79Corvette02

Is it me, or does Desktop Dyno seem to be extremely conservative when measuring certain combinations, and grossly inflate others? Is it just the strange interaction between parameters-like a set of heads that flow less than a straw combined with a huge cam? When I plugged in my combo, I almost cried :cry . Time to save more money....

Corey_68

I agree and to make matters worse it's GROSS hp and not NET.

*At least that what I was told. :cry

bence13_33

I'm not sure, but I remember hearing that when Monty dyno'ed his motor Desktop Dyno was within 5% accurate. It seems like a pretty accurate program. I enjoy the program because it gives me a "ballpark" idea of what to expect whenever you start swapping parts. The true test is when you run the motor on a engine/chasis dyno.

Bearcat

You have to make sure not to cheat on DD2000. Meaning, be honest. If you're using small tube headers and mufflers, say so. I think DD2000 is optimistic, personally. I also think it ignores certain proven parameters, for example, rod length, or increasing boost on a turbo engine. I once put 99 psi of boost on an engine and it showed no difference from 15 psi or 7 psi. When I called Mr. Gasket and talked to someone on the tech line, they tried to tell me it doesn't matter how much boost you add, it does not change the power level of the engine. Uh huh, sure.

So take DD2000 with a grain of salt. Use it to compare cams and such. Don't take too much stock in CFM because that's whacked too. Try putting a 2000 cfm carb on a small block, reality says it'll run like crap. DD2000 says it makes a bunch more power and torque. Uh huh, sure.

If you get close to reality, great. But don't take DD2000's word for anything.

79Corvette02

With my mods, it was saying someting horrifically low-maybe I got my cam wrong? What is a comparable cam from their files that would closely mimic the L-82 cam? How about the L-48? Thanks