Frankenstang, you sound like a salesman for those other products
Dyno2000 is best used for comparing different possible engine builds, or getting a feel for what effect a change might make (e.g., what if I raise the compression by a point?). That said, what do you think constitutes "good results?" It looks to be within about 10% of the actual engine to me, and as we've already discussed, part of the differences may be due to not having the exact parameter settings to match the actual engine. In any case, +/- 10% seems pretty good to me.
As far as how Dyno2000 works, there is a bit of discussion of that on their
web page. And according to that, it is a true simulation. Now, all simulations make tradeoffs in the interest of speed or whatever vs. accuracy. So many folks may consider it a toy, but it's still kind of fun to compare the output with reality. btw, Dyno2000 says my engine (a 289) will make 370 peak HP, and I don't believe it, but then I don't *really* know what my compression ratio is, and like I said before, my specific cam is not in their list. I'll be happy if the engine makes 325HP...
Quote from Dyno200 web page:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Filling-and-emptying models repeat this entire flow analysis for each rpm point at which horsepower and torque are to be predicted. As a result, computer programs that use this technique, like the Dyno2000 from Motion Software, commonly "build up" engine power curves by calculating and then drawing them one power point at a time. The math needed to predict each power value involves several million calculations. Despite these oppressive computational requirements, a modern PC equipped with a math co-processor can develop an entire power curve, consisting of 10 to 15 data points, in less than a second. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>