> > > Why does a load on an engine with a lean mixture cause the engine to
> > > die?
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> That's a rather long winded way of saying something not too different to
> what you already had I guess.
Just after hitting send on the above a little brain teaser occured to me.
Clearly engaging drive imposes an additional load on the engine. Ones first
thought might be that this extra load increases fuel consumption at idle.
However are things as simple as that?
Taking the exact case above i.e. a simple carb with no stepper motor or
electronic control of idle speed, the revs drop as drive is engaged and the
throttle stays in the same fixed place against its stop at all times. Which
is the best strategy to minimise fuel consumption, idle in neutral or idle
in drive and why?
--
Dave Baker
Bela - 16 Nov 2005 12:40 GMT
DB>
DB> Dave Baker <Pumaracing(NoEmails)@aol.com> wrote in message
DB> news:437af7da$0$41143$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> > > Why does a load on an engine with a lean mixture cause the engine to
>> > > die?
<SNIP>
DB>
DB> Taking the exact case above i.e. a simple carb with no stepper motor or
DB> electronic control of idle speed, the revs drop as drive is engaged and the
DB> throttle stays in the same fixed place against its stop at all times. Which
DB> is the best strategy to minimise fuel consumption, idle in neutral or idle
DB> in drive and why?
DB> --
DB> Dave Baker
If you go by the vacuum, it's gotta be "idle in neutral".

Signature
"... I shook my family tree, and a bunch of NUTS fell out ..."
Don Stauffer - 16 Nov 2005 14:35 GMT
While there has been adequate discussion of the basic question, I
remember an interesting piece from a book on carburetors I read many
years ago. There are several reasons for enrichening mixture on both
ends of the throttle scale.
At idle and very low rpm, the very low gas velocity in the manifold
reduces turbulence which helps keep fuel in vapor form. With low
manifold flow velocities, more of the fuel condenses out in manifold.
cfoughty@gmail.com - 16 Nov 2005 15:36 GMT
Dave Baker you are awesome! That makes perfect sense. I just can't find
any books that go into the science of the automotive technology.
Thanks again!
Dave Baker - 17 Nov 2005 09:12 GMT
> Just after hitting send on the above a little brain teaser occured to me.
> Clearly engaging drive imposes an additional load on the engine. Ones first
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> is the best strategy to minimise fuel consumption, idle in neutral or idle
> in drive and why?
Not many takers then. The answer is that idling in drive is more fuel
efficient despite ones initial thoughts that this must entail using more
fuel to balance the gearbox drag. The reason take a bit of explaining. As
we've already covered, no load idle at our example of 800 rpm means the
engine is producing exactly the same amount of power as the frictional
losses inside the engine are absorbing. When drive is engaged this clearly
adds an additional load. However the throttle position is fixed and the
engine cannot produce more power to balance this extra load at the same rpm
without more throttle opening.
Internal frictional losses are dependent on engine speed. In fact most of
them vary with the square of speed, some obey a fairly linear relationship
and others even more complex relationships. As drive is engaged and the rpm
drops then so do the frictional losses. What happens is a new equilibrium
idle position is reached at say 650 rpm in which the power output of the
engine exactly balances these lower internal losses plus the new gearbox
losses. However at a given throttle opening an engine cannot make more power
at a lower idle rpm than it did at a higher idle rpm. By definition it must
be processing less air, producing less power and using less fuel at 650 rpm
than it was at 800 rpm at the same throttle position. In other words the
reduction in frictional losses resulting from the rpm drop must be greater
than the additional load of engaging drive.
--
Dave Baker