View Poll Results: Virtual Dyno programs as good as the real thing?
Yes they are!
15
24.19%
No way!
11
17.74%
They are good to a certain point but not the same.
36
58.06%
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll
Are the Virtual Dynos as good as the real thing?
Dec 3, 2010, 06:48 AM
#1
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Near water
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the Virtual Dynos as good as the real thing?
Lets vote. Theres a debate that these are just as good. I say that often times the numbers that these programs calculate are incorrect.
Dec 3, 2010, 06:55 AM
#2
If the programs were not accurate they wouldnt be allowed to be used on this forum. I have confirmed time and time again they are within 2-5% of a real dyno. Everyone that owns a real dyno is gonna vote no LOL..... but im very interested to see how this poll pans out.
Last edited by tscompusa2; Dec 3, 2010 at 07:00 AM.
Dec 3, 2010, 07:26 AM
#3
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Near water
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So now that your a tuner you must be using these programs to tune people at the shop you tune out of? That must save them a ton of money...like 80k+ for a real dyno!
Dec 3, 2010, 07:42 AM
#7
Dynos are used for 2 reasons; measuring differences between tunes/setups and finding getting actual power numbers
When used to compare 2 tunes/setups, any dyno, virtual or otherwise, is accurate, as long as other parameters stay the same.
When getting actual power numbers, I don't think any dyno can be 100% accurate, whether it be real or virtual, as they all read slightly differently, so you can't know which one is giving you the "real" numbers.
My .02$
When used to compare 2 tunes/setups, any dyno, virtual or otherwise, is accurate, as long as other parameters stay the same.
When getting actual power numbers, I don't think any dyno can be 100% accurate, whether it be real or virtual, as they all read slightly differently, so you can't know which one is giving you the "real" numbers.
My .02$
Trending Topics
Dec 3, 2010, 07:45 AM
#8
A virtual dyno just adds in more variables to go wrong for comparison to the real thing. Can the peak numbers be close to a real dyno, sure they wrote the program to be that way, but it is not the same thing. For a dyno debate it is way worse to compare to a virtual plot than a real dyno.
I voted good until a certain point because it is a tool just like anything else. They work for comparing the same car to itself after mods on the same stretch of road, same weather conditions etc etc etc...but comparing to other cars with similar setups on real dynos...I give them no credit.
I voted good until a certain point because it is a tool just like anything else. They work for comparing the same car to itself after mods on the same stretch of road, same weather conditions etc etc etc...but comparing to other cars with similar setups on real dynos...I give them no credit.
Dec 3, 2010, 07:46 AM
#9
Evolved Member
iTrader: (65)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Oxford, Pa
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My experience, correct settings flat road was very close to my actual dyno figures. Are they as good as the real thing? Depends on what good is, I think its a fun tool and I enjoy messing around with the program as I don't have 24-7 access to a dyno.
Dec 3, 2010, 08:08 AM
#10
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Near water
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My REAL world example
Up to 500 hp the VD's are good to measure back to back changes. Above that the HP estimates are way off compared to a real dyno. These programs are an extapolation of an extrapolation! I have tested this theory and was making more virtual HP the more I added boost. Heres my example:
I was at 490 on the DJ and then changed my tune by adding 5 more psi and keeping the A/F the same. The VD was saying it liked it and was making 540 HP which made sense being that 1 Psi is about 10 HP. So I took my new found power to the DJ and it made 499. So take these programs with a grain of salt, they are not to be confused with the real thing.
Up to 500 hp the VD's are good to measure back to back changes. Above that the HP estimates are way off compared to a real dyno. These programs are an extapolation of an extrapolation! I have tested this theory and was making more virtual HP the more I added boost. Heres my example:
I was at 490 on the DJ and then changed my tune by adding 5 more psi and keeping the A/F the same. The VD was saying it liked it and was making 540 HP which made sense being that 1 Psi is about 10 HP. So I took my new found power to the DJ and it made 499. So take these programs with a grain of salt, they are not to be confused with the real thing.
Dec 3, 2010, 09:24 AM
#11
There are so many factors that come into play here. real dyno vs road tuning etc.. do you know what ign trim vs air temp tables are and have you ever touched them? That is one huge factor.
Another: Road must be flat and smooth, and pulls must be done on the same exact road back to back or the results could be wrong.
My experience goes like this:
Ive watched my car go from 500whp to 655whp on virtual dyno programs, and as i was getting there everything seemed pretty accurate to me.
