No1LikesACivic

Hey all,

I'm doing a research project for an Engineering Entrepreneurship class that I am in and would greatly appreciate feedback from all of you. Who knows, maybe someday this could lead to a better piece of engine simulation software and you guys would be in on the ground floor.

Basically I'm trying to see how much people, either at home or in the workplace either as a mechanic or engine builder or whatever, use engine simulation software and how satisfied they are with the software they have.

If you're a professional engine builder or mechanic, do you have engine simulation software that you use at work? Whose decision was it to purchase it? How often does the software get used? Are you satisified with the software? What improvements would you suggest?

And at home, do you have a use for engine simulation software, maybe to try out parts on your engine before you go out and buy them? If you do use it, same questions as above apply, how often do you use it, are you satisfied, any improvements you can think of?

We're also considering the possiblity of gearing a piece of software more towards boat, tractor, or other specific engine uses besides cars. Any people who are into these other uses who have some feedback on these same issues would be great!

Any other comments you can think of would also be quite valuable, we need all the feedback and suggestions we can get!!

Thanks to all who can take the time to help me out!!!!

No1LikesACivic

bump

Irockz

iTrader: (1)

I would have a great deal of use for an accurate version of engine simulation software.Unfortunately,I have yet to see such a thing.DesktopDyno2000 just plain sucks.I can create a 1000 HP 305 on that thing with the cheapest parts on the shelf.

In short,if you can create an accurate,consistant program,it would be invaluable,but if it's like all the other trash on the market,save your time.

EvilCartman

iTrader: (1)

I stopped using Desktop Dyno and switched over to Virtual Engine Dyno. More parts options instead of the generic ones DD uses. You can pick the piston that you actually have in your engine by part number or add the specs into the program. Like for mine, flat top forged, floating pin, -4.6 cc, 413 grams, 1.25 comp height and for a 4.030 bore. So far it's been really close to what my car runs at the track (it shows a 1/4 mile estimate). Garbage in, garbage out is what it boils down to.

daverr

iTrader: (1)

Engine simulation software= Garbage

AlkyIROC

I use mine to play "what if". What if I put a bigger carb/cam/headers etc on the car just to see if the change is worth it. Going from a 750 to an 850 carb will show a HP gain but for 20 or so HP, is it worth it to most people? Try "what if" with different cams to see where the power curve is. I can swap a lot of different cams into my engine and may see a slight increase in power but the curves are nowhere near as nice as the cam I curently use. Only real track time will show if the swap is worth it.

The accuracy of all the simulator software depends on the accuracy of the data inputed into it. Have accurate head flow numbers etc and the output results become closer to real world results.

There are a lot of things simulator software can't predict. Change jetting, plug gap or timing and real hp numbers will change. The simulator software can't take that kind of stuff into account. It has to assume that the engine has a perfect dyno tune to get the most out of it. It's a dyno simulation so if you can put the real engine on the dyno to fine tune it, you will probably be very close to the simulation results.

Simulator software also can't tell what quality of parts are in the engine. Build a SBC that can spin to 15,000 rpm to produce lots of power in simulation but you'll never find real world parts capable of really doing it.

Apeiron

Desktop Dyno is ok for what-if scenarios. Since it's airflow-based though it can't take into account things like the mass of the rotating assembly, or the behavior of the valvetrain.

No1LikesACivic

cool, nice feedback thus far, i am still looking for information on specific pieces of software that are already out there (which some of you have already given, but of course the more the better)

what is the name of the software you have used?

how much was paid for it? have you had to pay for support after you bought it, would you be willing to pay for support on a sophisticated piece of software?

what specific features did you like? what specific features made it garbage?

i have to try to break things down into what differentiates a good piece of software from a bad one as specifically as possible and see what people are willing to pay for a good piece of software.

thanks again

AlkyIROC

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...e+Search&meta=

No1LikesACivic

i've done that search and have an idea of what is out there already, but they aren't going to tell me anything but positive user experiences, i need to hear how people are really using and feeling about their products without any bias

BadSS

Engine Analyzer's standard version is very good for the money (Around $120 now?). I've used it since the early 90s when it was much harder to use,,,, no drop down boxes. You pretty much had to determine your own flow values for the intakes,, but once established other changes were very accurate. The later version now has drop down menus,,, although I know for a fact some of them are wrong. Anyway,,, I used to have an engine dynoed every now and again, but after using this program and running past examples through it and comparing real vs simulation, I haven't actually dynoed an engine (on the stand) in years.

The peak numbers for EA's standard version are VERY close with good info going in. The numbers under the rpm for peak torque can be off,,, especially with smaller duration cams, but they are FAR more accurate than the Desktop Dyno program we had a laugh with back in 1998. Actually,, the peak numbers for the Desk Top was not that bad,, but lower RPMs were WAY off on most combinaitons,,, again with the smaller cams. I don't know what if any improvements DeskTop has made over the years, but the late 90s version was only semi-usefull in giving you an idea of peak numbers. The standard EA version gives a much better estimate of lower RPM power,, but it costs more. Still,,, not a lot of money to make sure what you're building will fit your expections. If nothing else the software will give you an idea of how to put power in the curve,,, which is extremely beneficial to a street driven engine.

I've been using EAPro lately (about $475 now??). Running past dyno numbers through it yeilded very accurate results, although it still inflates lower rpm power on cams under 230 degrees a little. Not that bad,, and it's extremely accurate for larger cams. The Pro version will show better peaks and valleys associated with intake runner lengths and diameters and the primary header diameter, length, and collector lengths - which you're able to change all these variables. The standard version (still variables you can change) kinda smooths those out,, so you definitely get what you pay for in the programming. It's a little harder to use and there are plenty of places to make mistakes, so for someone that's never built an engine they would probably be better off with the standard version. ESPECIALLY if you're not building building AT LEAST a few engines a year. .Who is going to spend $500 on software to build one engine?

Anyway,, there are much better simulation software out there, but outside the cost for most novice and even semi-pro builders. David Vizard uses simulation software that's in the thousands of dollars. Some of your most successful race teams uses the higher dollar software as well. It's all about what you're willing to pay,,, or what the consumer is willing to pay. More programming will cost more money and the more accurate software will have more programming.