Engine dyno software. Anything good on the Internet?

-
KitCarlson said:
Not trying to crush your spirit, but I see a problem in design.

I hope that design about how to cost reduce, so it no longer works! The mounting tab needs to extend to the the other handle attachment rivet full width of handle. As is, the blade will break loose, twist around and cut a finger. Build one, and try scraping thick old paint in an edge corner, applying force to one edge of blade.
Click to expand...



Lighten up Francis... LOL!


It is more of an exercise to get the feel for getting used to the geometry with mating parts that fit together more than an actual part. Also learning to use lofts, sweeps, and slices depending if you're working with solids or surfaces.


We could always fix it with another rivet in the handle.
 
frosty_the_punk said:
Correct, for some reason apple think people will pay for copyright material that is encoded in propriety format that can then only be played back on propriety software, most of which is only compatible with propriety hardware! :wack:

This is a mopar forum so i'll put it into car context.

It's about the equivalent of buying a brand new mopar that can only be driven on mopar approved roads (hardware) and only runs on mopar approved gas (software). The car might be fantastic value but if the roads are rutted and always take the long way to your destination (complicated interface, constant crashes and slow load times) and the fuel gives you crappy mileage (battery life) and needs constant refilling (updates).

That's when you get into hot-rodding and build a car that works how YOU want it to!

Hmm i like this analogy even though it's pretty vague. :burnout:
Click to expand...

Hence why I will never ever ever buy a apple product!
 
krazykuda said:
It is more of an exercise to get the feel for getting used to the geometry with mating parts that fit together more than an actual part. Also learning to use lofts, sweeps, and slices depending if you're working with solids or surfaces.
Click to expand...


Karl is right that is exactly what this is.. Is for basics, not practical use. I did a year in college for Mechanical Design, but decided sitting behind a desk was not for me. I had a blast working with all the 3D modeling software and still play with it from time to time.
 
KitCarlson said:
Not trying to crush your spirit, but I see a problem in design.

I hope that design about how to cost reduce, so it no longer works! The mounting tab needs to extend to the the other handle attachment rivet full width of handle. As is, the blade will break loose, twist around and cut a finger. Build one, and try scraping thick old paint in an edge corner, applying force to one edge of blade.
Click to expand...

Not trying to crush your spirit, but all of this is bullshit since all the thing is, is a simple drawing on a computer.
 
KitCarlson said:
Yes, and now that stupid design, will be copied by HF may end up in someones hand. :)
Click to expand...


It actually is a real part.


Both the part and the model are called a "Putty Knife".


Not a "Paint Scraper".


So if you cheap out and try to save a couple of dollars and buy the putty knife, instead of the heavier duty paint scraper, then it may cost you $$$ for band-aids and Neosporin to heal your busted knuckles.


The right tool for the right job....

View attachment Putty Knife.jpg

View attachment Putty Knife All.jpg
 
Yes, you are correct Karl, but the metal in the real ones goes all the way up the handle, and the upper rivet, where you would hang it from is also helping hold the blade in position, I think that is what Kitt was getting at.. The one in the CAD drawing would not hold up well in real lift.

Anyways, I thought this was about Dyno software and not CAD, LOL Just giving ya a litele crap!
 
Another benefit of the blade through the handle feature is it gives the user something solid to tap against when the scraping gets tough. Plastic handles don't last long if they're hammered on. tmm
 
Rocket said:
Any good engine dyno software to use on the Internet? Something that accepts head flow and cam information would be useful. I tried using the Comp Cams cam quest software but have issues with it using my Windows 7 software.

Thanks
Click to expand...

When I go to the Comp Cams website I don't even see the CamQuest s/w anymore. Is it still there but buried somewhere on the site?
 
Rocket said:
Any good engine dyno software to use on the Internet? Something that accepts head flow and cam information would be useful. I tried using the Comp Cams cam quest software but have issues with it using my Windows 7 software.

Thanks
Click to expand...


I can run it through Pipemax or Qtr. Jr. Engine Pro for you Pierre. Send your info to my Travelers email.
 
I must be doing something wrong. Both my Dyno2000 and Drag2000 run fine on my Windows7 laptop. But I've had both for something like 15 years now (got them both as a gift), so maybe mine are different than what is on the internet now?
 