Ill try to explain my story
Ive had good experience with the virtual programs myself. Ive went all the way up to 655whp+ on my personal car. they definitely can read inaccurate if the roads not smooth, flat, etc. must be done on a perfect flat straight area of road. if you want to tune safely with these programs it must be done on the same surface back to back to confirm the numbers are accurate.
Also being on a dyno and road can change things up quite a bit. If you're using the stock ecu and its a hot day out you could heat soak on the dyno and not on the road depending on how your fmic is. Ive experienced something similar to this on a mustang dyno. I dynoed 522whp @ 39psi at CBRD in 100f. Dyno showed gains everywhere over my base map i flashed prior to visiting. base tune dynoed 435/431. Prior to flashing the base map my other map had quite a lot more timing.
I wanted to see the capabilities of the tuner tho, so i flashed a map with less timing but still kept the same mid range timing as my other map.
So after about 12-15 pulls we end up at 522/460. the peak boost timing was pretty much untouched, so the only gain was 30wtq additional even with 6psi more. The person that did my tune on dyno didnt work at cbrd. so after we were done we took the car out on the road. right away i felt kind of a sluggish car at mid range compared to what i was used to feeling yet on the dyno it said it gained all around. uptop felt ok though.
So after all that i take it home, and begin to test things. I log a few pulls and compare to my other more agressive map. I see its similar but the mid range has completely disappeared. I lost almost 80wtq at mid range and it was certainly very noticeable on the street.
So this is an example how you can actually make less power with your car even though on a dyno it shows gains! Now let me explain why this happened.
After digging for info all over this board pertaining information about the stock ecu i found an interesting thread and i confirmed with another fellow tuner this thread and he confirmed it is something that i should do. Theres a ign trim vs air temp table on stock ecu, if you pass certain temps in your intake this table tells the stock ecu to pull up to 2*-3* of timing or more.
This would make sense, as i was comparing timing logs on the dyno they were not even close to what it displayed on the road. THis was due to a perrin 3.5" fmic. I suspect it was heatsoaking on the dyno, but on the street it wasnt so bad. So the fix to the lost tq was just putting back my old mid range timing and a/f. instantly gained back all my torque and the car felt alive once again. loaded virtual dyno prog and it confirmed i gained all power back as well. Even if it wouldnt have shown i gained power, it was way noticeable. no dyno is needed when you see 80wtq+ changes.
So I did research on the perrin fmic after a few people pretty much told me its not the right fmic for my setup, so i purchased a buschur 3.8" race fmic with a garrett core and had to retune the a/f and start tuning again. The fmic really brought my car to life and i felt confident again to try and squeeze every last inch of power it had in it. so i started from 540whp @ 33psi if my memory serves right and began to up the boost and monitor changes as i did so. everytime i upped the boost i could feel the difference, no dyno required for this. finally i reach my 39-40psi mark and say .. ok its staying here, because the turbo tappers off to around 34psi anyways at redline so why not? i then begin to add timing uptop and it gains power every time i add timing.. so i continue to add timing and stop at a point where i feel is safe and not near the limitations. so then i lean it out uptop to where the car feels like its pulling very clean/ like a freight train and check logs and cross reference all these different pulls and not once did i ever see something questionable to where i said "ok i dont trust this anymore im done".. so that is my personal experience with a virtual dyno program and in my book they are ok.
With all this said, I have experienced bloated numbers before with these programs, but they were mostly caused by going down hill, or over bumps, or just improper use of the software application itself.
Also sure, I agree if you use a laptop that doesn't have a capable processor or memory to run the virtual dyno smoothly it will lag and possibly alter the logging speed and pretty much make your data logs worthless. So sure if you dont have a capable laptop to run the program its not going to be accurate.
Ive also noticed certain tactrix 1.3u cables will log slower then others. I have 2 cables, one from tactrix and one from another place and the tactrix one reads faster, while the other one tended ot show duplicate rpm's in some areas or smaller logs when doing pulls in the data log.
I will tune my car to kill mode again shortly and visit a dyno and then compare the virtual dyno simulators to my real dyno. a real dyno holds more weight then a virtual dyno and always will, but ive also seen cars road tuned make more power then dyno tuned cars just because you cant get any more realistic then the actual environment the cars driven on.
This is my experience and overall opinions on the virtual dyno applications, hope you enjoy reading it.
With all this said i agree with: They are good to a certain point but not the same.
Another: Road must be flat and smooth, and pulls must be done on the same exact road back to back or the results could be wrong.
