Ted B. (Ted B. = Dave C.?)
Define "experienced it for themselves." People make up stories all the time to excuse pleasurable activities like speeding. Are you talking about something along the lines of infomercial testimonials?
I don't think a lot of people even know how to test for MPG accurately. You have to have a very good onboard computer or you need to drive at least 200 miles on a full tank, then fill it up at the same pump (gas and calibrations vary) and do the math. You have to drive the same route in the same wind conditions. You can't go by engine "feel" or "smoothness" and other subjective factors. The tests should be done close together right after a tune up and oil change.
Again, Ted-Dave, you're not saying anything about gearing. Once you're in the highest possible gear, it defies logic that cycling the engine faster and drawing in MORE FUEL will give you better efficiency. No study I've seen of the topic agrees with your claims. Tell me exactly what's wrong with this article if you have special knowledge:
And how exactly do you test for MPG? Why should we take your physics-defying claims at face value? Who are these "many people" who see all these improvements at higher speeds? I don't know them. Scientists and engineers aren't among them. Who are they, other speed salesmen like yourself?
What "extra horsepower?" Power is power. "Extra" is a phantom concept. In top gear, the most powerful car on the planet will still use more fuel to go faster, even if the amount might be *relatively* smaller per unit speed than an underpowered car. I think you have a vague, magical concept of how power is generated in an engine. You've been reading too many slick car ads.
Who are these "many, MANY people?" They aren't scientists and automotive engineers. Are they selling Slick 50 and Prolong in their spare time?
Poor analogy there. You cite extremely different "RPM" examples, for starters. If you lifted the weight *moderately* fast (vs very fast) you'd find it easier to do over many reps because more power is needed for rapid acceleration. Lifting it *very slowly* (reductio ad absurdum) just wastes energy by forcing the muscles to hold the weight longer. Negative resistance is well known to increase fatigue in weight training.
But you can't compare muscle fibers and lactic acid buildup to engine RPM. Engines don't get "tired" like muscles. They either draw in more fuel and air or they don't. No logical engine design draws LESS fuel at higher RPMs in top gear. The whole idea of pushing the accelerator pedal is to "give it some gas" and that's literally what it means. A bicycle rider is a better comparison. There is gearing involved and it takes more leg revolutions to go faster, which means more calories burned. Unlike a car, where you barely move your foot, you can feel the power-resistance on a bike as you speed up in top gear.
In a car, if you stay in 1st or 2nd gear, rev the hell out of the engine and drive very slowly, you can partially duplicate your muscle analogy, but who would drive like that for efficiency's sake? The real comparison is higher RPM in top gear vs. lower RPM in top gear. Compare things that really matter.
C.T.
