desktop dynos

well. Perf trend ea33pro got me exactly the same curve and peak hp/tq, at same rpm´s, than I got in dyno... Maybe a just a coincidence...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mosse on 11/4/06 5:23pm ]</font>

I dont disagree with you about the curves, but I believe programs are a poor way to design an engine. You need experience building engines to understand the importance of things that I mentioned earlier.
Programs are fun, but I've seen 500Hp combos at the track not running nearly as well as they should. Granted some of it can be chassis, but the cars I am refering to had good chassis and descent 60ft.s. MPH was down, so that is an indicator POWER was down.
Having said that, I did an engine for a guy that wanted to follow his computer aided design, and finally talked him into changing the cam...that combo ran very well. He has talked about changing the cam to what the computer had recommended...but still has not done it. Maybe because he now understands what I was getting at.
Brian
[addsig]

EA 3.0 was a huge factor in my engine buildup. If nothing else, it gives you some insight on how various variables affect an engine. It predicted my engine nearly right on. I'm using it to predict gains from improvements i'm in the process of making.

The bad thing about desktop dyno's is that they can be very good if your entering correct data or they can be very bad if your entering incorrect data. IOW, you really need to learn to use it and double check your input. EA 3.0 makes fewer assumptions that desktop dyno...it requires more input. Therefore, a better chance of being accurate ond conversely a higher chance of being way off.

_________________
Tracy Blackford: Corona, Ca
'65 FB Mustang 331, 282S cam, ported 351W heads. T5z, 3.50 9" posi.
346 RWHP@6400 on a warm spring day (335 RWHP SAE corr.)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: blkfrd on 11/5/06 4:20am ]</font>