Bad mpg?

blanchard7684 said:

The truth of something isn't proportional to the square of word count.

Power is torque times rpm.

Torque is proportional to square of bore size.

Torque equation doesn't have rpm in it.

6.2 will make more torque than 5.3 at same afr.

Click to expand...

You still don't understand / can't see what the equation you're trying to use is telling you.

If I' understanding you right, you think at the below referenced torque equation proves that as you say "6.2 will make more torque than 5.3 at same afr."



But, like the clueless guy you are , you failed (again) to recognize that the equation you are using has a term for Pressure at bottom dead center.

And as we've already discussed and proven, if a 5.3 and a 6.2 take in the same quantity of air, the the pressure a BTC will be higher in the 5.3 (that's the whole jist of the scientific law you think doesn't work for some strange reason).

So lets look at how the terms would change (in your own equation) if you inject the same amount of fuel (which requires the same amount of air to maintain the same afr) in a larger bore engine .



Look a that, torque stays the same, wow.

For torque to go up , then pressure a BTC would have to stay the same (or go up), which would mean more air is in the cylinder than compared to the 5.3, which would require more fuel to maintain the same afr,,,,, and so,,, wow, more fuel would cause torque to go up,,,, its like power comes from the fuel or something.

And really, even without the equations (that you obviously can't read/ don't understand what the hell they're telling you), did you really think that just increasing bore size would make power go up without burning more fuel? If so, that would solve all the worlds energy issues, because we could just make bigger and bigger bore engines, use the same fuel and get more power.
...

blanchard7684 said:

You are flailing around sticking to "fuel terms" , "efficiencies" , bizzare Boyle's law thought experiments, and "all engines make same power if they are below wot" arguments...

It is nonsense at this point.

Click to expand...

And your complete lack of understanding the very basic concept of Boyles law is comical (perhaps a comedic tragedy, but comical none the less).

In case you're wondering why I call you clueless guy,,,well it's because you're clueless, and you keep re-affirming that with your lack of high school math comprehension.
...

blanchard7684 said:

You can not overcome the squared term for bore size.

Click to expand...

There is nothing to overcome, the equation works, you're just to dumb to apply it and think about what others terms are also in it.

You see one thing in an equation and think "eureka, this is is", and don't bother to look at the rest of it and what other terms exist in that same equation, or even apply basic common sense to it.

It's funny to watch you try and point out things you think prove your point, only to be so easily disproven (and it is easy) with the very equation you use.
...

blanchard7684 said:

We are done here.

Click to expand...

Why,,,, tired of being proven wrong?

Its possible that eventually you'll learn something. Just think about how good and internet troll you could be if you had a clue (which right now you don't, but you could maybe one day get a clue).
....

Never seen so many feels in an MPG thread before. I’ve got an idea, let’s chill for a while and put things back in perspective