Engine Analyzer software
Thread Starter
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,752
Likes: 4
From: Austin Texas
Engine Analyzer software
I d'loaded the demo version. and was wondering how accurate it is, verus DD2000, which I feel is not. E/A does have more info/parameters.....you opinions, please.....
Le Mans Master
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 5,877
Likes: 1
From: Park Ridge IL
I haven't used Engine Analyzer, but I've used DD2000 in the past and currently use DynoSim Advanced with ProTools. I used DD2000 to help design a couple of engines including a naturally aspirated SBC 427, a twin turbocharged SBC 427, and a pair of 540's for my boat. All the engines were subsequently dyno tested on a Superflow engine dyno. When I compared the predicted results from the software against the real world results, in all cases, the software was accurate to within 1-2%. At some rpms, the predicted hp and tq was within 2-3 hp or lb ft of the real thing.
The DynoSim Advance with ProTools I'm currently using is similar to DD2000 but has additional features and parameters.
The DynoSim Advance with ProTools I'm currently using is similar to DD2000 but has additional features and parameters.
Race Director
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 12,712
Likes: 2,264
I have EA, but I started with DD2000 and have several other iterations of it.
I now use EA almost exclusively. In terms of accuracy it is very close on top end power, but about 8 percent high on peak torque and 10-20 percent low on bottom end torque. Actual engines have flatter torque curves than predicted.
What I like about EA are the output diagnostics, in particular the Mach Index, which tells you how much inlet flow potential remains, if any. Also, EA allows simulation of exhaust restriction, front end accessories, and SAE net power, which is also quite useful because it comes down to what an engine will make in the car. You can get big SAE gross numbers on a dyno, but if you put much exhaust restriction on a big overlap cam the SAE net just gets KILLED. Since ambient conditions can be selected to match any expected value, EA was very useful for system engineering a Bonneville engine
Weaknesses? I wish I could turn off the detonation/retard function or at least adjust its sensitivity because I think its too aggressive.
A general weakness of all these programs is camshaft modeling, particularly mechanical lifter cams because the duration at .050" includes the clearance ramps. I have models for all the OE mechanical lifter cams using .050" valve rise ABOVE the tops of the ramps, which yields reasonable results that are directly comparable to hydraulic cam .050" lifter rise results.
Duke
I now use EA almost exclusively. In terms of accuracy it is very close on top end power, but about 8 percent high on peak torque and 10-20 percent low on bottom end torque. Actual engines have flatter torque curves than predicted.
What I like about EA are the output diagnostics, in particular the Mach Index, which tells you how much inlet flow potential remains, if any. Also, EA allows simulation of exhaust restriction, front end accessories, and SAE net power, which is also quite useful because it comes down to what an engine will make in the car. You can get big SAE gross numbers on a dyno, but if you put much exhaust restriction on a big overlap cam the SAE net just gets KILLED. Since ambient conditions can be selected to match any expected value, EA was very useful for system engineering a Bonneville engine
Weaknesses? I wish I could turn off the detonation/retard function or at least adjust its sensitivity because I think its too aggressive.
A general weakness of all these programs is camshaft modeling, particularly mechanical lifter cams because the duration at .050" includes the clearance ramps. I have models for all the OE mechanical lifter cams using .050" valve rise ABOVE the tops of the ramps, which yields reasonable results that are directly comparable to hydraulic cam .050" lifter rise results.
Duke
Intermediate
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
From: Valley Center Kansas
Originally Posted by Monty
I haven't used Engine Analyzer, but I've used DD2000 in the past and currently use DynoSim Advanced with ProTools. I used DD2000 to help design a couple of engines including a naturally aspirated SBC 427, a twin turbocharged SBC 427, and a pair of 540's for my boat. All the engines were subsequently dyno tested on a Superflow engine dyno. When I compared the predicted results from the software against the real world results, in all cases, the software was accurate to within 1-2%. At some rpms, the predicted hp and tq was within 2-3 hp or lb ft of the real thing.
The DynoSim Advance with ProTools I'm currently using is similar to DD2000 but has additional features and parameters.
The DynoSim Advance with ProTools I'm currently using is similar to DD2000 but has additional features and parameters.
