Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Moderator: Team
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:54 pm
- Location: central Florida
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Thanks Larry for your generous input, Mark H. Oh BTW i am going to get the Dart 9 degree heads for my engine build Mark
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
I used to think CSA was super important but then I started to test high port heads vs. low port heads and found out that the engine cares more about the shape of the intake runner than the CSA or volume. The high port heads work a lot better even if the CSA is the same or smaller. Kasse did an interesting article a while back where he dyno tested a wedge head vs. a Hemi head. Both heads had similar flow bench numbers and CSA but the Hemi head made a ton more power.Warp Speed wrote: ↑Sun May 13, 2018 11:44 am It's all about CSA, and the area vs time of the available (read affordable! Lol) valve events for a particular engine size and rpm......?
These valve events, and the achievable area, can change, and often dictate needed CSA adjustments from optimum, for a given architecture, and the resultant velocity achieved........?
IMO
Or something like that?!? Lol
Another example is the NHRA super stock guys who are limited to port volume but not shape. There is only so much they can do so what they tend to do is move the port up and make it straight. The CSA and volume stay the same as stock but the shape is a lot different and they make a ton more power.
I don't think any of the existing formulas capture this. Most of the formulas use CSA to determine velocity and torque peak and such but they miss the bigger picture. There would need to be some sort of effective shape formula. Total intake flow might capture some of the shape issue but I don't think it catches all of the issues.
Andy F.
AR Engineering
AR Engineering
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Don't those guys focus heavily on valve seats and top cuts as well?andyf wrote: ↑Sun May 13, 2018 2:07 pmI used to think CSA was super important but then I started to test high port heads vs. low port heads and found out that the engine cares more about the shape of the intake runner than the CSA or volume. The high port heads work a lot better even if the CSA is the same or smaller. Kasse did an interesting article a while back where he dyno tested a wedge head vs. a Hemi head. Both heads had similar flow bench numbers and CSA but the Hemi head made a ton more power.Warp Speed wrote: ↑Sun May 13, 2018 11:44 am It's all about CSA, and the area vs time of the available (read affordable! Lol) valve events for a particular engine size and rpm......?
These valve events, and the achievable area, can change, and often dictate needed CSA adjustments from optimum, for a given architecture, and the resultant velocity achieved........?
IMO
Or something like that?!? Lol
Another example is the NHRA super stock guys who are limited to port volume but not shape. There is only so much they can do so what they tend to do is move the port up and make it straight. The CSA and volume stay the same as stock but the shape is a lot different and they make a ton more power.
I don't think any of the existing formulas capture this. Most of the formulas use CSA to determine velocity and torque peak and such but they miss the bigger picture. There would need to be some sort of effective shape formula. Total intake flow might capture some of the shape issue but I don't think it catches all of the issues.
Please Note!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:08 pm
- Location: Minneapolis
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Excellent points.andyf wrote: ↑Sun May 13, 2018 2:07 pm I used to think CSA was super important but then I started to test high port heads vs. low port heads and found out that the engine cares more about the shape of the intake runner than the CSA or volume. The high port heads work a lot better even if the CSA is the same or smaller. Kasse did an interesting article a while back where he dyno tested a wedge head vs. a Hemi head. Both heads had similar flow bench numbers and CSA but the Hemi head made a ton more power.
Another example is the NHRA super stock guys who are limited to port volume but not shape. There is only so much they can do so what they tend to do is move the port up and make it straight. The CSA and volume stay the same as stock but the shape is a lot different and they make a ton more power.
I don't think any of the existing formulas capture this. Most of the formulas use CSA to determine velocity and torque peak and such but they miss the bigger picture. There would need to be some sort of effective shape formula. Total intake flow might capture some of the shape issue but I don't think it catches all of the issues.
Randy and warps posts too. A better taller angled port with higher c/d can tolerate higher fps and still choke or stall less than a much larger port will.
-
- HotPass
- Posts: 3460
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:42 pm
- Location:
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
I think Warp meant shape as well, but shape is a result of the CSA or volume for any given port length.
