mk e wrote:
mk e wrote:
And once I got it running it stole about 100hp from me! But there are a couple things that look very off to me in the intake waves.....I'll need to spend some time with this.
Ok. I decide it was the software that was wrong and sent in a bug report. Sure enough, the new release with the bug fix came out today but I haven't had that long to play with it.
It now does tri-y header without me need to run 2 separate simulations and that looks to be giving answers that I'd expect.
On the intake side things are a bit different and I'm not sure if its right....or.....the intake runner length result is quite different from -5 and I'm not 100% sure I believe it....I'll need to play with it some more and wish I had good data to check the output against. -5 wanted me to have a pretty long runner tuned to the 2nd pulse and this made sense to me since the engine has enough flow to rev well past redline, so in my mind it made sense a long runner with strong wave that would restrict flow above my redline came out best...like tuning for mid range. -6 says NO! to that. It wants a short runner ...6" on the 5th pulse is best at 945hp, 7.5 on the 4 is 932, 9.5 on the 3rd is 919 and 13" is 913hp on the 2nd. -5 told me 17-18" was the 2nd and 940hp and 12-13 was the 3rd and cost 20+hp, but gave about the same number for that stack as -6 does. I'm confused. I think 13" will fit under the stock hood so I like that answer but I find it hard to believe a 6" runner with pretty low pulse energy left is best, and its too short to build so I'll never know for sure.....I might be able to do a 9.5, I guess it that is better than 13ish I'll know
Anyway, -6 is different and I don't have data to know which is right(er).