True, but  I've never seen the volumetric efficiency of the WB published anywhere. Those are
max numbers at wide open throttle, and with no air restrictions. You don't want the intake
system to be a bottleneck.

Henry

On 23 Jun 2006 at 16:08, Mike Bucchino wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >
>