Dyno 2000 software

John Rogers · 08-17-2002, 05:29 PM

I got the Dyno 2000 software to see if it matched what we were getting on the dyno with my big 4 race engine and I was pleasently surprised to find it is right on the mark! We are going to make a cam change and I was worried I would lose a bunch of power but the software said the power would stay the same and the torque curve would flatten out some? We are going to lower the lift at the valve from 0.546 to 0.500 and keep the duration the same to slow the valves down and hopefully eliminate the breakage problem we've been having. I guess the rule of thumb that once a valve gets so far open, additional lift does no good is true.
As for power, it said I have 219 HP at 6000 RPM which is within a HP of what we got on the dyno and the torque curve was just about the same.

Brad Roberts · 08-17-2002, 06:18 PM

Pretty impressive numbers.

Give us the break down on whats in the engine.

Our 1.8 FP engines dyno at 185-190 depending on whose dyno we run them on.

This is with a .625 lift cam and 94mm P+C's with class legal stock size valves and Pauter rocker arms.

B

campbellcj · 08-17-2002, 06:49 PM

Looks pretty cool John, if this is the right link (from Google):

http://www.motionsoftware.com/dyno2000prodpage.htm

There is another similar sounding package called Virtual Engine 2000. It's a little cheaper.

I might give one of these a shot. Curious to find out what a cam change might do on my car. It's got a pretty mild (street) cam in it now.

John Rogers · 08-17-2002, 07:19 PM

That's the software. I got the $69 package with the cam and drag race software and they seem to be pretty good too as I drag race the 914 too when I have the short/close ratio gear box in.

Brad Roberts · 08-17-2002, 07:23 PM

Chris,

let me know when you *get* a copy. My desktop dyno is getting old and setting the dyno up every time gets old... LOL

B

campbellcj · 08-17-2002, 08:49 PM

Yeah...I know it gets tedious when you have to choose which one of the 2 or 3 dynos you feel like firing up that day, LOL.

Seeing as I spend 12-16 hours a day in front of the computer, and don't have a dyno in the back yard, this kinda software program sounds appealing. Not to mention that supposedly you can model/test certain kinds of mods before you actually spend real green money and time to do them...I like that idea.

Brad Roberts · 08-17-2002, 08:52 PM

When I go home from the shop and my elbows/neck/hands hurt from working all day... I wish I was back in front of computer where only my butt and eyes hurt.

b

Andyrew · Andyrew's Garage

Thats the program they use to show hp performance for a online game i play www.motorcityonline.com , if its the same as the game it should be real accurate and nice. just my .02 cents

neilca · 08-19-2002, 06:35 AM

John,
I have been playing with Dyno 2000 for a while now. I have not built anything yet based on the info provided from this program. It is good to see someone has correlation between the software and the hardware. I have two questions:

1. What set up do use use for cylinder head, induction and exhaust?

2. The program keeps coming up with cams for me with a long centerline like 116 degrees. Are you running these long centerlines?

Thanks,
neilca

John Rogers · 08-19-2002, 07:45 AM

I used the most radical heads they listed for two valve design since I have a set of welded/flowed heads with reshaped ports on the engine. I have 48mm intake and 38mm exhaust valves. The cam is pretty radical, about the same as the one on WEB Cam's type4 listing as the "radical road race" cam with 0.546 lift, 282 degrees of duration, etc. When I input the numbers for opening/closing it matched right up with the cam car. One thing I noticed is there is no place for rocker arm ratio as I have 1.48 Pauter roller rockers but since my cam card lists everything "at the valve" I guess it does not matter? For induction, I figured the cylinder volume and calc'd at 6000RPM what will be going through the engine in CFM and then found that it nearly equates to an 1100 CFM Holly since I think my Weber 48's are about the same efficiency, maybe better? For exhaust I used racing headers with 4 into 1 with no muffler which is what my exhaust is when racing. I noted my engine is just about 50% of a 355 cubic inch race engine when it comes to power which is about what it should be. They sell a cam software package that will let you do any cam you want and then use it in the engine and I got all their packages for the $69 special deal price.

neilca · 08-19-2002, 09:32 AM

John,
I think your assumptions are correct. As I recall from the Desktop Dyno (original program) book it stated the weber was about 500 CFM. Of course you have two to get to the 1000 CFM. I also have the cam software which i have used to optimise the cam. That is were the long centerlines came from. I am very tempted to hav Reed Cams grind one just to test out. Try the cam iterator see if yours comes up with these long centerlines.

neil

John Rogers · 08-19-2002, 07:44 PM

An interesting thing happened at the shop tonight and we were playing with cam timming. My cam as in the software is set at 0 degrees and we tried at -1 degree timing and the graph picked up nearly 8 HP! Whoa!

