Roger, Thanks for that reference. It is apparent that published HP numbers in advertising are subject to sloppy values. I have a worn out copy of "Speed and Power Handbook, Special High Mileage Library Edition" by Newhouse Automotive Industries published in 1952 and I literally wore the cover off the book in my teen age years. The best "absolute truth" I got from that book is the formula:
H.P. = Torque(ft. lb.) x (rpm/5252)
As far as I know a dynometer really only measures flywheel torque at various rpm and it is clear on every power curve that the H.P. curve and the Torque curves cross at 5252 rpm for whatever dress the motor has as far as accessories or not. Clearly advertised H.P. ratings are often infected with hype but the Torque at 5252 rpm is a clear measurement. Getting back to the CAFE standards which are arbitary political values, mpg can be measured as long as measured distances are available and accurate volume in gallons are known so the mpg numbers are then subject to gears, tire size, weather and driving habits but the measurement can be accurate. The point of my original message is that the CAFE mpg standards are continually being pushed higher and in the seminar I attended it was stated that a goal of 54 mpg could come in the near future. The amazing thing is that advances in fuel systems (computer controlled injection) and multi-speed transmissions have indeed pushed mpg values over 30 even on high powered cars but a goal of 54 mpg seems way to high to me unless a lot of small cars with high mpg values can be averaged in with powerful engines getting say 35 mpg. Averaging in smaller cars seems to be the only practical way to achieve a 54 CAFE in my opinion. And yet research in better lubrication may be worth 5-10 mpg improvement but it seems to me that the national average CAFE needs help from a lot of small engine cars to reach 54 mpg, although some sort of continuously variable transmission system may offer further mpg improvements. My main point is that ZDDP will not disappear entirely from motor oils but the concentration will still be too low to support flat tappet cam engines.
I am always pleased to get a response from Jerry Clayton who has a great deal of experience and I am saving his previous comments regarding a later model SBC for factory FI. Over the summer I talked to several other owners of cars with SBC-FI at local meets and was discouraged by not only the cost but the need for a second fuel line for return since I have had my share of woes with a fuel line. Still, recent add-on FI systems without return lines are encouraging and maybe someday I can afford the sort of unit that just bolts on like a carburetor without changing the intake as discussed recentl by Tech1 on another thread. All I need is money!
Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder