Not sure where else on TGO to post this so I put it here. MOD please move if needed.

My question basically is

How accurate are these simulators? I've heard of Desktop Dyno and Dynomation5 but I am sure there are others out there. Do these things even get in the ballpark when trying to figure out what parts work best on an engine you are planning to build? What % are they off most of the time? Are they a big waste of money because I noticed they can get expensive.

I would love for someone that has experience with Dyno and engine building in particular to chime in on their real world experience with these.

 

I have Dyno 2003 and Drag 2003 (Desktop Dyno software) because I got them for free from a friend. I can't speak for the dyno program but in real world testing the trap speeds and times are pretty close to Drag 2003's times.

With that said, comp cams camquest program is usually 40-50hp/ft lbs higher than the dyno 2003 estimates.

 

Sorry about getting back so late. Have you heard any talk about good engine build programs? I appreciate the heads up on the comp cams program.

 

Desktop dyno seems to over estimate torque and sometimes power. Some of its trends in cam design dont really hold true in real life, as it seems to favor real wide splits. Some combos work well but the 2003 version i had could get you ball park figures but nothing super accurate. There just is too much assumed information, too many simplified inputs.

Now there are some better ones but usually more expensive and difficult to use. They have alot more data to input for the calculations but gives an accurate result when the info you enter in is accurate. Engine analyzer and dynomation i believe are good programs. Its garbage in garbage out tho. You need accurate info on your motor to get good info back.

Some of those programs can actually be used to see what changes to cam timing, lift capacity, compression, exhaust header size, etc will help or hurt power. Would 1.6 rockers give you power? Maybe, change the parameters and watch what it does. I have seen engine builders show examples of real motors against program output and results were really close

 

Since I have a second GTA to drive I am no longer in a huge hurry to build the engine for my Convertible so I was debating should I pay someone to build this engine and drive-train or learn (I am buying up books to read) and buy parts myself then find a reputable engine shop to machine and assemble for me.

Any input on what books to get would be great. I dont mind spending a few hundred bucks on the Engine Analyzer program or Dynomation as long as I know it works. Thats what I am depending on you guys for as far as the software goes. I am really interested in software because its cheaper to play with combos and changing relationships that impact the whole than building an engine then finding out I should have done something different.

What do you think of this book list I have so far? I am going to find some other books specific to TPI, transmission and rear end gearing, and exhaust.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/John-Lingenf...item460d3f2b0f

http://www.ebay.com/itm/How-to-Build...item2a293ae8ff

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-How-to-D...item5d356a32ed

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Auto-Fundame...item257b6abcd4

http://www.ebay.com/itm/How-to-Build...item3cc960d62a

 

Those are pretty good books. Maybe include a rebuilding sbc books like how to build the sbc or similar that shows step by step how-to guide to familiarize yourself with all the components.

Other than that should get a good background on motors from there and have an idea where to start for your goals

 

If you do decide to have someone build your engine and drive-train. It would be wise for you to go ahead and learn all you can about it. This way you will have an idea when your talking with your builder of what they are doing, And will help if future upgrades.

 

Thanks I will check that will cover my needs.

Rich

 

Pipemax is good...most those sims are pretty optimistic

Tried a few and they come out to way more than I know Im making.