<VV> was: testing Tom's cooling system, now: fuel economy

[NicolCS at aol.com]

<snitp>I'm a big fan of the 140PG engine. It definitely has  significant 
torque down low and would be ideal for pulling a steep gearset  like you have. 

BUT it's "all in" by 5000 rpm (even with a less  restrictive exhaust) and is 
almost 20% weaker at the top end. I don't think  EFI would change that much.

Bill Elliott  <unsnip>
Here's my thinking, Bill: The idea is to  combine strategies that improve 
low-end torque. What happens at 5000 rpm  isn't relevant to the goal.  EFI and 
the 140PG cam both improve low-wnd  torque.  Why do we want to improve low end 
torque?  The most  significant factors in fuel economy are engine friction 
(proportional to rpm, so  lower rpm is better) and (you can say this ten ways...) 
reduced production of  unnecessary engine vacuum (vacuum indicates incomplete 
cylinder filling - we  don't want a 164 cubic inch vacuum pump - that consumes 
power).  Increasing  the low-end torque capabilities allows you to accelerate 
briskly with  lower and lower rpm.  The condition of the engine at 5000 rpm 
is completely  irrelevant when you are shifting at 2000 or 2500.  The 
combination of tall  gearing for reduced rpm and lower engine vacuum in combination 
with EFI for more  efficient use of fuel is the "magic" that causes modern cars 
to get double or  better fuel economy while making the same hp as an older 
engine.
 
BTW, I have a carbureted version (140 with retarded 95 cam ala PG140)  
driving a wide-ratio trans (keeps a normal 11.2 first-gear ratio).  This  combo is 
more responsive than a "normal" 140 in all regular driving and displays  
unusual "impact" when the secondaries kick-in.  I think that if I added  EFI, the 
raising of the low end torque that is a byproduct of EFI would make the  combo 
even more FTD.  That part is speculative though. 
Craig Nicol