-Bob
-
- Pro
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 10:06 pm
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
The right csa with good velocity profile and it flows what it flows
-
- Guru
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
- Location: NC
-
- Guru
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
- Location: NC
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Agreed, of course the shape is super important, but the CSA still needs to be correct, be it for a good design, or a bad one, to get the most from a given layout/architecture right?andyf wrote: ↑Sun May 13, 2018 2:07 pmI used to think CSA was super important but then I started to test high port heads vs. low port heads and found out that the engine cares more about the shape of the intake runner than the CSA or volume. The high port heads work a lot better even if the CSA is the same or smaller. Kasse did an interesting article a while back where he dyno tested a wedge head vs. a Hemi head. Both heads had similar flow bench numbers and CSA but the Hemi head made a ton more power.Warp Speed wrote: ↑Sun May 13, 2018 11:44 am It's all about CSA, and the area vs time of the available (read affordable! Lol) valve events for a particular engine size and rpm......?
These valve events, and the achievable area, can change, and often dictate needed CSA adjustments from optimum, for a given architecture, and the resultant velocity achieved........?
IMO
Or something like that?!? Lol
Another example is the NHRA super stock guys who are limited to port volume but not shape. There is only so much they can do so what they tend to do is move the port up and make it straight. The CSA and volume stay the same as stock but the shape is a lot different and they make a ton more power.
I don't think any of the existing formulas capture this. Most of the formulas use CSA to determine velocity and torque peak and such but they miss the bigger picture. There would need to be some sort of effective shape formula. Total intake flow might capture some of the shape issue but I don't think it catches all of the issues.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1575
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:54 pm
- Location: central Florida
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Warpspeed---The CSA and or the MCSA (Minimum Cross Sectional Area) have to be designed or sized to get the air SPEED about where it is needed to be when the engine is at full song, is this correct ? Mark H.
-
- Pro
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 10:06 pm
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Getting there, I'd say velocity profile through the entire port shape. Not a number, many local numbers.swampbuggy wrote: ↑Sun May 13, 2018 9:58 pm The CSA and or the MCSA (Minimum Cross Sectional Area) have to be designed or sized to get the air SPEED about where it is needed to be when the engine is at full song, is this correct ? Mark H.
Mike R
- Stan Weiss
- Vendor
- Posts: 4815
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:31 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Contact:
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Larry,maxracesoftware wrote: ↑Sun May 13, 2018 1:38 pm"this formula= H.P. divided by 8 divided by .26 gives you the CFM used + or - 10 CFM."swampbuggy wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 11:54 pm A formula was posted in the Debunker thread that stated you could calculate the CFM the engine used with this formula= H.P. divided by 8 divided by .26 gives you the CFM used + or - 10 CFM.
For torque peak CFM used----use this formula=peak tq. RPM x peak tq. divided by 9000 gives you CFM used at peak tq.
My question is directed at the following. The last engine i had was ma 516" BBC, the HP was 856 @ 6900 the TQ. was 693 @ 5900.
When i run the formulas as shown above i get the following.
CFM at peak HP should be 411
CFM at peak TQ. should be 454
The fact is the intake port flow signed off at 375 CFM at .800" lift.
So is this formula not always accurate or ???? Mark H.
.... this formula "as is" does sometimes get you in the "BallPark",
but also this basic Formula calculates , or can be rearranged to calculate something entirely different , but directly related ,
you would take that new value , and plug it into another equation and get something really great or fantastic
likewise .... sort of hidden in plain site on most Dyno Sheets posted on various Forums
is exactly related to your Thread Title "Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?" or "Calculating Cyl Head CFM used from Dyno sheet ?"
... what i mean by "hidden in plain site" , is i've never seen anyone mention or talk about it since the Internet began .
"HP was 856 @ 6900 the TQ. was 693 @ 5900"
6900 RPM - 5900 = 1000 RPM spread between Peak HP RPM point and Peak TQ RPM
i used 12:1 CR input + i just quickly inputed various values into PipeMax v3.98... so only you know how close they are ?
i calculate it was possible to make 713.3 Peak TQ ( if you had 12:1 CR ? )
713.3 - 693.0 = 20.3 Lbs Torque missing ... and this shows up as partial reason or result from only 1000 RPM spread
one indicator for Peak TQ not quite matching up to Peak HP output ==>> is usually not enough RPM spread
i'm probably a little wrong on the exact amounts of that 20.3 TQ missing , but the missing TQ effect is the same for such a spread .
