I will now address how I analyzed the CFM claims. First, the Rochester B for a 235 has a bore of 1 and 9/16 inches, giving a bore cross sectional area of 1.92 square inches at WOT. For the Weber 32/36 at WOT, the total bore cross sectional area is 1.24+1.58=2.82 square inches. The Weber presents a nearly 47% increase in bore cross sectional area at WOT. So, my gut feel was that the Weber 32/36 will rate a higher CFM than the Rochester B, and the number I came across for the Weber 32/36 is 230 CFM at pressure drop 1.5" Hg, which I guess is for WOT. Second, the standard equation for an engine CFM = (cu in displacement) (Max RPM) (Volumetric Efficiency) / 3456. Using my engine displacement of 239, Max RPM of 3200, and a VE of 0.75 gives a required CFM of 166. Now, with the Weber installed, when I am at 60 MPH, the RPM is 2400, and I have pedal remaining for more, and in fact at 65 MPH I still have pedal available for more. So, I think the Weber 32/36 provides plenty of CFM for the 235. And my acceleration with the Weber is as good as it ever was if not better.
