----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Bucchino" <mbucchino@charter.net>
To: "Henry Luhrs" <Henry.Luhrs@BRUKER-BIOSPIN.COM>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re: ? for our mechanical wizards

> Assuming 100% volumetric efficiency, which no naturally-aspirated engine
> can have...........
>
> Mike B.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry Luhrs" <Henry.Luhrs@BRUKER-BIOSPIN.COM>
> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 3:46 PM
> Subject: Re: ? for our mechanical wizards
>
>
>> Hi John,
>>        Well, 2.1 Liters is 0.0742 cu/ft. At 5000 RPM you would draw that
>> volume 2,500
>> times a minute, so that would make about 185 cu. ft./minute. Each
>> cylinder would be a
>> quarter of that (about 46 cu. ft./min). Improved vaporization of fuel is
>> what fuel injection does.
>> Direct injection does it a bit better, but those are pretty recent. I
>> would guess that putting in
>> new injectors might help a little bit, but not more than 5 - 10% unless
>> your injectors are really
>> bad.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>>
>> On 23 Jun 2006 at 13:56, John Rodgers wrote:
>>
>>> Can anyone tell me what the flow rate of intake air - cubic feet per
>>> minute - is on the WBX 2.1 L engine ...and.... for one cylinder .... say
>>> at top rpm and/or horsepower?
>>>
>>> Also, what is the cylinder volume of air taken into the engine on a
>>> single intake stroke?
>>>
>>> And finally - anyone have any opinions on this concept......"Improved
>>> vaporization of fuel will improve gas mileage!"
>>>
>>> Inquiring minds (probably more like demented minds) want to know.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> John Rodgers
>>> 88 GL Driver
>>>
>>
>