triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: vacuum advance/retard differences?

To: Barry Schwartz <bschwart@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: vacuum advance/retard differences?
From: David Massey <105671.471@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:48:14 -0400
Cc: "[unknown]" <105671.471@compuserve.com>, "[unknown]" <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Message text written by Barry Schwartz
>Well, lets stop and think about this a moment - it's still working,
producing power isn't it? 
Just turning itself over is work (try doing it yourself just for grins and
see how easy it is to turn at say 800 rpm).  I think you'll agree that it
takes some effort.

Now, if it requires more throttle (which it will) to keep the engine
running at the same rpm that you had at optimum timing when you retard the
timing, then the engine is less efficient.  MPG doesn't factor in here, the
car is static.  However engine efficiency still applies.  The engine IS
using more fuel/air mixture but turning at the same RPM (less efficient).
This is wasted power (heat) which has to be removed by the cooling system -

<

The purpose of an engine is to move the car.  If it is not moving the car
it is not producing work.  Any and all fuel consumed at idle is overhead
and the car will be just as well off with the engine shut down.  Yes it is
turning over but so what?  Unless you just like to listen to the eshaust
note it is not accomplishing anything.

But that's all beside the point.  The point is that a car spends very
little time idling and the fuel consumption at idle has an insignificant
impact on fuel milage.  Unless you idle the car overnight in freezing
weather.  And how often does that happen i San Diego?   ;-)

Cheers

Dave

///  triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
///  To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
///  with nothing in it but
///
///     unsubscribe triumphs
///
///  or try  http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>