How many cubic inches in one liter?
#2
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
1 liter is 1000 cubic centimeters; there are 2.54 centimeters in an inch; 1000 / 2.54^3 ~ 61.
And I'm afraid that your second question isn't really well-posed, although someone may have an estimate. HPH
And I'm afraid that your second question isn't really well-posed, although someone may have an estimate. HPH
#3
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,005
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
My estimate (which is just a mere guess) for my second question is 77 ft/lbs. But that is like I said, just a mere guess. I don't know for sure. It could be higher or lower.
#4
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
..for here, just Audi's or any car, but 77 ft-lbs is a good guess for NA engines. For Audi...
S6 - 74.3 ft-lbs/L
S8 - 76.0 ft-lbs/L
If you want to look at others (Porsche):
968 - 75.3 ft-lbs/L
986 - 72.4 ft-lbs/L (1st generation Boxster)
996 - 80.5 ft-lbs/L
HTH!!
S6 - 74.3 ft-lbs/L
S8 - 76.0 ft-lbs/L
If you want to look at others (Porsche):
968 - 75.3 ft-lbs/L
986 - 72.4 ft-lbs/L (1st generation Boxster)
996 - 80.5 ft-lbs/L
HTH!!
#6
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
...it implies the Audi 4.2 liter V-8 is around 256 ci -- 10%less than the 283 V8 my Dad had in the '62 Chevy I learned to drive in. But the 4.2 has way, way more power and torque. This is why the torque/displacement question isn't well posed -- the answer also depends on many other factors.
It also imples that the 426 Hemi that Chrysler used to market is 7 liters. Consider what that would put out with a bi-turbo system! HPH
HPH
It also imples that the 426 Hemi that Chrysler used to market is 7 liters. Consider what that would put out with a bi-turbo system! HPH
HPH
#7
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
That 283 Chevy also had:
One cam (vs 4)
8 valves (vs 32)
2 bbl carburetor (vs multi-point, electronically
controlled fuel injection
Coil/distributor ignition (vs electronically
controlled direct spark w/ plug mounted coil)
Effective compression ratio of about 7:1 (vs 10.5:1)
Two speed powerglide transmission with out a
lockup torque converter (vs 5 sp with lockup)
equivalent weight
engine-driven accessories that were less efficient than modern counterparts
One cam (vs 4)
8 valves (vs 32)
2 bbl carburetor (vs multi-point, electronically
controlled fuel injection
Coil/distributor ignition (vs electronically
controlled direct spark w/ plug mounted coil)
Effective compression ratio of about 7:1 (vs 10.5:1)
Two speed powerglide transmission with out a
lockup torque converter (vs 5 sp with lockup)
equivalent weight
engine-driven accessories that were less efficient than modern counterparts
Trending Topics
#8
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
...which is why these modern powertrains are far more fuel efficient than they were 40 years ago.
But I'm still stuck on the notion of a 750 hp bi-turbo hemi. Damn. HPH
But I'm still stuck on the notion of a 750 hp bi-turbo hemi. Damn. HPH