: dosen't 5.7 liters= 350 ci? How is the Ls1 346ci?


RemoteControlD
01-03-2005, 08:08 PM
I used to think that 5.7= 350 cubics,How was the LT1 a 350 but the Ls1 a 346 ci? :bomb:

Just something that I've been wondering since the Ls1 came out in 97.

GOAT
01-03-2005, 08:09 PM
the old 350s are actually 346ci too, they just rounded up.

notgetleft
01-03-2005, 09:01 PM
No, the old 350s are 350s. 3.48 stroke and a 4" bore. LS1s are 346s with a 3.62 stroke and a 3.9 bore.

1L is about 61 cubic inches. So 346ci = 5.67L, 350ci = 5.73ci. Both round to 5.7

GOAT
01-03-2005, 09:02 PM
oh, ok, i knew there was rounding somewhere. I couldve sworn the old 350s were either 346s or 348s, guess not.

DiSTuRBeDGTO
01-04-2005, 02:32 AM
The LS1 in the GTO is a 348.

WillieD
01-04-2005, 04:56 AM
The LS1 in the GTO is a 348.

All factory LS1 and LS6 motors are 346 cubic inches. They do not vary in size for the different car lines.

notgetleft
01-04-2005, 03:53 PM
engine displacement = pi*(R^2)*stroke*8

3.14159*(1.95^2)*3.62*8 = 345.95 cubic inches for an LS1

math is your friend

tg04gto
01-04-2005, 04:09 PM
2+2 = 5 for really big numbers of 2....

Fuzzy math even better friend.

3.14159*(1.95^2)*3.62*8 = 345.95 cubic inches for an LS1


Why would you carry pi 5 decimal places and all the other measurements 2? :)

mikehartigan
01-04-2005, 04:28 PM
So, if the US had not Japanized their method of specifying displacement, would they have called the LS1 a 350 or a 346? The engine I had in my recently disposed 1994 G20 was called a 350. What was it, really?

Razinhell
01-04-2005, 05:32 PM
So, if the US had not Japanized their method of specifying displacement, would they have called the LS1 a 350 or a 346? The engine I had in my recently disposed 1994 G20 was called a 350. What was it, really?

I don't know about the name of the engine, but all of Infiniti's cars have the engine size in liters as part of the name. Thus a G20 is a 2.0 Liter inline 4 well at least in 1994. Just like the G35 is a 3.5L V6.

BlueSix
01-04-2005, 05:54 PM
2+2 = 5 for really big numbers of 2....

Fuzzy math even better friend.

3.14159*(1.95^2)*3.62*8 = 345.95 cubic inches for an LS1


Why would you carry pi 5 decimal places and all the other measurements 2? :)

'Cause he never had a chemistry professor ride his ass for 16 weeks about significant figures.

mikehartigan
01-04-2005, 06:54 PM
I don't know about the name of the engine, but all of Infiniti's cars have the engine size in liters as part of the name. Thus a G20 is a 2.0 Liter inline 4 well at least in 1994. Just like the G35 is a 3.5L V6.
My G20 was a Chevy Van. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

xom
01-04-2005, 07:05 PM
So, if the US had not Japanized their method of specifying displacement, would they have called the LS1 a 350 or a 346? The engine I had in my recently disposed 1994 G20 was called a 350. What was it, really?

Uh dude, it's not "Japanized", whatever that means, it's the metric system. A system that makes WAY more sense than our archaic imperial based one. How many hogsheads/kilderkins/drams is the LS1 anyway?

gearhead
01-04-2005, 07:17 PM
2+2 = 5 for really big numbers of 2....

Fuzzy math even better friend.

3.14159*(1.95^2)*3.62*8 = 345.95 cubic inches for an LS1


Why would you carry pi 5 decimal places and all the other measurements 2? :)

Because the other dimensions are nominal measurements that are toleranced, but should average out to those measurements over a production cycle. Pi, on the other hand, is an exact number that technically never truncates. The more decimal places you carry pi out to in your calculations, the greater the accuracy of the result. The result is then typically rounded off to significant digits.

I started taking higher math back in the time of the dinosaurs, B.C. (before calculators). I learned a memory trick for carrying pi out to as many decimal places as you wanted to use with a pencil and paper. The memory trick is the phrase, "how i need a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics". The number of letters in each word give you a value of pi accurate out to 15 decimal places, far more than one would ever use in the absence of a calculator unless one was crunching a problem in astrophysics or something else where even the slightest roundoff error could balloon into a significant amount.

TheRealDeadApe
01-04-2005, 07:19 PM
My G20 was a Chevy Van. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

your g20 van has a 350. 4inch bore 3.48inch stroke.

mikehartigan
01-04-2005, 07:19 PM
Uh dude, it's not "Japanized", whatever that means, it's the metric system. A system that makes WAY more sense than our archaic imperial based one. How many hogsheads/kilderkins/drams is the LS1 anyway?We red-blooded Americans were just fine with CID displacements until the Japanese cars and their d*mn 'liters' became chic. The Beach Boys would have sounded pretty silly singing:

"She's real fine, my 6.7..." ("409" - used without permission)

It's all about tradition... Dude!

quadman
01-04-2005, 07:23 PM
bore x bore x stroke x 6.2832=cubic inch displacement?