I had desktop dyno posted up on moparchat, for years. And i did buy it at Supershops ( imagine how old that is) , but I believe its orphanware now. No longer supported or sold so making use of it is not hurting anyone. Can't collect royalties on something that's no longer sold, right? And you can run most software in comparability mode in windows. Right click icon or exe file and go to properties and select comparability and choose win98 or xp. My version was bought on a 3.5 floppy! Compression really affected power in that program. BG carbs stolen from Holley, professional products..stolen from everyone! HF knocks off everything the day after the patent runs out. Can you put a patent on a CNC port design, I don't think so.
 
What I didn't like about dyno2000 was sometimes my base line camshaft put out more horsepower than the best 10 iterations....

Then I think, "Why did the program bother to save this one?"
 
MY biggest complaint about Dyno2003 is that it doesn't seem to have any measurable difference between a hydraulic camshaft and a solid camshaft.

It's my understanding that any camshaft with lash adjustment has to be several degrees @.050 larger than a hydraulic equivalent to have the same timing at the valve, usually because the .050" measurement is taken at the cam follower (not the valve). This isn't reflected in the calculations and I consider it to be a BIG oversight.
 
It's no oversite. It's the way the system applies limited and generalized info to it's calculations. Think about simple math: 10.346 + 5.987 + 25.976 + 3.500 is 45.809. Now let's "generalize" those numbers a little so it's 10.346 + 6 + 26 + 4 = 46.346. Simple rounding of four simple math operations and we got 1% error.
Now do that for flow characteristics of ports, and intake combinations, and carburetor efficiency, and exhaust port and header design - and apply those to every calculation that goes into calcuating torque and horsepower along a series of RPM from 2K to 6500. It will still plot trends, and sometimes it gets pretty close to dyno cell reality but it's not gospel. And dyno cell reality isn't reality.
 
I'm all for rounding off 1% on a simulation, but that's not what I'm talking about.

But for example the difference between a 230 @ 0.050" hydraulic cam
and a 230 @ 0.050" solid cam

... is HUGE.

I once read something to the effect of "When changing from a hydraulic to a solid cam, add 10 degrees @ 0.050 to get similar valve timing to compensate for lash"

The range of duration in typical aftermarket cams from mild to wild is quite small.

For simplicity's sake

So let's say that a small cam is 200 @ 0.050"
and an extremely large cam is 270 @ 0.050"

70 degrees. from (more or less) one extreme to the other.

If the simulation is ignoring that (approximately) 10 degrees @ 0.050 that is taken up by lash with a solid cam, the entire torque curve is going to be balls up.

Just my opinion.
 
frosty_the_punk said:
I'm all for rounding off 1% on a simulation, but that's not what I'm talking about.

But for example the difference between a 230 @ 0.050" hydraulic cam
and a 230 @ 0.050" solid cam

... is HUGE.

I once read something to the effect of "When changing from a hydraulic to a solid cam, add 10 degrees @ 0.050 to get similar valve timing to compensate for lash"

The range of duration in typical aftermarket cams from mild to wild is quite small.

For simplicity's sake

So let's say that a small cam is 200 @ 0.050"
and an extremely large cam is 270 @ 0.050"

70 degrees. from (more or less) one extreme to the other.

If the simulation is ignoring that (approximately) 10 degrees @ 0.050 that is taken up by lash with a solid cam, the entire torque curve is going to be balls up.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's hard to compare cams to each other when the manufacturers measure and rate them differently. You almost have to degree each one yourself to know exactly how to input them into the software programs. :pale:

I also made a spreadsheet in the past with the different cam specs in them and calculated the rest of them. I did find some cases where the manufacturer supplied conflicting info and it didn't check. :evil3:

That's why I am a proponent of measuring your cams yourself, so they are more accurate comparisons.... #-o
 
frosty_the_punk said:
I'm all for rounding off 1% on a simulation, but that's not what I'm talking about.

But for example the difference between a 230 @ 0.050" hydraulic cam
and a 230 @ 0.050" solid cam

... is HUGE.

I once read something to the effect of "When changing from a hydraulic to a solid cam, add 10 degrees @ 0.050 to get similar valve timing to compensate for lash"

The range of duration in typical aftermarket cams from mild to wild is quite small.

For simplicity's sake

So let's say that a small cam is 200 @ 0.050"
and an extremely large cam is 270 @ 0.050"

70 degrees. from (more or less) one extreme to the other.

