Jake, which specs should I change?

Alpine · Post by **Alpine** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 11:32 am

I just bought Engine Analyzer 3.2 and I'm trying to simulate the stock 2.0L motor from my 914 but I'm not sure about some of the specs - especially some of the head specs like intake port volume and length and some of the intake specs like intake runner length and diameter. If you could tell me the correct values for these specs, I would appreciate it ...

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:06 pm

That version is totally different than mine... let me look at it later.

Alpine · Post by **Alpine** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:56 am

factman · Post by **factman** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:21 pm

i just scimmed over it and saw that you put 5.394 for the rods. 2.0 rods are like 5.0 or a tid bit longer but the rods you have are for a T1 unless you are putting the T1 rods on. i dont have time to go over everything but just thought i would point that out. if its on purpose then my bad.

SAM

cnavarro · Post by **cnavarro** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:22 pm

First of all, you must use actual headflow numbers. Don't estimate, it doesn't work. I uploaded some flow numbers for 42x38 heads on my website if you want to use those. They can be downloaded off the 914club forum at http://www.914club.com/bbs2/index.php?s ... ckies&st=0

If I had the time, I could help you out more, but just dive in and read the manual. That's a good starting point.

Charles Navarro
LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance

Alpine · Post by **Alpine** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:42 pm

factman wrote:i just scimmed over it and saw that you put 5.394 for the rods. 2.0 rods are like 5.0 or a tid bit longer but the rods you have are for a T1 unless you are putting the T1 rods on. i dont have time to go over everything but just thought i would point that out. if its on purpose then my bad.

SAM

Thanks for pointing that out, factman. I checked my technical specifications booklet and, if I'm reading it right, the 2.0L connecting rod length is 131mm or about 5.157 inches.

Alpine · Post by **Alpine** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 3:45 pm

cnavarro wrote:First of all, you must use actual headflow numbers. Don't estimate, it doesn't work. I uploaded some flow numbers for 42x38 heads on my website if you want to use those. They can be downloaded off the 914club forum at http://www.914club.com/bbs2/index.php?s ... ckies&st=0

If I had the time, I could help you out more, but just dive in and read the manual. That's a good starting point.

Charles Navarro
LN Engineering
http://www.LNengineering.com
Aircooled Precision Performance

My software is not the Pro version so I don't think it will let me enter the cfm ratings for the heads directly. I chose from a menu to get the figures that I entered. I'm just trying to model my 2.0 as closely as possible and then use that as a baseline to see what changes (cam, compression etc.) would produce.

Alpine · Post by **Alpine** » Sat Jan 24, 2004 6:01 pm

Ok, I corrected the connecting rod length and measured the intake runner length and circumference and entered these figures into the program - I assumed that the average intake port diameter was equal to the intake runner diameter and now the program predicts that my motor will put out 90.8 hp at 5000 rpm which is almost identical to the true figure of 91hp at 4900 rpm. The program's torque prediction is still optimistic (just like Desktop Dyno) by about 11%, though.

MASSIVE TYPE IV · Post by **MASSIVE TYPE IV** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:20 am

It is different than PRO. Charles is right- you gotta have head flow numbers to make it work worth its investment.

Alpine · Post by **Alpine** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:42 am

I can upgrade to the "Plus" version of the software and that will allow me to "Use Full Flow Curve for the head's ports". Eventually, I might consider buying the Pro version of Engine Analyzer.