BlueSix
01-04-2005, 07:27 PM
bore x bore x stroke x nuber of cylinders x .785 = displacement

Steel Chicken
01-05-2005, 08:38 AM
We red-blooded Americans were just fine with CID displacements until the Japanese cars and their d*mn 'liters' became chic. The Beach Boys would have sounded pretty silly singing:

"She's real fine, my 6.7..." ("409" - used without permission)

It's all about tradition... Dude!

traditions are dumb when they impede progress.
multion hundred million dollar probe crashing into mars because someone forgot to convert traditonal unit system to the one everyone else on the planet uses?

Doc GTO
01-05-2005, 09:00 AM
What??? I thought we wouldn't use this crap after college???

GOTPOWR
01-05-2005, 09:31 AM
So, if the US had not Japanized their method of specifying displacement, would they have called the LS1 a 350 or a 346? The engine I had in my recently disposed 1994 G20 was called a 350. What was it, really?

They most likely would have called the LS1 a 350. I remember seeing on some stuff from GM (can't remember if it was online or a brochure) where they listed the Trans Am as coming with a "350" and I'm pretty sure my window sticker for my Trans Am said 350. The LS1 is technically a 346, but they kept referring to it as a 350 anyway (most likely marketing reasons).

Chris

gearhead
01-05-2005, 09:37 AM
The '68-'75(ish) Pontiac 350 (the one that used genuine Pontiac block and cylinder heads) was actually a 354 if you do the math, but they marketed it as a 350 so I would say you're correct.

mikehartigan
01-05-2005, 10:05 AM
traditions are dumb when they impede progress.
multion hundred million dollar probe crashing into mars because someone forgot to convert traditonal unit system to the one everyone else on the planet uses?
I notice that not too many of the 'metric' countries are sending probes to Mars. The US didn't get to be the world's only superpower by expending all its intellectual resources on converting to a new system of weights and measures - we have more important things to worry about. And 'everybody else does it' is a pretty lame reason to do anything, IMO.

Silver LS1 GTO
01-05-2005, 10:20 AM
The '68-'75(ish) Pontiac 350 (the one that used genuine Pontiac block and cylinder heads) was actually a 354 if you do the math, but they marketed it as a 350 so I would say you're correct.

Plus the original 64 GTO had a badge that said 6.5 Litre, but a 389 was really a 6.38 or 6.4 rounding up. Then the GTO's that had a 400 cu inch had the same 6.5 Litre designation, when it was really 6.56 or so, which is closer to 6.6, but closer to 6.5 than the orignal 389. :confused: Pontiac really likes to use fuzzy math.

More marketing departments at their finest I guess.

CMNTMXR57
01-05-2005, 10:56 AM
And the old mustang 5.0's were really 4.9's. But that doesn't sound good, so marketing made it 5.0.

There is always a window of cubic inch displacement that makes up a 5.7L engine. I think it goes from 345 - 350. so a 346 cube LS1 is still a 5.7 as mathematically proven here.

As to probes on Mars, I'd also like to add that I'm sure those at NASA have made the proper calculations to convert standard to metric and back. However, me out in the garage doesn't like to! Since my lunar probe isn't at stake, I'll sacrafice some precision.

xom
01-05-2005, 06:48 PM
I notice that not too many of the 'metric' countries are sending probes to Mars. The US didn't get to be the world's only superpower by expending all its intellectual resources on converting to a new system of weights and measures - we have more important things to worry about. And 'everybody else does it' is a pretty lame reason to do anything, IMO.
Ah, just so you know. A fair amount of the US's intellectual resources aren't from the US. There is being a proud american and then there is being an arrogant american. There is more on the planet then America.

CMNTMXR57
01-05-2005, 06:52 PM
There is?

xom
01-05-2005, 06:54 PM
There is?
hehe....I know strange isn't it?
A whole world out there where most of the stuff we buy gets made. :gr_jest:

mikehartigan
01-05-2005, 07:41 PM
Ah, just so you know. A fair amount of the US's intellectual resources aren't from the US. There is being a proud american and then there is being an arrogant american. There is more on the planet then America.
There's a difference between doing things and getting things done. We're crafty enough to do both. Please excuse my arrogance. :)

TwoFingerSneak
01-05-2005, 07:49 PM
hehe....I know strange isn't it?
A whole world out there where most of the stuff we buy gets made. :gr_jest:
...like our cars...

dci67
01-06-2005, 08:39 AM
Ah, just so you know. A fair amount of the US's intellectual resources aren't from the US. There is being a proud american and then there is being an arrogant american. There is more on the planet then America.


ahh, but they chose to come to this counrty to do research because we provide the opportunity for that. That make the sum of the work produced by researcher's from multiple countries wholely American especially when combined the work provided by the american contingent.

