Re: Cummins more efficient than SMART???

From: Andy Levy (andy.levy@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 16 2009 - 20:13:22 EST


On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 19:04, Barry Oliver <barrysuperhawk@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> 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...

If they're not going to explain how they reached their conclusion,
there's no reason to give it consideration. Blog post or otherwise.
The fact that it's just a blog post is just the first sign that it's a
load of hooey.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 18:23:04 EST