TBI's & CFM's

From: Shaun.Hendricks@bergenbrunswig.com
Date: Wed Oct 28 1998 - 19:51:09 EST

Next message: buffnet.net Mail System: "Failed mail (msg.aa12658)"
Previous message: Ryan Krokosinski: "Re: [Fwd: pinging:used to be MPG]"
Next in thread: William Blount Arthur: "Re: TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: William Blount Arthur: "Re: TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Bridges, Bruce: "RE: TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Shaun.Hendricks@bergenbrunswig.com: "RE:TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Jules Glogovcsan: "Re: TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Jon Steiger: "Re: RE:TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Bridges, Bruce: "RE: Re: RE:TBI's & CFM's"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

With all this talk of TBI's I suppose it would be wise to ask the question,
"What is the absolute maximum air the engine can take in (normally aspirated)
at maximum RPM's?" Wouldn't it be best to design any combinations of TBI's to
support this level of air? Does it gain anything to have a larger TBI then
the engine could possibly use? Food for thought I guess...

Shaun H.

Next message: buffnet.net Mail System: "Failed mail (msg.aa12658)"
Previous message: Ryan Krokosinski: "Re: [Fwd: pinging:used to be MPG]"
Next in thread: William Blount Arthur: "Re: TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: William Blount Arthur: "Re: TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Bridges, Bruce: "RE: TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Shaun.Hendricks@bergenbrunswig.com: "RE:TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Jules Glogovcsan: "Re: TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Jon Steiger: "Re: RE:TBI's & CFM's"
Maybe reply: Bridges, Bruce: "RE: Re: RE:TBI's & CFM's"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:10:49 EDT