Andy Levy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 00:51, Eric <huffy340@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That's a bit of a weird stat w/o giving us how they calculated it.
>>
>>We don't know if they based it on the amount of power needed to
>>move the truck while cruising, or just on the mpg each car gets,
>>or ???
>
>
> If they don't say how they came to the conclusion, it's bogus.
>
>
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:53:32 -0600 Barry Oliver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/30/the-different-sides-of-diesel-dodge-ram-2500-cummins-vs-smart/
>>>Quote:
>>>One point that we found to be rather interesting was that the
>>>Cummins 6.7-liter diesel engine actually scales rather well when
>>>compared to the 0.8-liter engine of the Smart. In other words, if
>>>the Smart's engine were the size of the Cummins engine, it would
>>>get worse mileage.
>>
>>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4613 (20091116) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
Bogus? I dunno, the Cummins is a heck of an engine. Besides, this is a
blog post, not a technical white paper...
I would assume if you look at the volumetric efficency of the engine
i.e. it produces "x" hp per "cc/ci" at "G" fuel comsumption....or
something like that...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 18:23:04 EST