Return-Path: Received: from out002.verizon.net ([206.46.170.141] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.6) with ESMTP id 2702387 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:15:44 -0500 Received: from netzero.net ([4.4.60.35]) by out002.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20031030051541.LNXV602.out002.verizon.net@netzero.net> for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:15:41 -0600 Message-ID: <3FA09E7C.5090403@netzero.net> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:15:40 -0500 From: Finn Lassen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake manifold References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030000010201000305040001" X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out002.verizon.net from [4.4.60.35] at Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:15:41 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030000010201000305040001 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Opps, should read: On the 1988 NA the secondary port runners should be about 4 inches shorter than the primaries. Finn Lassen wrote: > Jim Sower wrote: > >> <... a simple way to cut down on the amount of fuel/air mixture >> during idle ... yet have plenty of reserves at redline rpm ...> >> So why do I need primarys and secondarys with different lengths that >> screw up DIE and generally make life more difficult? >> There must be more to this than meets the eye ... Jim S. > > According to the graphs Ed distributed after the presentation, on the > 1990 Turbo and street ported 1991 Turbo II their primary and > secondary runners can be identical lengths. > > On the 1988 NA the secondary port runners should be about 4 inches > longer than the primaries. This presumably is for a non-street ported > engine. Any porting will dramatically alter the required lengths. > > Come on, Ed. Help me out here! > > Finn > --------------030000010201000305040001 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Opps, should read: On the 1988 NA the secondary port runners should be about 4 inches shorter than the primaries.

Finn Lassen wrote:

Jim Sower wrote:

<... a simple way to cut down on the amount of fuel/air mixture during idle ... yet have plenty of reserves at redline rpm ...>
So why do I need primarys and secondarys with different lengths that screw up DIE and generally make life more difficult?
There must be more to this than meets the eye ... Jim S.
According to the graphs Ed distributed after the presentation, on the 1990 Turbo and street ported 1991 Turbo II their primary and secondary runners can be identical lengths.

On the 1988 NA the secondary port runners should be about 4 inches longer than the primaries. This presumably is for a non-street ported engine. Any porting will dramatically alter the required lengths.

Come on, Ed. Help me out here!

Finn

--------------030000010201000305040001--