1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180 
Choosing Cummins
Page 113
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I READ with interest the letter from Mr. R. T. Antczak I (September 3) headed "Why Cummins? and I would like to express my personal feelings in this matter.
Whilst I do agree that technical data of engines can read similarly, it is often proved that in actual road operation these engines do not function the same either because of vibration characteristics, fuel consumption, and performance generally. I know from personal experience with the Rolls-Royce engine, to which Mr. Antczak refers, that it has not proved satisfactory in road vehicles, I also know that the Cummins NH-180 has been, and is still most successful. I feel sure that it will, in the future, hold a very high position with vehicle operators, especially when the power-to-weight ratio becomes effective.
I do agree with Mr. Antczak when he says he has admiration for Rolls-Royce products, but I consider that their diesel engine for road vehicles has not been one of their best. As far as the two engines are concerned.— Cummins NH-I80 and Rolls-Royce C6.N—there is no comparison from a vehicle operator's point of view.
Warrington, Lancs. N. H. WARD, Managing Director,
North Cheshire Motors Ltd.