varnish said:
But I can't accept that engines will make more power towards stoichiometric than at a rich condition with the only factor being fuel mixing.
The theory says that as you never reach the ideal otto cycle model due to dissociation of CO2 reducing the temperature in the cylinder, and that higher pressures are present at a rich condition.
Well, that's real life for you; it doesn't always track the theory properly.
The chart you posted (that's a 622 big block by the way) has an average of 12.17 A/F on one bank and 12.47 on the other. The big issue however is the presence of cylinders running in the high 13's; to keep the engine in one piece they're having to overfuel the other cylinders. Getting the lean cylinders down into the low 13's would allow the other cylinders to get out of the high 11's and make more power in the high 12's to low 13's (I'm assuming a few things based on my years of race engine building).
Note that I didn't say the engine would make peak power at stoichiometric, just that as the conditions in the engine become more consistent a clearer picture of what the engine really wants for mixture will appear. In other words, recent development is revealing the 12.5:1 "standard" was needed to "crutch" the engine to keep it alive at full throttle and a higher A/F ratio makes more power when the crutch isn't needed.
varnish said:
There's no way of knowing what the actual AF:R is inside the cylinder is. It could be that the chamber shape works well and produces a better distribution and burns more efficiently, but the majority AF:R produced in the chamber is closer to 12.5:1 than 13.6:1.
I don't know, but do you see what I'm saying?
I think so, but we can only go by the average until we have more detail. Still, as I said the indication is that with better fuel distribution and A/F ratio control there is less need to compromise the other cylinders to keep some cylinders out of trouble, the power peak will be trending toward stoichiometric. How close remains to be seen but some reputable builders are using 14.0:1 as their target. I suspect that the trend for peak power at leaner mixtures reflects better mixture control inside the combustion chamber as well as between cylinders.
Don't forget that the first article you linked isn't actual testing but is a simulation to show the difference between dissociation and no dissociation. If the modeler used 12.5:1 as the mixture that represents the peak power it should come as no surprise that the results reflect that.
That's my take on this after a bit of reading and thinking and I could be wrong. I try to combine equal amounts of theory and testing but I believe that if the theory doesn't match the data it's the theory that needs to be changed.