Built like a Mercedes (?)

These engines are at their most efficient between 1500 and 2000erpm where they actually produce power at around 215g/kw/hour which is way better than most small car engines. The only drawback that I can imagine is a supposed [supposed because I have never driven one in a light truck application] narrow rev band. I assume that it revs more than 2350 in your truck. In the tractor maximum power is at 2200 but yours must surely reach somewhere around 2750 no-load with max power at 2600? If this is the case it needs a lot of gears or it needs to be revved to the governor before upchanging [assuming a stick shift] under load up hill?

Huw

Truckers?

Huw

So even you, the author, do not deny it was infantile rubbish. That is most informative in itself.

Huw

now, how does even a brit like you come up with that interpretation?

Ran the largest empire in the history of the world for one.

The UK owns more of the US economy than any other country too.

Graham

Save us from what ? exactly ?

You are indeed one serious fantasist.

Graham

talk about today pooh butt, not ancient history.

then you better hope we don't f*ck it up.

what a stupid comment.

no, as i said, i can not compare to you in that category. i take my hat off to your fantasisism.

LOL, I don't think he is going to get that one.

What a stupid answer. i.e. you don't have one. No surprise there !

Graham

In other words, you got lit up like a pinball machine, and played like a mechanized piano. You don't like anyones numbers but your own, and have NO way to dispute our numbers, OR our rebuttals to your numbers.

Face it Huw, as if my numbers weren't enough to slam you, Clare SMOKED your sorry ass.

Please do make this your "reply only once", as those of us in reality are tired of your badly attempted claims.

Roy, the figures were derived from a study that used a GP38, admittedly a 30 year old loco. The 170GPH figure was for notch 8 over an hour, something that while I wasn't clear in noting it, I am aware would never happen. The hope was that Huw would figure out that even outmoded loco technology was more efficient than automobiles. With todays computer controlled engine management, I've no doubt your numbers are more representitive.

Using real life figures then the UK network average fuel figure is 115 passenger miles to the gallon. One of my cars does an easy 70mpg so with two people on board that is 140 passenger miles to the gallon. With four on board that increases to 280 passenger miles to the gallon. I prefer to use the Range Rover over long distances with four on board and it averages 32mpg on such a long journey [yes its a diesel] so even the RR actually betters the efficiency of the train with 122 passenger miles to each gallon on such journeys.

20 people aboard a 55 seater coach at 10mpg gives a real life fuel consumption of 200 passenger miles per gallon which is near double that actually achieved by British railways.

The utilised capacity is representative of real life regular long distance bus travel while a group chartering a bus for a special occasion would endeavour to fill to at least 90% capacity giving [at 8mpg] just under

400pmpg.

Special occasions aren't really relevant here so we'll stick with real life average of 200pmpg which trounces the real life train figure of 115.

These are actual real life figures.

Huw

Cummins lists this figure as 1800-1950RPM.

It'll run up to 3000RPM if manually shifted. The narrow RPM band has not been a problem, and seems ideally suited to the gearing (3.55 rear axle ratio) and travel at about 70MPH, which turns 1850-1900RPM on the engine while in OD.

Max torque runs at 420ftlbs stock, from about 1200-2800RPM. No load redline is 3400RPM or so, while loaded the PCM cuts it back to 3200 or so. Having not needed to push it, I'm not as familiar with these figures as I am on my gasoline powered vehicles.

I run an automatic trans, since the 6spd was back ordered when the truck was ordered. I have never had a situation where I let automatic shifting occur where it revved out farther than 2800RPM. This truck doesn't lack for power at low RPM, and pulls well in all gears. Towing at highway speeds in OD is easily done. If I manually shift while towing, I usually use 2100RPM or so, since I'm not interested in acceleration at that point. I manually shift prinicipally to hold gears longer than the PCM would via APPS readings. Thus I can use part throttle and hold gear, since the PCM wants MPG, not power. The PCM tries to upshift since the truck easily rolls most loads and looks to upshift ASAP.

Under hard acceleration while empty, it'll rev to 2800 automatically, while throwing the truck so hard the occupants are snugged into the seats. Do not mistake this for being pinned as one might be in a sports car. However, for moving 7000lbs, it is significant force.

It revs significantly higher than I thought. I can see what you mean because the diesel auto landcruiser has a similar feeling but I guess less so. From only 4.2 litres it has 200hp. The Range Rover is a bit different and it has been chipped from 185hp to over 200hp from the BMW 3.0l, which has also improved the economy [from an average of 27 to just under 30mpg] but its five speed is tuned so that the engine torque is not used as much and it changes down early and so the engine revs more.

Huw

Again, from an innacurate source.

A motorcycle doesn't get that MPG, and a car with four on board doesn't get the same MPG as it does with one on board. Thus, your claim goes from slightly outlandish to impossible.

Based on your innacurate rail figures again?

Once again, this is not the efficiency of the vehicle, but of the use. The coach is capable of 550 passenger miles per gallon. However, a loco burning

70GPH moving at 50MPH and carrying 1000 passengers is 714 PM/G. This assumes that the train is limited to ten cars. Couple on another 10 railcars, increase fuel usage to 100GPH, and the train gets 1000PM/G.

Which is precisely the point Huw..... use the capacity, and be more efficient.

No, they aren't. That you have to say they are, is representitive of the flawed sources.

Is British Rail an inaccurate source? I do not believe they would overestimate their fuel consumption.

The car easily exceeds 70mpg with two on board. Even hammering along on difficult rural roads in our hilly area I have difficulty getting consumtion below 65mpg. With one on board I have proved to my satisfaction that it is entirely possible to achieve 90mpg. I have provided a link which shows the car and its fuel consumption. You are in denial if you challenge every figure that is plain as your face and claim they are false.

They are not mine. They are not even those of the site where you read them. They are supplied by the British railway network.

Yes it is capable but the reality of a service bus or non chartered coach is that occupancy is far less. This is also true of the train except at peak times but this has been taken account of in the figures for the train because they count the number of passengers over the year.

However, a loco burning

You miss the point completely. The capacity will never be fully utilised because both modes travel on set times and passenger density varies along the route. Even if they are empty they must run.

They are certainly actual figures while you seem to wish to use figures for theoretical fully utilised capacity which is impractical and inaccurate and can never be the reality.

Huw

Your source isn't British rail, its a politcal activist group.

I'll say it again, its not a believable claim, since motorcycles that weigh significantly less don't get that sort of MPG.

I haven't seen such a link, nor do I beleive your claims.

Then you should supply the link to the British rail site where they came from. Until then, your figures are suspect.

Again, you miss the point, while proving it.

Yup, you failed to address my numbers AGAIN. This is getting old, Huw.

Sorry, but thats not true. Service is infinitely variable, just as ridership is, particularly in heavy travel areas.

Had you a clue about rail transit, you would know that I'm not only on the mark, but thats Clare's findings back my position. Yet, I doubt you'll ever actually address my real numbers or anything that Clare posted.

wow. just more make believe.