Re: 64 lb. engine - non-lbc

[Joe Curry <curry@wolfenet.com>]

Jim Gambony wrote:
> 
> Has anyone considered the obvious, that there is a punctuation error in
> the WSJ article?  Could the engine weigh 64 lbs (10%) less than it's
> predecessor?  Admittedly a 640 lb motor also sounds excessive....
> 
> Jim
> 
Jim, I read a different connotation into the statement.  The weight of
64 pounds would be 10% less than its predecessor only if its predecessor
weighed about 71 lbs.  640 lb predecesor would indicate the new engine
weighs 10% "of" the precdecessor.

Joe Curry.