If the engine is using EXACTLY the same mass flow rate of fuel,(more fuel per cycle at lower rpms), how does RPM really make any difference???
In your over generalized 440 example at either 2800rpm or 1800rpm it still consumes about 14 lb/hr of gas. Correct?? You stated: "Doesn't matter if that's 30HP @ 3000 rpm or 30HP @ 2000rpm. It's just 30HP.....I will move ~ same amount of air and fuel within a given time period." So to make 30hp, you need 14lb/hr of fuel, wether you have a 440, 318, 2.2l, or 600cc. If gas weighs 6 lb/gal, your gas tank is STILL draining by at least 2.3 gal/hr regardless of the engine or its rpm.
Answer: By your arguments engine RPM(or even engine displacment) doesn't affect the rate of fuel consumption. You've talked yourself in circles because neither is actually true.
imo, you either really don't know what you're talking about or you're over generalizing and simplifing to the point of confusing yourself and others. I honestly think its the latter. Mainly because i agree with your general conclusions, but your reasoning and rational for them barely hold water. i suggest more work with the caculator before typing.
I've said it before and now agree with feets, torque vs VE isn't a straight line. Your VE example/argument is worthless.
BTW mechanical eff(friction)is a much greater % of total engine eff as rpm drop. So the thermal eff and ve both usually have to rise to maintain the same output, which is usually very unlikely given your argument for static throttle position. At a constant load friction doesn't rise nearly as quickly with rpms as VE and TE
One more thing, regardless if you're right or not, no one will respect your opinion of you're being a jerk.
