Liters to Cubic Inches Conversion Chart

[. .]

I have ended up using this rather frequently and it is
proving quite handy as a quick reference tool;
so I thought I'd share it with y'all:

credit to: metric-conversions.org for the chart.

[CW]

Cool. I just use google. Ex. 50 L in cu in typed into the search box will return the value.

[. .]

Thanks Chris, that's good to know.

[Robert Bryant]

1 litre = 61 cubic inches, that and the ability to do simple math is all you need to know. No charts, no Google.

[Mary D]

For estimation purposes, 60 cubic inches = 1 liter is plenty close enough. You can do this in your head!

[Brad Groves]

Put another way, multiply by 6 and add a zero:

40L x 6 = 240 (+ 0)= 2400 cubic inches

[Nate Meinzer]

Those of you using conversion charts are in the dark ages!

Just go to google and type in the conversion in the search bar.

"40L to cubic inches" or "40 ounces to grams" or "40 sq yd to sq inches"

boom…gives you the precise conversion in seconds

[Lynn Tramper]

"Those of you using conversion charts are in the dark ages!"

LOL. Those of you that need to convert to US imperial measurements are living in the dark ages ;)

[Mary D]

Lynn, I fully agree, but all attempts to get the US to change over have failed miserably ("If the English system was good enough for great-grandpa, it's good enough for me….").

[Lynn Tramper]

" but all attempts to get the US to change over have failed miserably"

Not entirely. American scientists have managed to make the change quite happily.

[Cayenne Redmonk]

We can't switch now, it might stimulate the economy. We would need new packaging, new labels, new tape measures, new wrenches, etc etc etc

[Lynn Tramper]

"We can't switch now, it might stimulate the economy"

Yeah, it would be a shame to create all those jobs!

Uh oh, I hope this doesn't get labelled as 'chaff'.

[Tony Beasley]

I use the Zen stoves conversion site and have found it to be one of the best (it has nothing to do with my stove addiction)

http://zenstoves.net/Calculator.htm

>"We can't switch now, it might stimulate the economy"

Yeah, it would be a shame to create all those jobs!

And I wonder why the US auto industry has collapse.

Tony

[Mary D]

Just wondering if everyone is so mathematically challenged that they can't multiply or divide by 6 and 10 in their heads….

Scientists have used the metric system for at least a century; it's the general public (i.e. majority of voters) that's the problem. Too bad; it's so much easier to multiply and divide by 10!

[John Whynot]

>>Scientists have used the metric system for at least a century.

Currently, that would be the "The International System of Units", abbreviated SI.

As a scientist, I'll stick with the SI derived unit of cubic meters for volume. 1 liter being 1 cubic decimeter. The liter is a non-SI unit, accepted for use with the SI…

[Lynn Tramper]

"The liter is a non-SI unit, accepted for use with the SI…"

As a scientist, I find it's not very easy finding a flask, beaker or measuring cylinder that's labelled "1 cubic decimeter". Liter is also acceptable to use in publication of many peer-reviewed scientific journals. It's also more often usefull to consider a liter/cubic decimeter as 1000ml, so for practical purposes the "liter" and "1000ml" work for most scientists.

[John Whynot]

>>so for practical purposes the "liter" and "1000ml" work

Exactly — the metric system accepts the use of units that are in common everyday use in many areas. I don't know why, but these measurement system threads always interest me — must be the science nerd part of my personality coming out. Don't get me started on the misuse of the word "theory"…

[ERIC WELSH]

I've used this for a LONG time, now.

http://joshmadison.com/article/convert-for-windows

I keep an icon for it in the toolbar at the right of my screen. 21 different categories. Myrid combinations and permutations…

[. .]

Mary & Robert: I use the formula 6 x liters x 10 (most soft goods are notoriously inaccurate in their measurements so I usually don't worry about the 1/60th margin), but sometimes when multi-tasking (if there is such a thing) and working on complex projects, I find it handy to have a chart near by for the quickness. My mind seems to appreciate the focal allocations to more complex tasks sometimes and avoid having to skip a beat, thereby risking derailment of a potentially more worthy train of thought.

Thanks for bringing up the formulas, since that is the true UL way to do it.

[Author]

Posts