Engine Analyzer... library of parts and values
09-02-2005, 07:14 PM
#34
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DanG
I have EA Pro v3.3 This is the configuration I used. (You might have to delete the '.txt' off the end of the filename)
09-02-2005, 07:15 PM
#35
Race Director
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Duke
hmm, when I edit turbo specs boost pressure never gets above atm when calculating hp? anyone else who has that problem?
09-02-2005, 07:16 PM
#36
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Duke
hmm, when I edit turbo specs boost pressure never gets above atm when calculating hp? anyone else who has that problem?
09-02-2005, 07:21 PM
#37
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way guys...the files that was converted to text files work just fine in the Pro if you save it to their respective "User's Spec"-folder... Heads to "User's Head-files" etc...Just remember to save them to your own name,or they'll suddenly disappear from your libraries...if you open another file without saving the "texted" file first it'll be gone.
09-02-2005, 07:35 PM
#38
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by NZ951
Pro here... same as Duke I think? Is that right Dukey baby? 
ahh I misstook one turbo spec for another, it works just fine
09-03-2005, 10:25 AM
#39
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NZ951
Head
LINDSEY RACING STAGE 3 Porting with 47,8mm intake valves
Intake
Valve diameter 47.8
Average port diameter 42.13
Port length 82.5
Full Intake Flow table @ 28"
Valve Lift"......mm......Flow,CFM
0,07874..........2..........49,57
0,15748..........4..........91,76
0,23622..........6........133,526
0,31496..........8........168,1
0,3937..........10........201,696
0,47244........12........226,357
0,55118........14........239,894
0,62992........16........248,26
Anti-reversion % 0
Compression ratio 8
Exhaust
Valve diameter 38 (Lindsey's HighVelocity Option...)
Average port diameter 34.16
Port length 107.5
Single flow coef .597
Anti-reversion % 0
Chamber design Typical Wedge
09-09-2005, 06:30 AM
#41
UAE Rennlist Ambassador
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
NZ: What i like to know is this, when you started this thread, you entered the combustion design to be a Hemi Design. I then responded by saying that the combustion design is not a Hemi design, which referes to the cylinder head being "half spherical" or "dome" shapped. You didn't update the info there at all, that is untill Skunk chimed in and helped out.
What i am trying to say is that you started this thread and posted some incorrect data (one being the combustion design), what makes you 100% sure that the rest of the data is correct? So far, only Skunk tested the data, it would be nice that if someone also tested the data (according to what spec you have) and gave us more input (and no, i am not saying Skunk is wrong about anything, you just can't have enough information).
Secondly, just how accurate is this program? i recall you mentioned:
Did you compare this software with real life data and got the same results?
What i am trying to say is that you started this thread and posted some incorrect data (one being the combustion design), what makes you 100% sure that the rest of the data is correct? So far, only Skunk tested the data, it would be nice that if someone also tested the data (according to what spec you have) and gave us more input (and no, i am not saying Skunk is wrong about anything, you just can't have enough information).
Secondly, just how accurate is this program? i recall you mentioned:
Originally Posted by NZ951
Empirical data and a general understanding of motor principles is your best defense!
Last edited by hosrom_951; 09-09-2005 at 06:56 AM.
09-09-2005, 07:23 AM
#42
Nordschleife Master
I really like the software some of the 951-engines I have modelled doesn't really turn out as good/correct as I wanted.
But I suppose the main strength is to compare different parts with eachother in the program and see the difference in powerband and peak power. The calculated numbers will however not be the exact numbers of a dyno.
But I suppose the main strength is to compare different parts with eachother in the program and see the difference in powerband and peak power. The calculated numbers will however not be the exact numbers of a dyno.
09-09-2005, 07:35 AM
#43
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hosrom_951
So far, only Skunk tested the data, it would be nice that if someone also tested the data (according to what spec you have) and gave us more input (and no, i am not saying Skunk is wrong about anything, you just can't have enough information).
Secondly, just how accurate is this program?
Did you compare this software with real life data and got the same results?
Did you compare this software with real life data and got the same results?
09-09-2005, 08:42 AM
#44
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skunk Workz
But,141CFM @ 10" is the same as 235.93 CFM @ 28"...so the one we tested was not up to par with what it said on their web page. Neither was any other flow spec,but...that's not my problem.
Nice thread! Keep up the good works.
(skunk, wanna join in building me a 3.0l 16v turbo this winter?
)