If you think there is a place on the planet that has more to offer then move there. Otherwise be proud of this country and what we accomplish in, and share with the rest of the world.

RedThunder
01-06-2005, 11:00 AM
'Cause he never had a chemistry professor ride his ass for 16 weeks about significant figures.

:gr_jest: That brings back some memories! :)

dommer
01-06-2005, 11:09 AM
I notice that not too many of the 'metric' countries are sending probes to Mars. The US didn't get to be the world's only superpower by expending all its intellectual resources on converting to a new system of weights and measures - we have more important things to worry about. And 'everybody else does it' is a pretty lame reason to do anything, IMO.

Wow, you found incontrovertible proof that the English system leads to space exploration. Apparently it also leads to the highest per capita murder rate in the world, and a love of baseball, football and apple pie.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Also, if I remember correctly, it was the Euro's who started with the numbers... BMW 318 (1.8 Litres) or Mercedes S320 (3.2 litres). Back then the Japanese were still calling their cars Cressida and CVCVCVCVCVCC or whatever the Civic used to be.

steelerguy
01-06-2005, 12:31 PM
Apparently it also leads to the highest per capita murder rate in the world

Where do you get your news from?

mikehartigan
01-06-2005, 12:57 PM
Wow, you found incontrovertible proof that the English system leads to space exploration.
No, only that tradition does not appear to impede progress, as stated in the post I was replying to.
Apparently it also leads to the highest per capita murder rate in the world, and a love of baseball, football and apple pie.

Correlation does not imply causation.
I don't believe that my post suggested that it did. Murder is not a tradition, IMO. Although the traditions of Baseball, Football, and Apple Pie seem to mesh nicely with the English system of weights and measures.

Also, if I remember correctly, it was the Euro's who started with the numbers... BMW 318 (1.8 Litres) or Mercedes S320 (3.2 litres). Back then the Japanese were still calling their cars Cressida and CVCVCVCVCVCC or whatever the Civic used to be.
But Americans didn't fall in love with the metric designations until the gas-sipping Japanese cars took on an almost orgasmic following during the 'energy crises' of the 70's. It was another in a string of rejections of anything that perpetuated the traditions of the American 'Big 4' automakers. Those who insisted on expressing displacement in CID were perceived to be on the same plane with (...gasp!) Republicans!

capra2d
01-06-2005, 01:44 PM
traditions are dumb when they impede progress.
multion hundred million dollar probe crashing into mars because someone forgot to convert traditonal unit system to the one everyone else on the planet uses?
As TV personality, Norm Abrams (on PBS' "This Old House," and "New Yankee Workshop") would say, "Measure twice; cut once."

Or, as I told my then-19 year old son, "Next time you top-off the brake master cylindar, be sure you're pouring brake fluid, not power steering fluid." $500+ later, everything was back to normal.

Dod-doo develops.

:banghead: :slap: :cry:

derf
01-07-2005, 11:20 AM
There is always a window of cubic inch displacement that makes up a 5.7L engine. I think it goes from 345 - 350. so a 346 cube LS1 is still a 5.7 as mathematically proven here.


344 ci = 5637 cc = 5.637 l = 5.6 l
345 ci = 5654 cc = 5.654 l = 5.7 l
346 ci = 5670 cc = 5.670 l = 5.7 l
347 ci = 5686 cc = 5.686 l = 5.7 l
348 ci = 5703 cc = 5.703 l = 5.7 l
349 ci = 5719 cc = 5.719 l = 5.7 l
350 ci = 5736 cc = 5.736 l = 5.7 l
351 ci = 5752 cc = 5.752 l = 5.8 l

When the LS1 was released in 1997 for the Corvette, GM marketing was afraid some people would have a hard time accepting the new LS1 engine. So they called it 350 ci to have a tie in with the LT1 and previous versions of the 350 ci small block chevy.

It's interesting that the old small block Chevy used a 3.48" stroke while Ford went with a 3.50" stroke on theirs and ended up with a 351 (both have 4" bores).

gearhead
01-07-2005, 11:51 AM
344 ci = 5637 cc = 5.637 l = 5.6 l
345 ci = 5654 cc = 5.654 l = 5.7 l
346 ci = 5670 cc = 5.670 l = 5.7 l
347 ci = 5686 cc = 5.686 l = 5.7 l
348 ci = 5703 cc = 5.703 l = 5.7 l
349 ci = 5719 cc = 5.719 l = 5.7 l
350 ci = 5736 cc = 5.736 l = 5.7 l
351 ci = 5752 cc = 5.752 l = 5.8 l

When the LS1 was released in 1997 for the Corvette, GM marketing was afraid some people would have a hard time accepting the new LS1 engine. So they called it 350 ci to have a tie in with the LT1 and previous versions of the 350 ci small block chevy.

It's interesting that the old small block Chevy used a 3.48" stroke while Ford went with a 3.50" stroke on theirs and ended up with a 351 (both have 4" bores).

Not only that, but Ford's own old 352 engine also had that same 3.50" stroke and a 4.00" bore so they weren't even consistent.