Dear Ford Motor Company, You’re rightfully proud of the new engine for the Shelby GT350 Mustang. With 526 horsepower, a new flat plane crankshaft and a redline of 8250 rpm, it’s a performance monster, but you seem to be a little confused about who you’re appealing to. In recent years you’ve reintroduced all of the most famous muscle car era names, Shelby, Cobra, GT500, GT350, names that speak directly to motorheads like me who grew up during that era and remember those cars when they were new. We also remember the 260, the 289 and 427, names based on cubic inches, the earlier 406, the later Boss 302 and Boss 429, but I don’t recall anyone speaking in liters at the drag strip where we raced for a quarter mile. Hearing about the new 5.2 liter Shelby engine just doesn’t sound right.
Show some respect for the original Mustang buyers
Sure, we’re in the new global era, world cars and all that, but the Mustang was All American. Those of us who bought and raced them can cite chapter and verse from the book of cubic inches and our mental reference points are based in the measurements we grew up with. That 5.2 liter (or more accurately, 5163 cubic centimeter) V8 is 315 cubic inches. Why not just say so? It sounds a lot more impressive. I know I have to do a quick conversion in my mind to get an idea of the actual size of the engine and to appreciate what a fantastic job you’ve done, 526 horsepower from a naturally aspirated 315 cubic inches! Wow! From 5.2 liters? Yeah, whatever.
Use the units used in the era you recall with the name
At the same time the rest of the world was busy telling us how superior the metric system supposedly was compared to our crazy system of weights and measures based on things like horses and the width of a man’s thumb, the United States was using those inches and pounds and miles and going to the moon. It isn’t the unit that’s important, it’s what you do with it. So, if your PR and marketing departments are going to reference those days when cubic inches were the standard for displacement here in the USA, then use cubic inches, the units we used, when referring to the engines in Cobras and Shelby Mustangs. Put a reference to liters in a footnote for the rest of the world or let them do the conversion themselves. They won’t mind. Mustang enthusiasts in the States will appreciate the nod to the American heritage of the car and the muscle car era when it was born.
Right on! Metric motors for metric cars, cubic inches for the new breed of american muscle cars.!!!!!!!
Globalization has turned us all into weenies.
Yep. I’m not sure why they went the metric route for something so clearly descended from the early muscle car era. I don’t expect metric cars from around the world to refer to all of their engines with cubic inches, why does everyone think Mustangs should use liters? It sounds odd. Maybe not to the twenty somethings in their marketing group, but those kids should ask the people they’re trying to market to what they think before jumping on the metric bandwagon everywhere.
There are far more potential customers familiar with the term “5.0 Mustang” than, say, “Boss 302”.
Is that true? It might be and maybe I’m just a dinosaur like another commenter suggested elsewhere, but every time I see a muscle car with a 5.0, or whatever size engine it has, designated in liters, it really sets off a negative feeling in me. Besides, I see a lot of older guys driving these Mustangs, just like newer Corvettes, because they more likely can afford one, as opposed to the younger guys who might recognize the 5.0 nomenclature and wish they could drive one, but have no cash.
I would also think the guys these cars are aimed at, if younger, are familiar with the roots of the car and are somewhat familiar with the old cubic inch sizes. It would be interesting to see demographic data of the buyers.
I’m 53 – and had a 1982 5.0 Mustang (First year for the 5.0 HO – and the first year HP went up instead of down since the automotive dark ages of the ’70’s) back when they were new. Tens of thousands of “5.0 Mustangs” were sold to other 20 and 30 somethings back then.
Going back to my original point, since these cars refer back to their namesakes from the 1960s, I think the cubic inch designation is more appropriate. Most of those 70s and early 80s Mustangs were models from, as you say, the performance dark ages, and best left alone. Even Shelby Mustangs, for 69 and 70, were already primarily cosmetic with few, if any, performance modifications.
I guess a model name like Shelby GT350 5.2 is sort of a mixed metaphor in my mind, combining eras that don’t blend. The first time Ford used the name 5.0 I think they took a wrong turn.
