i would like this dyno 'd if someone could thanks 454 .030 over edelbrock oval port heads pn #60459 110 cc chambers, rpm air gap intake , lunati cam lift I .629 E .612
lobe lift I .370 E .360
adv. dur. I .293 E .303
lobe cent. I 112 E .116
.050 dur. I.234 E .244
rods 6.135 bushed eagle sir 7/16 bolts
wiseco pistons PTO10H3 .030
1.7 roller rockers
not sure of which carb to use the car is a 65 w/ 4 spd again thanks.

oops the cam is a hyd. roller

If you find someone that has the software to do that.....let me know. :D

You were kinda vague with your details, so I had to fill in the blanks myself... Doing that I got...

552hp @ 5500
566tq @ 4500

racnjsn95 thanks, what info did you need ? thanks jay

Just bought the Desktop Dyno cd off of ebay for $9.99 AT that price why not just get it yourself?
smile.gif

Only $9.99? Is it accurate???? I think i'll have to get one of it is.

RacnJsn95 would you mind running my combo through that desktop dyno?

It's.....

327 .040 over
10:1 comp
edelbrock performer intake w/ 600cfm carb
Performer RPM heads
intake port volume 170cc
exhaust port volume 60cc
chamber volume 70cc
1.5 roller rockers valves 2.02 int. 1.60exh
272H10 crane cam
duration at .050 216 intake 216 exhaust
lift .454 intake .454 exhaust
LSA 110degrees

is anything else needed?
Thanks a bunch! :D *anxiously waiting* smile.gif

just searched ebay cheapest i found dd2000 was 19.99 were did you find it for 9.00 please
thanx,
shane

heck, even at $19 its still worth it if it is a good program. Is there a site other than e-bay where it can be purchased? smile.gif
john66

Originally posted by jhunt:
heck, even at $19 its still worth it if it is a good program...I agree!

Long post coming up, hope this helps.

For what its worth, when I first started using DD2000, my results were overoptimistic { downright unrealistic}. In order to establish some level of acceptable deviation in the results, I loaded several {actually many} simulations based on actual published dyno'd engines. Chevrolet's are a good source becasue of the all the published head flow data out there.
I would tell you to gather published dyno results, validate the head flow numbers used for the engine and get accurate cam timing that was used.

I have found the most accurate results have been obtained from paying attention to the following:

a. Cylinder head flow data - set it up in breaks of .100, .200, etc, etc. up to .600 lift or .700 lift if you are using that high a lift. (data from ChevyHiperformance}
b. Compression - have to be realistic. I think the program overcompensates for extreme increases in compression ratio , ie going from 9.0 to 11.0+. In the real world, a cam that will work with 9.0 will cause certain engine death @ 11.0.+
c. Intake manifold - the results for Top End HP are obscure. Use the dual plane setting for 90% of all applications. The single plane mode overcompensates on the offest between top end gain and bottum end loss predictions.
d. Header size - use small tube w/ mufflers for SBC, large tube with mufflers for BBC. {assuming you are going to run headers. Most if not all old factory ratings were done with headers anyway.}
e. Cam timing - this is the weak point in the program. There is no definitive way to define the parameters of lobe lift rate and the varying amount of duration at .200 - .300 lobe lift that is a big part in the performance aspects of cam profiles, given a similiar advertised seat or .050 duration. The intructions tell you this. The results should be better if you could enter the .050 lift dur., but the program ultimately converts everything back to seat {.006} timing. Input the data for the intended cam type and accept the results with a grin.
If you actually come out within 5%, I would say that is not bad for a simulation, considering you have not been able to include details on piston / rotating assembly wt, rod length, friction, adders/subtracters for clearance, etc. The results may be closer to +/- 3%, again not bad. The postive part of this is the ability to establish the performance trend for the intended engine. In my own case, I was mixing/adding parts based on what I had used 20+ years ago. This definitely showed up as an area to correct. As a result, I wound up using a smaller cam {shouldn't we all}, dropping compression, using smaller heads. The 408BBC I have was origninally going to be put together like an old 396 Super Stock motor we had run { again, long time ago}. The new 408BBC engine will be much more fun to drive, and reliable as well. What was heading to a 6500-6800 rpm+ BBC is now a 5800 - 6200 rpm BBC with a lot more power overall, especially in the 2000 - 5000 rpm range. Cause we all know that's where the real acceleration occurs.

Hope this helps.

pegleg71:Ballpark fiqure hp 388@6000 & tq 389@4500! graemlins/waving.gif

I had no idea it was that cheap. had i known that , i would have bought one . thanks all

i dont like hte program.. it seems to inaccurate to me.

Typical computer program - only as good as the inputed data. Garbage in - garbage out. If you standardize the inputing of data to several known combinations and then compare the results it is not bad. Not for exact HP or TQ {too many variables for that} but rather for the Power curve, ie 2000 - 5000, 3000 - 6000. I think that aspect of it is realistic.

if anyone wants the program I could email it to you. its about 1 meg zipped.

Thanks for running the numbers for me JRS70LS5. If that's about right i'll be happy. :D Especially after a 100 - 150 shot is added to it. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Thanks again

brad email me it buddy :D also check your icq some time man gezzz

hey Cord, I had to reformat my computer a while back because my surge protector sucked and my hd got toasted on a power outage. I never reinstalled it. Hit me up on email.

on the lame hotmail or got a real one you want to give me

... You think I could get it too smile.gif ??
aubreyt213@netzero.com
I don't have high speed though

malibuman400 is that your black 71' ?? That is a BEAUTIFULLLLLLL car!!!!!!!! graemlins/thumbsup.gif graemlins/thumbsup.gif graemlins/thumbsup.gif graemlins/thumbsup.gif That's almost exactly what I want mine to be like...except just a little slower. :D

Originally posted by pegleg71:
malibuman400 is that your black 71' ?? That is a BEAUTIFULLLLLLL car!!!!!!!! graemlins/thumbsup.gif graemlins/thumbsup.gif graemlins/thumbsup.gif graemlins/thumbsup.gif That's almost exactly what I want mine to be like...except just a little slower. :D No mine is the blue slow one in my sig graemlins/beers.gif

Originally posted by 66chevyIISS:
if anyone wants the program I could email it to you. its about 1 meg zipped. Thanks!!! :D

Brad
I know there are a lot of requests but could I get a copy also? Thanks graemlins/hurray.gif
John 66

Oh, the e-mail is
blazerman00@aol.com
thanks
john graemlins/clonk.gif

no problem, I am at work it only takes a second to send ;)

graemlins/hurray.gif

:D + graemlins/beers.gif + graemlins/waving.gif = smile.gif

RacnJsn95,I'm impressed with your DD numbers. My engine is almost exactly the same as Jays and you were 1hp and 2ft/lbs.tqe off from mine. On the dyno mine made 553hp and 564ft/lbs tqe. the rpms were a little different but your numbers came out closer than mine when I ran DD before the build.Did you use DD2k or plain old DD. I used the old version. You did a good job on your input.

Brad, I sure could use one too.
Thanks,