View Single Post
Old 01-21-2013, 11:32 PM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
ever_green's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 263

Blueberry - '17 Mazda Mazda3 GS
90 day: 32.56 mpg (US)

EVO - '08 Mitsubishi Evolution MR
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 77 Times in 32 Posts
Originally Posted by mwebb View Post
$500 for software that does not connect to the car ...
it calculates things based on inputs that are supplied by the user , assuming the software writers did their job correctly ...

the user can see calculations which may or may not be correct or close to correct
neat ? then what ? will you be able to measure or test the results of your tampering to see if there is an improvement in something ? or an UN improvement ?
no you can not not even a little ....

imho it is better to be able to measure what is really happening

another calculated value BUT based on inputs from the actual car MEASURED by the software , if you change something the software will MEASURE it and the values will be reflected in the graph or log or whatever
Escan by ats


SpeedTracer a no extra charge clingon in AutoEnginuity

both have a learning curve , but both of these software s actually connect to your system and measure changes in your system , modifications can be MEASURED and TESTED

software that calculates but does not measure ?
define educated guess. there are online calculators that guess very well ,
results based on user inputs and the online software calculations.
they are free .

you can not accurately calculate VE at partial load .

Test do not guess .
cool stuff, but this was not about accuracy. this was more about simulations in engine build and the fun factor in it. BSFC was just an example i was giving and nothing to be relied upon. The most interesting thing about this software is learning what affects certain performance aspect of powertrain. ie. smaller diameter/length runners improve low end torque or retarding cam timing can improve top end performance + reduce knock. wasn't trying to or even pretending to actually use data from this system. Even still the torque curve i posted above is a 90% match to the torque curve my vehicle pulled on a chassis dyno. specially the cummins 5.9L which is almost identical to manufacturer specs. 90% coincidence? maybe, but i'm not too sure...
  Reply With Quote