for your 375 CFM at 0.800 Valve Lift ,
you can look at PipeMax's 380.2 CFM as what the bare Cyl Head with a Radius Entry would need to Flowtest at 0.835 Valve Lift
and also look at it this way=> that the 359.0 CFM would be what you like the entire Induction Path to Flowtest at 0.835 Valve Lift
Required Intake Flow CFM @28 in. = 359.0 to 380.2 at .835 inch Valve Lift
Required Exhaust Flow CFM @28 in. = 271.6 to 294.3 at .749 inch Valve Lift
...same way with Exhaust ... 294.3 CFM might be what you see with a Flow Pipe
and 271.6 CFM would be bare exhaust Port CFM on a Flowtest
380.2 max CFM at 0.835 inch Valve Lift predicted is pretty close to your 375.0 CFM @ 0.800" Lift
you can also calculate CFM from Air/Fuel Ratio and Lbs/Fuel/Hour consumed, along with Weather data
looking at a Dyno Sheet if that info is there or available
This is an example of both SCFM and VE being calculated.
Code: Select all
======= INPUT
; RPM Torque Fuel BSFC A/F
; lb/hr Ratio
Acceleration = 3700 425.9 142.2 0.514 11.61
Acceleration = 3800 423.0 141.7 0.503 11.68
Acceleration = 3900 422.4 142.0 0.492 11.69
Acceleration = 4000 421.1 141.6 0.480 11.84
Acceleration = 4100 421.2 142.0 0.469 12.04
Acceleration = 4200 420.6 142.6 0.461 12.15
Acceleration = 4300 420.7 144.8 0.457 12.23
Acceleration = 4400 423.1 146.3 0.450 12.41
========= OUTPUT / Calculated
Dyno Barometric Pressure = 29.92 - Dyno Vapor Pressure = 0.45 - Dyno Air Temperature = 95.5
Fuel UnCorr UnCorr UnCorr Correct A/F
RPM Horse Torque BMEP lb/hr BSFC HP Torque BMEP Factor Ratio SCFM VE%
3700 300.0 425.9 167.8 142.20 .5140 276.7 392.7 154.8 1.0845 11.61 360.5 95.4
3800 306.1 423.0 166.7 141.70 .5030 281.7 389.4 153.4 1.0864 11.68 361.4 93.1
3900 313.7 422.4 166.5 142.00 .4920 288.6 388.7 153.2 1.0868 11.69 362.4 91.0
4000 320.7 421.1 165.9 141.60 .4800 295.0 387.3 152.6 1.0872 11.84 366.1 89.6
4100 328.8 421.2 166.0 142.00 .4690 302.8 387.8 152.8 1.0860 12.04 373.3 89.2
4200 336.4 420.6 165.7 142.60 .4610 309.3 386.8 152.4 1.0874 12.15 378.3 88.2
4300 344.4 420.7 165.8 144.80 .4570 316.8 387.0 152.5 1.0871 12.23 386.7 88.1
4400 354.5 423.1 166.7 146.30 .4500 325.1 388.1 152.9 1.0903 12.41 396.4 88.2
Stan Weiss/World Wide Enterprises
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Offering Performance Software Since 1987
http://www.magneticlynx.com/carfor/carfor.htm
David Vizard & Stan Weiss' IOP / Flow / Induction Optimization Software
http://www.magneticlynx.com/DV
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Found this formula while digging through an old note book from 40 years ago.
Peak cfm demand cid x rpm x .0009785/no. of cyl.
500 x 11000 x .0009785 / 8 = 672cfm, close to the other formula,
Will anyone in the know comment on how close this cfm is to real life results?
Peak cfm demand cid x rpm x .0009785/no. of cyl.
500 x 11000 x .0009785 / 8 = 672cfm, close to the other formula,
Will anyone in the know comment on how close this cfm is to real life results?
BORN RIGHT THE FIRST TIME
- John Wallace
- Guru
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 10:20 am
- Location: was Central Illinois - Now in Sunny Florida!
- Contact:
-
- Vendor
- Posts: 3647
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:04 pm
- Location: Abbeville, LA
- Contact:
Re: Calculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Hi John ... i thought the same thing when i read DrillDawg 's Post
... that was from an old Post of mine .
in PipeMax , i'm Looping thousands of times thru many different equations .. to calculate CFM at each crankshaft degreeCalculating CFM used from Dyno sheet ?
Post by swampbuggy » Fri May 11, 2018 10:54 pm
A formula was posted in the Debunker thread that stated you could calculate the CFM the engine used with this formula= H.P. divided by 8 divided by .26 gives you the CFM used + or - 10 CFM.
