"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

A lot has changed since then. Even then, that study was limited in scope
since it did not consider all of the various engines out there at the time.
Today, there are a lot more small DOHC engines out there that run at 6K in
order to hit their torque curve, and lot less pushrod v-8's which deliver
torque just about off an idle. Not to mention that everything is fuel
injected today and nobody manufactures a production carburated engine.

About the only thing that hasn't changed is that nobody likes to get stuck
behind that guy that believes it's better to accelerate slooooooooly....

Your post got my brain cell (yes, sometimes it seems there's only one)
going. A few months back I saw a Top Gear episode where they took an
econobox and matched it against a big V8 (BMW? Audi?) on a track.
The V8 just followed as the econobox did it's best to achieve low lap
times with it's engine screaming at high rpms. The V8 just loafed along
in a high gear with the engine turning low rpms. They didn't say but I
assume the V8's throttle opening was well above idle and therefore
pumping losses would be low.
The result was that the V8 had better fuel economy than the econobox.
This is obviously a contrived situation to demonstrate just that result but
it is interesting in that it shows the small, high rpm engine isn't always the
winner in the economy race.
Art