ci on a 3.1??
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Car: 1992 camaro
Engine: 3.1 v6, CAI
Transmission: t5
Axle/Gears: eaton posi
ci on a 3.1??
ok i have a quick question. How come everywhere i look i see that the 3.1L engine is either a 192ci, 189ci or like 175ci or something? My chiltons book says 192ci but on the history/rest forum it says that the 92' camaro RS had like a 175ci or something like that. I dont understand why theres huge diff. in all the places ive looked. so if someone could tell me the real CI on my 3.1L that would be a great help. Thanks
Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
From: Wyoming
Car: 92 Chevrolet Camaro RS
Engine: 3.1L V6
Transmission: T-5
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: ci on a 3.1??
ok i have a quick question. How come everywhere i look i see that the 3.1L engine is either a 192ci, 189ci or like 175ci or something? My chiltons book says 192ci but on the history/rest forum it says that the 92' camaro RS had like a 175ci or something like that. I dont understand why theres huge diff. in all the places ive looked. so if someone could tell me the real CI on my 3.1L that would be a great help. Thanks
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,367
Likes: 15
Car: 1973 Datsun 240Z/ 1985 S-15 Jimmy
Engine: Turbo LX9/To be decided
Transmission: 5-speed/T-5
Axle/Gears: R200 3.90/7.5" 3.73
Re: ci on a 3.1??
175, or more correctly 173 is 2.8L.
It seems to change slightly by year, probably has to do with the engineer doing the calculations and if they rounded up or rounded down. I generally think of the 3.1 as a 192.
It seems to change slightly by year, probably has to do with the engineer doing the calculations and if they rounded up or rounded down. I generally think of the 3.1 as a 192.
Re: ci on a 3.1??
Most accurate way is to calculate the volume of the cyls yourself using the stroke and bore.
GM says that the 3.4/3400 is 207ci, but it's actually 204. I think someone at GM must have rounded the liters up to 3.4, then converted it back to in.
GM says that the 3.4/3400 is 207ci, but it's actually 204. I think someone at GM must have rounded the liters up to 3.4, then converted it back to in.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Elephantismo
Electronics
14
Feb 13, 2019 12:51 AM
