MB Engineers careless in units?
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 480
From:
MB Engineers careless in units?
Most cars get it right on Tachometer labeling.
Correct labeling.
Type(1): Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on the dial with unit reading x1000 RPM.
Type(2): Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on the dial with unit reading x1000R/M.
Wrong labeling.
MB-VDO: Numbers 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 on the dial with unit reading x100 1/min.
MB-VDO could admit to their poor mathematic skills and correct the mistake as follows:
MB-VDO: Numbers 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 on the dial with unit reading x100/min.
I don't know how many years MB & VDO have been making that mistake boldly.
...Are they still making that mistake on the newer models? Mine is 1999.
Correct labeling.
Type(1): Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on the dial with unit reading x1000 RPM.
Type(2): Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 on the dial with unit reading x1000R/M.
Wrong labeling.
MB-VDO: Numbers 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 on the dial with unit reading x100 1/min.
MB-VDO could admit to their poor mathematic skills and correct the mistake as follows:
MB-VDO: Numbers 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 on the dial with unit reading x100/min.
I don't know how many years MB & VDO have been making that mistake boldly.
...Are they still making that mistake on the newer models? Mine is 1999.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 9
RE: MB Engineers careless in units?
Your suggestion is mathematically correct, but not any more valid than the way MB expresses it...It's just a shorter version...Have you ever thought how many people out there may not know that when you're multiplying a fraction by an integer you should multiply an integer by the numerator with denominator remaining the same??? Maybe that's why MB left it in its simplest form?!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ericlee748
General Tech
1
May 23, 2008 01:46 PM
