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)