Brad Roberts · 08-19-2002, 07:55 PM

I dont know what happened to them, but a company from Colorado called Dial-a-Cam used to sell the straight cut gears for type4 camshafts that came with offset bushings so you could degree in your camshaft with plus or minus adv/retard.

B

08-27-2002, 11:58 AM

John,

I have a question about your CFM number.

My formula, CFM = (RPM x CU. IN.)/3456 x 0.85, shows a 1971cc motor to pull 177 CFM.

Please comment.

Ken

Don914 · 08-27-2002, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by neilca
John,
I think your assumptions are correct. As I recall from the Desktop Dyno (original program) book it stated the weber was about 500 CFM. Of course you have two to get to the 1000 CFM.
neil

The info I have seen for Weber carbs from the Type IV Forum shows these flow values (with stock venturis):

40s= 212 CFM

44s =290 CFM

48s = 340 CFM

According to your numbers, I believe John added 320 CFM (1000 CFM - (340 CFM x 2)) by swapping the venturis. Can a swapping venturis make that much change?

TIA,

Don

John Rogers · 08-27-2002, 06:26 PM

My engine is a 2.8l and has a substantial vacuum in the crankcase at high RPM so the drag racers say to figure 100% efficiency although many of them use 110% efficient? The Webers have been modified to increase flow as per Gene Berg. The size of the carb was based on an educated guess since I was equating to a large 4 barrel carb and again several drag racers use the 1100 CFM Holley for generating max power. What will happen is that if the carb is too large there will be a big loss of power at low RPMs and as I have found in races the engine has huge amounts of torque at 3000 RPM, enough that I have to be careful of smoking those Goodyear slicks!!

Dave at Pelican Parts · Dave at Pelican Parts's Garage

CFM = (RPM x CU. IN.)/3456 x 0.85, shows a 1971cc motor to pull 177 CFM.

My math doesn't match that...

5600 RPM * 120 Cu In [1971cc] / 3456 * 0.85 = 165 CFM.

CFM calculations get a little odd when you go between common-plenum carbs (as in the single progressive or a V8 single-carb setup) and individual-runner carbs (like duals on a 914). You have to figure out if the IR carb is drawing the whole time, or only drawing during 1 cycle out of four... And you have to decide if the common-plenum setup draws through every stroke out of four, or what...

Most of the CFM calculations are applied to V8 motors with single-carb setups. (Cause that's what the majority of "performance" applications in the US are, and where the money is.) So it gets a little odd trying to compare those numbers to what a dual-carbed 914 motor is doing.

--DD

08-28-2002, 07:16 AM

Sorry Dave forgot to state my RPM @ 6000.

John, even at 2800cc @ 6000RPM @ 100% the basic "air pump" will only draw 296 CFM.

I have talked to the guy at Dyno 2000 and he has no good answer why the HP goes up as the Carbs or IRs get bigger, other than to say the program can be "fooled" and to use "your" best judgement.

That being said, I found Dyno 2000 to be very close to the measured Dynoed numbers on my 914-6. There I calculated the CFM for the 40mm venturies for the 6 Webers and used that number.

Yea - I know spend $400 and use the program Jake uses.

Ken

Don914 · 08-28-2002, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by john rogers
My engine is a 2.8l and has a substantial vacuum in the crankcase at high RPM so the drag racers say to figure 100% efficiency although many of them use 110% efficient?

I believe the use of 110% efficiency comes from the ram-air effect that resonance causes at a ceraian RPM with a correctly designed intake manifold.

Later,

Don

John Rogers · 08-28-2002, 09:29 AM

Remember my original intention was to check for CHANGES in HP due to engine changes, not to get a particular HP reading. That said, I constantly notice that the drag racers use Weber 48 IDAs on 2100 and 2200 CC engines and go to 54's on engines that are bigger? I know the IDA carb can flow more, but it's poor transition from part to full throttle has stopped me from using them. They seem to like wide open only?