"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message ...
I'd buy a diesel version if it was available in the US.
95mpg is fabulous.

Thanks for doing the math Bart. I don't understand why they can't put the
specifications in the correct, American terminology.
Scout

"Scout" wrote in message
Thanks for doing the math Bart. I don't understand why they can't put the
specifications in the correct, American terminology.

I understand you guys have the special "AutoCad- 'Imperial' ver.10 now. :-)

Did you need the conversion to "Chains" & "Spans"????

CM

"Capt.Mooron" wrote:

"Scout" wrote in message
Thanks for doing the math Bart. I don't understand why they can't put the
specifications in the correct, American terminology.

I understand you guys have the special "AutoCad- 'Imperial' ver.10 now. :-)

Did you need the conversion to "Chains" & "Spans"????

Gunter or Surveyor?

Cheers
Marty

"Capt.Mooron" wrote in message
news:iL42g.4025$fL.378@edtnps90...

"Scout" wrote in message
Thanks for doing the math Bart. I don't understand why they can't put the
specifications in the correct, American terminology.

I understand you guys have the special "AutoCad- 'Imperial' ver.10 now.
:-)

Did you need the conversion to "Chains" & "Spans"????

I tried installing the AutoCAD Cubits calculator, but I have the wrong
version abacus.
Scout

I've also read that 80 mpg is more typical.

The higher mpg's are achieved by drafting on motorhomes.


"Scout" wrote
"Bart Senior" .@. wrote

I'd buy a diesel version if it was available in the US.
95mpg is fabulous.

Thanks for doing the math Bart. I don't understand why they can't put the
specifications in the correct, American terminology.
Scout