Keep in mind that, for the first time, the American auto (And motorcycle) industry really had to compete with Japanese and European makers for more than just economy cars. None of the off shore brands used cubic inches – and “5.0” sounded a lot more impressive than, say “2.3” in the competition. Speaking of that, Mustangs with “2.3” or “2300” engines didn’t sound nearly as bad as saying “140 Cubic Inches” to their older buyers at the time, I guess.
The other example is H-D, which has used CCs for the Sportster and CIDs for the Big Twins for many decades.
Either way, I’m glad the machines are there to talk about…
The only cross over that I remember is 5.0 is a 305ci. But it would be nice if they at least gave a nod to the original by using the cubic inches on some of these retro model names.
At least, I don’t often have to translate for people when I tell them I’m putting a 200ci motor in my car. But I do have to do the math sometimes when I’m trying to check comparisons on car weight versus displacement vs power.
(It’s 3.2 (ish) liters for those too lazy to search for it.)
I’m an old gearhead who has no problem with the litre engine sizing nomenclature. I grew up with 239″/292″/312″ and 216″/235″ and 331″/354″/392″ etc and it was fine for the times. And back in the day, Ford did have a 7-Litre in the Galaxy and that sounded more exotic and purposeful then 428″.
Ford really can’t use the cubic inch sizing nomenclature with the new engine sizes. They wouldn’t reference back to the iconic inch iron of yesterday.
Speaking of Metric cars, the Mustang is a metric car and has been for quite some time.
Stay the metric course, Ford.
I remember that 7 Litre Galaxie 428 with the special badge on the fender, yes it did seem a little exotic, as many things you seldom see or hear can appear, like that person with an exotic foreign accent that’s common in their home country, and it’s also interesting Ford spelled it the English way, litre, not liter, as we do in the States, I guess someone at Ford must have been smitten by the global bug back then.
Using cubic inches doesn’t require using the same displacement as the old engines, it doesn’t have to be a 289 or 302 or whatever, it just has to be cubic inches. Engine sizes change all the time, just as those series changes you mention above illustrate, but muscle cars like these were a specifically American phenomenon and we used cubic inches. It’s the unit itself, not the number, that’s iconic, or more to the point, common and understood by everyone.
For most things today in the US, we still use inches and feet and pounds and miles, and all of those weights and measures we always did. I doubt many people in the US think of how many kilos they weigh, unless they are recent arrivals, so why the mix and match units with muscle cars and everything else? I think some people feel a subtle pressure to adopt the metric standard as though our units are somehow inferior, but it didn’t seem to stop us from building an industrial and high technology economy that has been the envy of the world.
As far as the Mustang being metric already, it seems to me the speedometer still reads in miles per hour, not kilometers. For specifications in the USA, performance is cited as 0-60 mph, engine output is in horsepower, not watts, torque is in foot pounds not newton meters, which means Ford recognizes the old system is the real standard we actually use here and people are familiar with.
There had been a push to convert the US to the metric standard some decades ago (though it has now officially died), I think we should use the units we always have. Let people elsewhere look at cubic inches and think of them as exotic.
Here’s an interesting little book on the topic: Whatever Happened to the Metric System?: How America Kept Its Feet. The whole effort to get us on the metric system was (and still is) surprisingly political.
I just came across something I had completely forgotten, Pontiac, starting in 1964, put a 6.5 litre badge on their GTO with the 389, trying to pick up a little of the exotic aura of the Ferrari GTO, so maybe Ford followed the Pontiac marketing department after it planted the seed for this whole metric muscle car labeling trend that eventually grew into the schizophrenic units of measure the auto industry uses today.
Here’s another interesting article I ran across, it’s from the May 1969 issue of Hot Rod magazine. It’s about the brand new Honda CB750 motorcycle, 750cc of displacement, obviously, but the magazine refers to it as 45 cubic inches, reflecting the weights and measures we used at the time and knowing many, if not most, readers would have no idea how big or small the engine was if called a 750. In fact, the two page article never once mentions 750cc anywhere. Here are a couple of photos and their caption:
Now, in this case, I see no reason not to include 750cc since that’s how the Japanese company refers to it and what the actual name of the bike is, their advertisements say 750, but cubic inches is what Hot Rod used. This is five years after Pontiac used their 6.5 Litre badge shown above and three years after the Ford 7 Litre badge. I guess auto companies were really itching to go metric.