Hey, SuperJ, thhe boost ports, and finger ports idea was considered as a "Crutch" for the old style Echo cylinders, but only gained about 150 rpm for the many hours involved with a grinder and mill to get the work done. .not financially feasible, if you know what I mean.
The only way you could add that much window area and pick up so little performance would be if the crankcase volume is too small(probably), or the intake valve system is too restrictive.
WHAT makes you think that BME has not done their homework on their new cylinders and gotten it RIGHT with the new design???
I don't know call me a skeptic. What makes you so all fire sure they got it right?
See. . YOU want power numbers. . . . BME wants midrange tractability as well as a pretty good top end .. and as EVERY engineer knows. .. the two ARE mutually exclusive.
True enough statement, if we were having this discussion in the 1970s when the Mahle and Kioritz cylinders were first designed. If you think they still are mutually exclusive again join the 21st century. Go ride a RAVE equipped Sea-Doo or Ski-Doo or drive a YPS equipped Yamaha bike or kart. Stump pulling low end torque and screaming top end power can and do coexist happily in all the modern power valve engines and have for some time now. For the record back in the day when the Mahle and Kioritz stuff was originally designed the specific output king the walking boss of the two stroke world both snowmobile and bike was the Rupp 440 Nitro. Now lets see who built that motor? was it kioritz(echo)? Nope. Was it Mahle?(sachs,dolmar,makita,others) Nope. Couldn't of been Rotax so who was it thats right you guessed it dumb stupid simple ZENOAH. The only engine within spitting distance was the Mercury Sno Twisters 440 built by another lowly industrial engine maker, Kohler.