Slashdot Mirror
CAE Tools for Car Performance Modifications?
RevHead asks: "Although after-market performance modification of cars is a discipline which claims a significant following all over the world, most of the information available on the topic tends to be more of anecdotal nature. To add to this and the plethora of conflicting information out there,
most of the tips and techniques tend to be of 'do it and see if it works' type of experimentation. I am interested in the simulation approach prior to actual experimentation to get a decent picture of what to expect during the experimentation phase, which IMHO should be safer and more cost-effective. Has anyone resorted to this approach (successfully) when it comes to engine modification, suspension design, aerodynamic performance and emission control? If so what software is available for these tasks? Which are the most popular/most effective? Does anyone know of any public-domain automotive engine models available for CAE applications such as Catia and ADAMS?"
The easiest way to validate these types of prediction mechanisms is to feed them only part of your data set and see how well it predicts your remaining dataset. For example, if you have an ocean temperature data set from 1920 to the present, you might start by feeding it 1920-1992 and seeing how well its predictions for then past ten years hold up to you actual data. You may think that the known data set it too small for accurate predictions, but there are some fascinating methods (like ice core sampling and tree growth sampling) that seem to allow pretty good deductions as to past climate conditions over a very long period of time.
You learn important lessons. That if you ever get a dodge viper, putting in the most powerful NA Tune-up makes it pretty much undrivable. Remember that the next time you're modding your Viper in RL.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
These guys make a great one... Does nearly everything you could want I belive. I do not know if it does engine calibrations but it does most of your design work for you. It's great for engine and suspension building.
http://www.rapidline.com/calc/
Vote early. Vote often. Vote CowboyNeal.
DIY EFI is somewhat related, you will find tons of information on fuel-injection systems, with an emphasis on GM products. The mailing list archives go back about 5 years, with people posting from all different backgrounds, including Ford engineers.
Wait, don't tell me - let me guess:
A friend has come across a few military HARM boosters, you live in the desert, there's an old mine nearby, and you wann see if you can make your big 'ol SUV go as fast as a sports car as quickly... Right?
You don't need fancy-schmancy software. Just make sure your friend gets the first test ride. And double check the brakes, k?
-Adam
Modern cars have, almost without exception, OBD-II interfaces. I'm surprised that more people have not made low cost adapters and software to use for doing telemetry and data-logging.
If you want an adapter, you need to spend over $100, probably over $300. Software can cost the same.
Where are all the sourceforge projects? Where are all the $20 in parts designs for hooking your laptop to your computer? C'mon!
There's some software here:
http://www.gmecca.com/byorc/
though I doubt that it'll do what you're looking for. AFAIK, there's no one who's able to put together detailed enough models to truly simulate a production car.
For example, if you wanted to see the result of changing spring rates, you'd need to know the exact suspension geometry and parts, materials information on the metals used in the arms, flex characteristics of all bushings, assumed frictions of all moving parts, and likely more stuff (I'm not an automotive engineer, I just play one on the weekends). And this likely would be one of the more simpler analyses.
For example, I would guess that modelling properly something as commonplace as an exhaust replacement would be ridiculously complicated. Since you'd be optimizing flow through the engine, you'd need to understand flow details of all the components in the stream. I can't see any of the auto manufacturers releasing this information to the public, or any way for budget-limited hobbyists to obtain it.
Finally, you could probably forget aerodynamic modelling without a 3-d CAE model. That's all black magic there. I have, however, considered putting the 1:18 scale model of my car into a 1:18 scale windtunnel...
-sg
It's actually not hard to read ECU ODB-II interfaces -- so easy that a little time spent googling can find howto's -- the big problem is that the code for re-programming the ECU is not available freely.
:(
If there was a good programmable ECU, like this one, available at less than $1200 that worked with 99% of all new cars, it would be worth buying. The problem with AEM's unit is that they have major difficulties keeping up with automatic transmissions on new cars, so if you own a 2002 auto, no joy for you. Oh, the other problem with them is that they aren't legal for on road use. heh.. but that's a minor setback, neither are half the aftermarket exaust systems that people have on their cars.
I think I'm going to tell my next car dealer I want an open-source car.
All cars these days have microprocessors of some sort inside of them. These control anti-lock brakes, cruise control, etc etc. Lots of these are processors are small 8 bit micros, like the Motorola 68HC11. These chips run at only a few megahertz, and are very slow by todays standards.
One thing to try is overclocking the CPUs. But I doubt you'll get more than 8 or 10 MHz out of one of those things. What I'd suggest is reverse engineering the car's electronics. If you could drop in a new AMD processor in there and get a big performance enhancement.
ok, I'm kidding. But you think hot rodding a '97 Honda Civic with a boat spoiler is any less a waste of time and money?
As I'm sure you've figured out, predicting performance can be excruciatingly difficult on a system as complex as an automobile - this is why extensive testing still ensues all designs in the Automotive world, but that doesn't mean that the commercially available CAD/CAE tools available aren't useful, just that there are too many variables and too little available computing power to model up a whole car and know exactly how it will perform.
