

| Subject: | Re: Calculate fuel consumption when idling? |
| From: | John Connolly, Aircooled.Net |
| Date: | Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:06:53 -0700 |
but we have a throttle limiting the amt of air entering the engine (unless you have a diesel). John Aircooled.Net Inc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike elliott" <camping.elliott@GMAIL.COM> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Calculate fuel consumption when idling? > Do you win? Heck, I don't know. I'll take a shot at it. Watch me get > it spectacularly wrong. > > The 1.9L engine has 475cc displacement per cylinder. I think two > cylinders fire per revolution, so at 900 rpm we got 900 x 2 x 475 = > 855cc of air per minute being sucked into the engine. If the mixture > is a good stoichiometric one, we'd have about a 1:15 fuel:air mass > ratio. Air has a mass of 1.3g per liter, so that's .855 x 1.3 = 1.1kg > of air per minute, with being one-fifteenth of that, or 74g per > minute. At 60 minutes that's 4.4kg of fuel. Gasoline masses roughly > 740 grams per /liter, so that's 6 liters, roughly 1.6 gallons U.S. per > hour. > > Those are the numbers I come up with and I bet they're within an order > of magnitude of being right. > > Mike "Rocket J Squirrel" Elliott > > On Nov 24, 2007 3:52 PM, Matthew Snook <matt@snooksband.com> wrote: > > 0.9375? Is that right? Do I win? > > > > :) > > > > At 60mph, mine's turning @ 3200rpm. It will burn 3 gallons doing that. 3 > > gallons per hour at 3200rpm. But it idles at 1000rpm. So that comes to > > 0.9375 gallons per hour at 1000rpm. Of course there's no wind resistance at > > that speed, so maybe less... > > > > Matthew Snook (@ ~3000 ft) > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Elliott > > Subject: Calculate fuel consumption when idling? > > > > A properly-tuned 1.9L WBX engine would consume how many gallons of > > gasoline per hour when idling at sea level? Would this be significantly > > different at 6,000 feet? > > > > > > !DSPAM:4748b1c081151569112627! > >
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »