Dynomation Vs. Ea pro

XR8TED · Post by **XR8TED** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:07 pm

I am looking into purchasing one of these programs on monday... Most of the stuff I will be using it for is 4.6/5.4 4v stuff.. What do you guys recommend ?

PFM · Post by **PFM** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:17 pm

Xr8ted,

I have used them both and lean towards EAP. There is a LOT of info you need to supply to get numbers that mean something but the work is worth it. The "new" Dynomation has some nice features but..... When you use the program in Dynomation mode and it predicts 500 HP and then in it's fill emply mode and the SAME engine makes 400 HP well it makes me a bit nervous.

Done right EAP will be close and the trends will be correct.

PFM

jacksoni · Post by **jacksoni** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:04 pm

I don't have any engine that I have modeled to see how accurate they are but have these observations: Darin Morgan has said EAPro is best he has seen and within a few hp dyno real engine one of the RMRE big blocks. I have both old and new Dynomation and EAPro (plus EA regular and ProSim before the dynomation association. The Filling/emptying model is a grown up DeskTop Dyno and makes a lot of assumptions about, for instance, how the intake and exhaust manifolds will behave. They are ok with CR, engine size and cams with look up programs of large numbers of cam files with lifter acceleration etc. The engine I am working on several people suggest( a drag racer running similar engine and Steve Lowe at LSM who is working on block/cam for me) may make 2.65 hp/ci. EAPro and Dynomation with same numbers input are pretty similar peak power, Dynomation a bit more torque/power below peak, a bit less above peak and match what these pros have suggested to me. The engine, if everyting is right might make 325hp (I'll be really happy if I see that). When I run same thing on the filling/empty model in DynoSim mode it says 500+. No freaking way (is an assumption problem) I have emailed to ask them if they have an idea about why it does that.
Being able to look up the large number of cam files and easily see what happens with lift, duration, advance, lobe centers and especially things like tuning intake and exhaust lenghts is good with both. My problem, of course, is I've got no idea real world. All I've got is computer horsepower ( and track times).

You guys with dynos need to step up. And a lot of folks post on here asking what a combo will make, and lots of answers suggest numbers. You using some programs or pulling from thin air- or just experience?

XR8TED · Post by **XR8TED** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:25 pm

I have the EA pro demo it is pretty cool and easy to use..I am pretty young and my focus is airflow I have been trying to understand more and more every year for the last 4 or 5 at a pace instead of trying to cram it all at one time. But I think this could be a tool that can help me out understanding a few things...What has more engine Selections ? I know EA pro has a few but most are older type of engine's I really like the multivalve stuff and i would like something that has a little bit of focus on them...

Thanks for the speedy response's this is a great site and probably one of my best learning tools yet. Hopefully I will be here for many years to come as I see it as just the begining...

Dave

Ron E · Post by **Ron E** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:42 am

Have used EA pro since it came out, along with it;s updates. I don't have dynomation as I was going to order it, and the vendor suggested EAP. I had used Jones' controlled induction III and Lockheed's expert. EAP is very good, and has a lot of base motors to fill in the unknowns. A little too generous sometimes with restricted inlet engines, but overall the results come in pretty close to real dyno numbers. You can play with cams, flow-curve, etc, and get some reliable trends. I only do top-ends, but, that part, at least is very good

MadBill · Post by **MadBill** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:17 am

jacksoni wrote:... I have both old and new Dynomation and EAPro (plus EA regular and ProSim before the dynomation association....
EAPro and Dynomation with same numbers input are pretty similar peak power, Dynomation a bit more torque/power below peak, a bit less above peak ...
All I've got is computer horsepower ( and track times). You guys with dynos need to step up. And a lot of folks post on here asking what a combo will make, and lots of answers suggest numbers. You using some programs or pulling from thin air- or just experience?

A recent work up I did done with Dynomation ver 2.0 (circa 1997) on a road race 355 gave power projections and cam specs closely matched by EAPro ver 3.2, carried out by another party. The cam spec comparison is by far the most important in my mind. Getting a prediction close to actual engine power is a confidence builder, but is subject to a ton of real-world variables which cannot be effectively modelled by an individual, regardless of how sophisticated the software. It's one thing to input actual cam lobe profiles, but what would it take for example to input sufficient combustion chamber data to accurately simulate burn characteristics? What about squish area and clearance? Spark plug location? Piston dome effects? Cylinder to cylinder AFR variations? restrictive bends in headers vs. length variations? Vacuum pan/ring package effects? Wet vs. dry sump, etc., etc..
I think we have a very viable topic here! More input to come...

jacksoni · Post by **jacksoni** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:55 am

MadBill wrote:.for example to input sufficient combustion chamber data to accurately simulate burn characteristics? What about squish area and clearance? Spark plug location? Piston dome effects? Cylinder to cylinder AFR variations? restrictive bends in headers vs. length variations? Vacuum pan/ring package effects? Wet vs. dry sump, etc., etc..
I think we have a very viable topic here! More input to come...

EAPro does have areas to put in ring tension packages, bearing sizes, chamber burn rates, pan configuration (dry sump or no), piston top coatings, skirt design, engine inertia, cooling system, fan etc. Head gets in addition to CR, flows etc, chamber design (wedge, hemi etc) number of valves, head material, etc. Goes on from there but MadBill has very good points. How the entire package really goes together will make lots of difference. If you build the engine optimally, maybe the software comes close but real world dyno and down the track (not the same always) will tell the tale. Trends from the software may be were its at in the final analysis and give you a direction to try once you have something running and real data. See MadBill's signature!

See also this link:
viewtopic.php?t=876&highlight=eapro

And this one: viewtopic.php?t=1297&highlight=eapro