Well then my esteemed and respected
lister colleague, one thing is for sure....it didn't have a stock cam! :)
With no intent toward disrespect or to argue, or to cast doubt upon your honor
or veracity of your words, but simply to discuss....and most assuredly, not to
lecture
or appear all knowing or superior in any
respect...for this is not the case.
Such "tests" must be run under VERY
controlled circumstances including same
road surface and atmospheric conditions,
etc. Outside air temp, humidity, barometer
setting, winds...it goes on and on. The conditions for all "runs" must be the
same...EXACTLY. And your instruments and
procedures...exactly the same...NO variables.
Fr'instance...
I will get slightly better gas mileage with a 5 knot tailwind component than I
will with a 5 knot headwind component, ALL else being equal. Same sorta impact
on results with slight differences in humidity, atomospheric air pressure, etc.
Otherwise, it's all a matter of wherein the cam profile maximum cylinder
filling occurs, ALL other factors remaining constant. And there is no way
around this "science" or mechanical absolute.
Fr'instance, I could get better gas mileage
in my previously mentioned Vizardized 1340
at 4k then it would deliver at substantially
lower rpm's, even at 11.0-1 CR.
But then, this would be due to "mechancal" difference.
It was equipped with the (road) hairy APT
VP3 cam and 1.4+ intake valves. So this
cam (by cylinder filling profile) is not going
to allow the engine to run as "efficiently"
at 3k as it will run at 4k, ALL other factors
equal.
Look at wherein the max. torque figure is
given for the stock cam by the mfgr. This
"tells the story" in these respects for the stock car.
Cap'n. Bob '60 :{)
|