If the simulation is ignoring that (approximately) 10 degrees @ 0.050 that is taken up by lash with a solid cam, the entire torque curve is going to be balls up.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yes you are correct in the differences in hydraulic to mechanical .
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/mopp-0312-solid-vs-hydraulic-lifters/
I do also think that a little more could have been done to keep the hydraulic under control in the upper rev ranges, but this test does touch on the timing difference between these two cam types.
Oh yeah, and screw Apple too...I'm glad they never got a good foot hold in the computer market , otherwise we'd all be paying though the nose every time we turned on a computer.
 
frosty_the_punk said:
MY biggest complaint about Dyno2003 is that it doesn't seem to have any measurable difference between a hydraulic camshaft and a solid camshaft.

It's my understanding that any camshaft with lash adjustment has to be several degrees @.050 larger than a hydraulic equivalent to have the same timing at the valve, usually because the .050" measurement is taken at the cam follower (not the valve). This isn't reflected in the calculations and I consider it to be a BIG oversight.
Click to expand...


In cam manager you can set the advertised and .050 duration and it will calculate the acceleration rate. You can choose the lifter type as well. It will show the difference between the different types
 
L4staero said:
In cam manager you can set the advertised and .050 duration and it will calculate the acceleration rate. You can choose the lifter type as well. It will show the difference between the different types
Click to expand...

Desktop Dyno does as well.
 
Thank you all for posting recommendations. I found my old copy of Engine Analyser (1996) but it will not operate with Windows 7. Any way to run this old program on the modern operating systems? I probably used Windows 95 at the time.
 
L4staero said:
In cam manager you can set the advertised and .050 duration and it will calculate the acceleration rate. You can choose the lifter type as well. It will show the difference between the different types
Click to expand...

A few people seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying when i say that solid cams need more duration to make an "equal" power curve as a hydraulic camshaft in an otherwise identical engine.

In desktop dyno2003 changing from hydraulic to solid lifter (and leaving all other cam/engine specs the same. eg, adv duration, 0.050" duration, lift, lobe separation) does absolutely nothing to the simulated output when in reality it would dramatically lessen duration and overlap at the valve due to several crank degrees of cam duration being taken up by lash, creating an earlier power curve / less power at high RPM and more at low RPM.


Picture two engines side by side with identical camshafts. one has adjustable rockers and the other doesn't.

The one with adjustable rockers has .020" of valve lash. This means the LIFTERS move up about .014" before the valve begins to move. (0.014" x 1.5 rocker ratio = .021" lash. there's some loss from geometry there so 0.014" is probably a conservative example)

It takes several degrees of crank rotation to make the lifter move .014". 10 degrees seems to be a good number to work with.

When you rotate both motors at the same speed, the valves will start moving earlier and finish moving later on the one with zero lash. (like a hydraulic lifter) IE, spend more time open.

The one with 0.020" valve lash will start moving the valve later and finish earlier. IE spend less time OPEN

This need for valve lash makes the cam "seem" smaller, even though the cams are both identical, the valvetrain makes the motor respond completely differently.

But not in dyno2003. And that's a big oversight if you ask me.

Ramp rate doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm talking about. But it too remains unchanged when you switch from hyd lifter to a solid in Dyno2003.

Ramp rate is typically more reliable and accurate when the two points of reference are taken at .050" and .200" because they are standardized and not open to interpretation. Advertised duration is the one where every manufacturer chooses for themself when a tappet has begun to rise or finished falling. ie. 0.001? or 0.006? (nobody uses 0.001" just saying)
 
Just in terms of the camshaft inputs -
Look at a lobe profile as measured. It will have the take up ramp, the exact duration at each point over the lift and closing ramps from zero lift to max. If you graphed it using points at .010" intervals, you'd have a picture of a hill with gradual increasing rate of lift from "flat", and a rounded top. That's reality.
Now look at what you supply DD: total duration (doesn't include the take up ramp or closing ramp), and duration at .050". Now plot those two points, plus max lift. Now you have a trapazoidal figure consisting of a straight line from the base circle to .050 lift, and a triangle from .050 lift to max lift.
The 2nd is what the cheaper simulators use and that's why the differences are muted between similar grinds.

Edit - adding to what you've noted in #23 - it simply means the changes you're making fall into the percentage of error of the program.
 
I still consider it an oversight. They very easily could have made the lifter type estimate an appropriate effect on valve timing.

I respect that you consider it as part of the "margin for error" but I don't see it that way, the error doesn't come from miscalculation or inaccurate formula, it comes from lack of calculation entirely .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top