My experience goes like this:
Ive watched my car go from 500whp to 655whp on virtual dyno programs, and as i was getting there everything seemed pretty accurate to me.
Ill try to explain my story
Ive had good experience with the virtual programs myself. Ive went all the way up to 655whp+ on my personal car. they definitely can read inaccurate if the roads not smooth, flat, etc. must be done on a perfect flat straight area of road. if you want to tune safely with these programs it must be done on the same surface back to back to confirm the numbers are accurate.
Also being on a dyno and road can change things up quite a bit. If you're using the stock ecu and its a hot day out you could heat soak on the dyno and not on the road depending on how your fmic is. Ive experienced something similar to this on a mustang dyno. I dynoed 522whp @ 39psi at CBRD in 100f. Dyno showed gains everywhere over my base map i flashed prior to visiting. base tune dynoed 435/431. Prior to flashing the base map my other map had quite a lot more timing.
I wanted to see the capabilities of the tuner tho, so i flashed a map with less timing but still kept the same mid range timing as my other map.
So after about 12-15 pulls we end up at 522/460. the peak boost timing was pretty much untouched, so the only gain was 30wtq additional even with 6psi more. The person that did my tune on dyno didnt work at cbrd. so after we were done we took the car out on the road. right away i felt kind of a sluggish car at mid range compared to what i was used to feeling yet on the dyno it said it gained all around. uptop felt ok though.
So after all that i take it home, and begin to test things. I log a few pulls and compare to my other more agressive map. I see its similar but the mid range has completely disappeared. I lost almost 80wtq at mid range and it was certainly very noticeable on the street.
So this is an example how you can actually make less power with your car even though on a dyno it shows gains! Now let me explain why this happened.
After digging for info all over this board pertaining information about the stock ecu i found an interesting thread and i confirmed with another fellow tuner this thread and he confirmed it is something that i should do. Theres a ign trim vs air temp table on stock ecu, if you pass certain temps in your intake this table tells the stock ecu to pull up to 2*-3* of timing or more.
This would make sense, as i was comparing timing logs on the dyno they were not even close to what it displayed on the road. THis was due to a perrin 3.5" fmic. I suspect it was heatsoaking on the dyno, but on the street it wasnt so bad. So the fix to the lost tq was just putting back my old mid range timing and a/f. instantly gained back all my torque and the car felt alive once again. loaded virtual dyno prog and it confirmed i gained all power back as well. Even if it wouldnt have shown i gained power, it was way noticeable. no dyno is needed when you see 80wtq+ changes.
So I did research on the perrin fmic after a few people pretty much told me its not the right fmic for my setup, so i purchased a buschur 3.8" race fmic with a garrett core and had to retune the a/f and start tuning again. The fmic really brought my car to life and i felt confident again to try and squeeze every last inch of power it had in it. so i started from 540whp @ 33psi if my memory serves right and began to up the boost and monitor changes as i did so. everytime i upped the boost i could feel the difference, no dyno required for this. finally i reach my 39-40psi mark and say .. ok its staying here, because the turbo tappers off to around 34psi anyways at redline so why not? i then begin to add timing uptop and it gains power every time i add timing.. so i continue to add timing and stop at a point where i feel is safe and not near the limitations. so then i lean it out uptop to where the car feels like its pulling very clean/ like a freight train and check logs and cross reference all these different pulls and not once did i ever see something questionable to where i said "ok i dont trust this anymore im done".. so that is my personal experience with a virtual dyno program and in my book they are ok.
With all this said, I have experienced bloated numbers before with these programs, but they were mostly caused by going down hill, or over bumps, or just improper use of the software application itself.
Also sure, I agree if you use a laptop that doesn't have a capable processor or memory to run the virtual dyno smoothly it will lag and possibly alter the logging speed and pretty much make your data logs worthless. So sure if you dont have a capable laptop to run the program its not going to be accurate.
Ive also noticed certain tactrix 1.3u cables will log slower then others. I have 2 cables, one from tactrix and one from another place and the tactrix one reads faster, while the other one tended ot show duplicate rpm's in some areas or smaller logs when doing pulls in the data log.
I will tune my car to kill mode again shortly and visit a dyno and then compare the virtual dyno simulators to my real dyno. a real dyno holds more weight then a virtual dyno and always will, but ive also seen cars road tuned make more power then dyno tuned cars just because you cant get any more realistic then the actual environment the cars driven on.
This is my experience and overall opinions on the virtual dyno applications, hope you enjoy reading it.
With all this said i agree with: They are good to a certain point but not the same.
