Engine Analyzer and Dragstrip Analyzer
08-22-2002, 02:10 AM
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Flowery Branch, GA
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1985 Iroc-Z
Engine: 1 BA 305 TPI
Transmission: Probuilt 700R4 - 2800 Stall Midwest
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Engine Analyzer and Dragstrip Analyzer
Check out these two programs. They beat the heck out of Desktop Dyno. I ran them and compared them to my track times and dyno results and all the numbers were very close. The Dyno numbers were off by 2 HP and the track time was RIGHT ON.
http://www.themustangshop.com/downloads.cfm
http://www.themustangshop.com/downloads.cfm
08-22-2002, 06:17 AM
#2
Supreme Member
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Elizabeth, Colorado
Posts: 1,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '94 Corvette
Engine: LT1
Transmission: 4L60E
Been using it for over 3 years now, and it's good - a little pricey - but good.
Has lots of cams, head, & what nots in the database.
The image is a taste of the options in the program. The one thing that buged me with the DD2K was the total lack of intake options.
Ron
Has lots of cams, head, & what nots in the database.
The image is a taste of the options in the program. The one thing that buged me with the DD2K was the total lack of intake options.
Ron
08-22-2002, 08:29 AM
#3
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: College Station, Tex USA
Posts: 1,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89rs
Engine: 400Sb
Transmission: Tremec 3550
I think there might be a little more margin of error on higher hp combinations
Your not pushing traction and suspension much with the specific combination in the original post. But, the concepts are sound.
I wish EA was updated with newer intakes (like Super-VicJr) and that the fields did not get chopped off on some windows (like the valvetrain option). The manual should at the very least provide a complete descriptions of all fields. That way you know what is not being completely displayed.
(EA lists my 400 as having 582hp SAE which is probably a little optimistic).
I wish EA was updated with newer intakes (like Super-VicJr) and that the fields did not get chopped off on some windows (like the valvetrain option). The manual should at the very least provide a complete descriptions of all fields. That way you know what is not being completely displayed.
(EA lists my 400 as having 582hp SAE which is probably a little optimistic).
08-23-2002, 08:26 AM
#5
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Loveland, OH, US
Posts: 18,457
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
15 Posts
Car: 4
Engine: 6
Transmission: 5
That's interesting...
I ran the Engine Analyzer on the last 2 motors I have had in my 83, a 400, and a 305. It nailed the 305's measured crank HP number as compared to a chassis dyno corrected for drivetrain loss (269 HP predicted vs. about 265 HP measured at the wheels and corrected), except it was predicted to occur about 500 RPM higher than it actually did; and its torque number was lower than the actual rear wheel number before loss correction. On the 400, the HP was a good 10% lower than the measured value after correction (314 predicted vs. ~340 HP measured and corrected), again it predicted the peak to be at a higher RPM than the measured actual, and the torque number was even farther below the actual rear wheel number, by a substantial amount (361 predicted at the crank vs. 373 measured on the chassis dyno which would work out to somewhere around 450 ft-lbs at the crank), so it missed the peak crank torque by nearly 25%. I don't have anything exotic (at least I don't think it is), I was a bit disappointed needless to say. I was unable to distort my parts combo in the list to produce the actual measured results.... it also warned me of detonation etc., which has never been a problem.
I've never had much faith in those programs and this doesn't help convince me very much.
I ran the Engine Analyzer on the last 2 motors I have had in my 83, a 400, and a 305. It nailed the 305's measured crank HP number as compared to a chassis dyno corrected for drivetrain loss (269 HP predicted vs. about 265 HP measured at the wheels and corrected), except it was predicted to occur about 500 RPM higher than it actually did; and its torque number was lower than the actual rear wheel number before loss correction. On the 400, the HP was a good 10% lower than the measured value after correction (314 predicted vs. ~340 HP measured and corrected), again it predicted the peak to be at a higher RPM than the measured actual, and the torque number was even farther below the actual rear wheel number, by a substantial amount (361 predicted at the crank vs. 373 measured on the chassis dyno which would work out to somewhere around 450 ft-lbs at the crank), so it missed the peak crank torque by nearly 25%. I don't have anything exotic (at least I don't think it is), I was a bit disappointed needless to say. I was unable to distort my parts combo in the list to produce the actual measured results.... it also warned me of detonation etc., which has never been a problem.
I've never had much faith in those programs and this doesn't help convince me very much.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
