Quote: I'll skip quoting all the "Prince Valiant" stuff but I do have to take exception with it.
Oh no...please quote your "exceptions".
I think one of the things people lose with "my" so called "theories" (which aren't really mine and are fairly well used in cars today...just look at how far down they get final drive ratios in this day and age) is people keep coming back with "throttle posistion" as if they believe that generating increased torque at a given speed will require a throttle that's opened further...thus putting more fuel down in the engine.
Couldn't be further off from what would actually happen.
Again, let's give a general example:
My car requires 30HP to travel down the road @ 60mph.
Doesn't matter if that's 30HP @ 3000 rpm or 30HP @ 2000rpm. It's just 30HP.
Now, HP is simply work. In this case, we can quite literally view it as the amount of air/fuel moving into and out of the cylinder at a given rate. So whether my engine is spinning 3000rpm at 30HP or 2000rpm, at the end of a minute, assuming NO friction within the engine, I will move ~ same amount of air and fuel within a given time period.
Given this (oh, and feets, please feel free to quote away should you disagree...otherwise, don't single me out again!), one can reasonably assume that the throttle posistion will be the same in either example.
Of course, it's NOT exactly the same...and this is NOT all that important. Why? because if my engine is spinning 3000rpm in a given minute, I'll generate more vacuum. More vacuum means that my carb is either going to flow MORE at a given throttle posistion, or to flow the amount to supply a given air/fuel demand, it'll take less throttle to flow the same amount (we know this is true...this is why vacuum info is given with flow data. A head will flow greater at 28mm/HG than at 20mm/HG, will it not? Don't you think it's the same with a carb?).
And still, do you think it's easy to turn an engine over? Try doing it by hand just once! That's a lot of work you've got to do just to overcome friction. Now, turn it over 1000 times in a given mile. Not easy is it? Of course, you remove all that work by gearing it lower and instead of turning 3000 revolutions per mile, you gear down and turn 2000revolutions per mile. And that's a significant amount of fuel you save by not doing this work.
Even by reading your "objections", I am not so sure you even read my post.
