Why HP/TQ difference when using seat timing to duration at .050" lift
Why HP/TQ difference when using seat timing to duration at .050" lift
Im using my engine analyzer and trying to find out what HP/TQ I might be getting when Im finished with my engine update. SR and LE 210 AFR heads
I know these simulations are not going to give me the exact numbers, but I thought at least when using seat timing and then duration at .050" lift they would be about the same +- 2-3 HP.
Why do I have such a big discrepancy, although it fits at 4900-5400 rpm???
RPM ..seat timing 050
2400 ..375 364 TQ
3400 ..399 379 TQ
4900 ..525 524 TQ
5400 ..537 540 TQ
6400 ..604 618 HP
6900 ..593 609 HP
I know these simulations are not going to give me the exact numbers, but I thought at least when using seat timing and then duration at .050" lift they would be about the same +- 2-3 HP.
Why do I have such a big discrepancy, although it fits at 4900-5400 rpm???
RPM ..seat timing 050
2400 ..375 364 TQ
3400 ..399 379 TQ
4900 ..525 524 TQ
5400 ..537 540 TQ
6400 ..604 618 HP
6900 ..593 609 HP
You are right about the software not asking or knowing the exact lobe profile. I tried a 10 trial offer from EA 3.09 which is really not bad, but still there was a big discrepancy in numbers.
I recall someone on a different forum asking the same question but no one really knew a good answer.
I'll just take an average of the HP/TQ numbers and see how it compares to the real world dyno numbers.
I recall someone on a different forum asking the same question but no one really knew a good answer.
I'll just take an average of the HP/TQ numbers and see how it compares to the real world dyno numbers.
Well, you can infer what assumptions the software makes, FWIW. If it shows more power using adv. duration it implies that the software is modeling a more aggresive lobe and vice versa. I am not a software engineer, but it seems like it shouldn't be very much more difficult to write the program to use at least the three commonly published durations (0.006, 0.050, and 0.200) for a better sim.
Rich
Rich
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Jan 23, 2015 01:13 PM
bossco
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
4
Nov 29, 2014 10:18 AM