For torque peak CFM used----use this formula=peak tq. RPM x peak tq. divided by 9000 gives you CFM used at peak tq.
My question is directed at the following. The last engine i had was ma 516" BBC, the HP was 856 @ 6900 the TQ. was 693 @ 5900.
When i run the formulas as shown above i get the following.
CFM at peak HP should be 411
CFM at peak TQ. should be 454
The fact is the intake port flow signed off at 375 CFM at .800" lift.
So is this formula not always accurate or ???? Mark H
to arrive at Engine or Cylinder CFM Demand ... and this 1 line simple equation just about comes close to the same answer or result
... anyone could further fine-tune either Constants = 0.001030633 or 130 to suit their Data
CID = Cubic Inch displacement
Cylinders = the Number of Cylinders
VE% = the Volumetric Efficiency PerCent in a whole number , like 107.0 % VE
* = multiplication or like a similar sign x
an updated super simple empirical equation version is :
Intake Port CFM @28" = (CID * Peak HP RPM * 0.001030633 * VE) / (Cylinders * 130)
worked example :
Intake Port CFM @28" = (CID * Peak HP RPM * 0.001030633 * VE) / (Cylinders * 130)
Intake Port CFM @28" = (516 * 6900 * 0.001030633 *107) / (8* 130)
Intake Port CFM @28" = 377.53 CFM ..... Mark H 's CFM = 375 CFM @ 0.800" Valve Lift
107.0 VE input in PipeMax v3.98 makes 855.6 Peak HP ... Mark's Peak HP = 856.0 @ 6900
i could have nit-picked it closer to get exactly = 856.0 HP
more worked examples :
Briggs 6 HP Raptor 1 Cylinder
Intake Port CFM @28" = (12.568 * 4500* 0.001030633 *77) / (1* 130)
Intake Port CFM @28" = 34.52 CFM @ 28"
ProStock 500cid at 9800 RPM
Intake Port CFM @28" = (500 * 9800 * 0.001030633 * 125) / (8 * 130)
Intake Port CFM @28" = 606.98 CFM
Sonny's 1005.84 cid at 8000 RPM
Intake Port CFM @28" = (1005.84 * 8000 * 0.001030633 * 95) / (8 * 130)
Intake Port CFM @28" = 757.55 CFM
a 442cid SBC with Dart Pro 1's Ported to 245-246CC's 317 to 323 CFM making 816 HP at 8200 RPM
in another Thread on SpeedTalk :
Intake Port CFM @28" = (442 * 8200 * 0.001030633 * 90) / (8 * 130)
Intake Port CFM @28" = 323.26 CFM
Chris_Uratchko_466cid__CU_Marcella_SB_Chevy_ROX_1244_HP ( YellowBullet )
500 CFM Cyl Head Flow 9400 Peak HP RPM
Intake Port CFM @28" = (466.9 * 9400 * 0.001030633 *115) / (8 * 130)
Intake Port CFM @28" = 500.17 CFM
GreenLight's NHRA record setting Honda S2000 engine 7.96 ET in F/Dragster
360 CFM at 0.600 Lift on my Bench
Intake Port CFM @28" = (127.6 * 11000 * 0.001030633 * 128) / (4 * 130)
Intake Port CFM @28" = 356.09 CFM
128 VE supposedly on EnDyn's SF901 Dyno
Hoffman_32.6cid_7000RPM
32.60366191 Cubic Inches
Bore: 3.543" (90mm)
Stroke: 3.307" (84mm)
Rod Length: 5.709" (145mm)
Cylinders: 1
Compression: 10:1
Intake: 1.900" valve
Flow numbers at 28" with the entire intake tract bolted on (spigot,carburetor, velocity stack)
.100 61.6
.200 113.8
.300 172.5
.400 200
.500 208.3 <<----------
.600 216.3
Intake Port CFM @28" = (32.6* 7000 * 0.001030633 * 115) / (1 * 130)
Intake Port CFM @28" = 208.05 CFM
reduced ... even simpler easier equation version is :
Intake Port CFM @28" = (CID * Peak HP RPM * 0.000007928 * VE) / Cylinders
my SF-600 Bench is on the "conservative side" ,, around -15 CFM less ???
so someone applying my equation could adjust the CFM results to align with their Flowbench !