Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: another camquest post [Re: emarine01] #902791
01/14/11 09:29 PM
01/14/11 09:29 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,682
Philadelphia
R
radar Offline
top fuel
radar  Offline
top fuel
R

Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,682
Philadelphia
I have the desktop dyno 2003 version. I don't put much stock in it but the results I got plugging in my combo seemed pretty right on. I have a mild 408 smallblock with eddy 60779 heads and a comp 275hl cam. The curves it shows seem pretty right on compared to driving the car.

I definitely used the program when I was picking out components, not as a for sure dead on simulation but as a fun way to see how different factors might work together. Here's the graph it spit out for 10.5:1CR headers and 750 holley with my cam and heads:



Maybe the more exotic builds don't compute as well?

Re: another camquest post [Re: Stanton] #902792
01/14/11 10:08 PM
01/14/11 10:08 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,930
NC
440Jim Offline
I Live Here
440Jim  Offline
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,930
NC
I agree, there is not a lot of guidance on what inputs to choose. It doesn't let you put the header dia and length in, so what is the right choice? But once you get the model set to reflect your actual dyno numbers, you can use it to see what a change would do.

I was going crazy with nutty outputs until somebody pointed out an input mistake I was making in the head flow screen (valve dia).

Re: another camquest post [Re: 440Jim] #902793
01/14/11 11:40 PM
01/14/11 11:40 PM
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,695
nc
E
emarine01 Offline
master
emarine01  Offline
master
E

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,695
nc
I was just playing around with cam quest and the average hp and torque #s with my cam are way better than the cams, cam quest recommended but the peek hp is lower by 20 hp, whats better average or peek for moving weight

Page 2 of 2 1 2






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1