.5L emblems on any GTO. The first Pontiac I remember using metric engine size was the 6.6L Firebirds and it was in the late 70's or early 80's. Ford never used metric engine size designations in the late 60's or early 70's on any Cougar or Mustang. The only metric V-8 I ever recall in that era were the old 7 Litre Galaxies in 1966 and later which was actually a 428 c.i. engine. But more to the point, it really doesn't matter if it's metric or SAE. Distance is distance, area is area, and volume is volume. You just have to be familiar with both systems and know the conversion factors. And just to be ornery, what would you refer to a 5.0L engine bored .030" oversize, a 5.05L? Or would it be more precise and easier to refer to that engine as a 306 c.i. engine?

 

I cannot believe some of the posts in this thread, especially the "I'm proud to be and American so I will not change over to metric (all "quotes" paraphrased), "It was the english system that put us on the moon, "the metric system killed more astronauts than the English system," etc. Yeesh! Build a bridge and get over it!

 

Sorry, I saw them in the day, and the links have repro'd emblems for people restoring the cars. I have specific recollections on this--a high school buddy's GTO and a 390 Cougar I test drove in Everett Washington in August of 1971.

As for the rocket scientist view of the metric system vs. the "American" system, well, the inch/pound thing is English. We fought two wars with them to free ourselves from them. The metric system is French. They were on our side in the American Revolution.

 

Folks, here's the original post. Lets stay on track please.

 

I had no idea what I was creating in making this thread. I certianly had no inent of starting any kind of Imperial vs Metric war.

 

You didn't do anything wrong, in fact no one did. I just want to keep it friendly and on track.

Thank you all for doing that.

 

I like the fact that Standard is more precise. Take temperature for example. The Freezing to boiling in metric goes from 0-100. In Imperial it goes from 32-212 ( or a 180 degree scale).

If the the temperature changes 0-5 degrees in Celsius, it changes from 32 to 41 in Fahrenheit. In the summer the difference between a 100 day and a 109 day is huge with Fahrenheit, but in Celsius we would say 38-43. Again I just like the more precise measurements better.

PS I know you could convert 109 to 42.77778 but....

 

You do know about decimals, centesimals, millesimals, right? like those 10 or 100 or 1000 and so on division between 0 - 1, 1 - 2, etc... It isn't more exact, it just has a smaller scale and the decimals in the metric system take care of that.

 

The new 5.0 is a 305 not a 302 by the way.

 

All in all....Saying your car has a motor in Litres as opposed to cubes sounds ricerish..Just a good way of some young ones trying to make their Honda's sound bad...lol I would rather brag about my car being a 464 Cubic motor than say a 1.8L (or 86 CID) anyday...lol

 

You sure? 4.958L = 302.555 cu in.

 

Manufacturers have changed from US to Metric calibrations. It's not to confuse, it's to get an education over. Metric measurements are better. ????? Cubic Inches bring back the memory of the old smell of unburnt gas on 11th street in july. LOL

 

And is that bad?

 

The T/A 6.6 was the Olds 403.

 

How can one measurement be better? They are both valid units of measurement.