View Single Post
Old 12-17-2013, 08:57 PM   #15 (permalink)
doviatt
Master EcoModder
 
doviatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 388

Grey Goose (Retired) - '89 Geo Metro LSI 4 door hatch back
Last 3: 57.16 mpg (US)

Tweety - '91 Geo Metro Convertible -2 Door convertible LSI
Team Metro
90 day: 43.97 mpg (US)

Shadow - '02 Honda Shadow VT1100
90 day: 43.46 mpg (US)

Sonic - '07 Honda CBR1000RR
90 day: 42.69 mpg (US)

Filmore - '84 Volkswagen Vanagon
90 day: 20.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 47
Thanked 44 Times in 31 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakobnev View Post
Your belief that you went exactly the same speed after lifting off a bit, as you would have without doing so! (My claim here is that you have gone slightly slower that you otherwise would have, you simply don't know it.)

A claim that your engine makes the same torque at the same turning speed with both less air and fuel is not believable, and it would take very rigorous testing to convince a reasonable person of this. Testing, that you have not done!
I agree with your statement. But, it is not my belief to be challenged.
I never said any of this. When did I imply the word exactly or claim same torque or turning speed? These are your words and completely out of context.

The topic of this thread is target. A target is not exact, it is something you shoot or aim for. Furthermore the target under discussion has nothing to do with speed.
The target is high MPG which can be correlated with vacuum readings, MPGuino readings, etc. Speed has nothing to do with this.

Last edited by doviatt; 12-18-2013 at 12:06 AM..
  Reply With Quote