From: rcp27g@gmail.com   
      
   On 2014-08-19 14:08:31 +0000, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com said:   
      
   > On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 1:53:50 AM UTC-4, Glen Labah wrote:   
   >   
   >> Yes, the Budd RDCs crammed all that into a very compact locker at the>   
   >> end, but that was a much simpler era.  Electronically controlled   
   >> engines> and transmissions require a lot of electronic equipment.   
   >> Compare the> amount of stuff under the hood of today's automobiles to   
   >> the era of the> RDC for a good comparison of all the new control   
   >> equipment for engines> and transmissions today.   
   >   
   > Well, by way of comparison, my four cylinder car is more comfortable   
   > and more powerful than my prior 6 cylinder car, yet the motor and   
   > accessories fits in a much smaller space under the hood.  I can't help   
   > but suspect that electronics and modern equipment is smaller than that   
   > of years past.  For instance, in cars, a/c used to require an 8   
   > cylinder engine, but today run fine off of a 4 cylinder.   
   >   
   > I suspect that if a new Budd RDC were to designed today, with the same   
   > performance specs, the propulsion and auxillary equipment would take up   
   > less room, and the unit would be more fuel efficient.   
      
   To get the necessary performance, the RDC needed two engines.  Each was   
   a 6 cylinder 10.8 L 275 hp (later models 300 hp).  A modern engine of a   
   similar size might be the MTU 6R 183 TD, with 6 cylinder, 11 L, 422 hp   
   and meeting modern emissions standards.  Larger engines are available,   
   for example the Cummins QSK19, a 19 L 6 cylinder 750 hp engine used in   
   a number of under-floor engine DMUs.  I can't find figures for fuel   
   consumption, but I'll wager the modern engines are significantly   
   better.  Twin engine DMU vehicless are definitely a thing of the past.   
      
   Robin   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)