----- Original Message -----
From: <ptegler@gouldfo.com>
To: "David Massey" <>; "Barry Schwartz" <bschwart@pacbell.net>
Cc: "[unknown]" <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: vacuum advance/retard differences? Ha Ha! Zero!
The only time an engine is at 'zero' efficiency is when you switch it OFF!
You either have a 'working process' that has an efficiency index...
or 'no process' at all.
Paul Tegler ptegler@gouldfo.com www.teglerizer.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Massey" <105671.471@compuserve.com>
To: "Barry Schwartz" <bschwart@pacbell.net>
Cc: "[unknown]" <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: vacuum advance/retard differences?
Message text written by Barry Schwartz
>(Severely) retarding the timing at idle provided
reduce emissions at the expense of engine efficiency.<
Barry, I beg to differ. Since the car is producing no output at idle (it
is merely turning itself over producing no work) the efficiency is zero
with or without vacuum retard.
At any rate, since the retard is shut off while the car is under way it has
no effect on MPG.
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
|