Balpark numbers on subsystems can be had with some general purpose CAE design tools(Pro/Mechanica, Dynamic Desiner Motion, Visual Nastran, & Working Model are most common). If you are running on something less than a Cray, these will all require you to simplify your desings - thus the ballpark numbers. I'm looking forward to the day that I can open up a multithousand part assembly, run an FEA project, and have results in less than an hour - all on my desktop workstation. Right now something as simple as a MiniBaja vehicle or FormulaSAE chassis can easily take over 16hrs to run through a single FEA solution on a modern dual processor X86 system. BTW - if you are still in college, SAE Student competitions are a fantastic way to get some experience on how to make a car go.
A great tool that is known to produce very accurate predictions for engines is Desktop Dyno (sorry URL not handy). But again, it wants simplified parameters (not physical geometry), so the program will only be as good as the numbers you feed it, on the plus side it has a good part database so aslong as you stick to COTSH you will get accurate results.
MathCAD and Mathmatica are also very useful, but requrie strong engineering knowledge to be useful, again it all comes down to the results being only as good as the numbers you feed it.
The two big ones you mentioned (Catia and ADAMS) are also fantastic tools, but are both expensive and complex enough that unless it's your job (and you get constant training), you probably won't ever become useful with them - The world of mechanical simulation isn't as well documented at the book store as even the most obscure programing methodologies.
You make a lot of assumptions.
I know plenty of auto related companies, and I can tell you that it's far from "guesstimation". They don't just go off half assed and do something, there is a lot of engineering principle behind their products.
You asked about aerodynamics, engines, and mechanicals. In each of these areas there is a lot of work.
Aerodynamics is one of the most visible parts of design, and there is very little in the way of guessing (except, umm, for those tasteless wings and stuff that people put on their cars). A good source of information on Aerodynamics can be found via books. Specifically:
Fiberglass & Composite Materials: An Enthusiast's Guide to High Performance Non-Metallic Materials for Automotive Racing and Marine Use
by Forbes Aird
Aerodynamics for Racing and Performance Cars
by Forbes Aird
Competition Car Downforce: A Practical Guide
by Simon McBeath
Race Car Aerodynamics: Designing for Speed
by Joseph Katz
I have the Aird books, and they're very good.
Mechanical engineering is well understood and followed, especially by Cal Poly. The FSAE contests are a great proving grounds for designs.
Books by Forbes Aird and Carroll Smith are really good points to start with. The Smith books are phenomenally thorough and put you in awe. That guys has FORGOTTEN more, than most people KNOW. The Aird book is more down to earth and easier to read than the Smith books, both authors are tremendously entertaining.
Here are some books:
Race Car Chassis: Design and Construction
by Forbes Aird
Tune to Win
by Carroll Smith
Carroll Smith's Nuts, Bolts and Fasteners and Plumbing Handbook
by Carroll Smith
Engineer to Win: The Essential Guide to Racing Car Materials Technology or How to Build Winners Which Don't Break
by Carroll Smith
How to Make Your Car Handle
by Fred Puhn
For engines and mechanical systems, I find that periodicals on the subject are very informative. I learned most of what I know about engines from reading Mustang magazines. There are books out there on rebuilding engines and performance.
Here are some good books:
Turbochargers
by Hugh MacInnes
Mustang Performance Handbook : Engine and Drivetrain Modifications for Street, Drag Strip or Road Racing Use. Covers All Models of the Ford Mustang, 1979 to present.
by William R. Mathis
Ford Fuel Injection & Electronic Engine Control : All Ford/Lincoln-Mercury Cars and Light Trucks 1988 to 1993
by Charles O. Probst
Fuel Injection: Installation, Performance Tuning, Modification
by Jeff Hartman
And finally, if you want to do engine simulation on the bench, err, computer, check out Desktop Dyno 2000. It's from Motion Software, costs $50 with the Cam-Disk CD (over 2000 cam profiles). It's a great program, however like all software, garbage in, garbage out. If you expect to get reasonable data from the program, you must supply it with reasonable data.
Instead of fixing up the car, modify your life by getting rid of it entirely. You will learn patience and calm as you wait for the bus. Seriously! You will also be able to read more. Less stress, more thought, all good! No simulation needed!
Call me a skeptic, but car mods come in two forms:
Mass market canned solutions. Someone else does
the engineering for you, and you bolt it on. I'd
bet 75% of the mods fall into this catagory. Even
for "complex" things like suspension or engine
tuning, most people bolt on something with some
(limited) adjustment.
Fully custom solutions, built from the ground up.
Believe it or not, some people still build their
own engines / suspension / body, etc. In general
these follow old positions, carburators insted of
EFI and the like.
So, your average home buyer can plunk down $$$'s
for a prebuilt solution, complete with knowing
what performance increase they can get. Or they
can custom engineer something, which probably
requires more knowledge than something simple
a off the shelf program can come up with.
In the end, I see little opportunity for what you
suggest.
The problem with OBD-II isn't the interface. There are $20 designs out on the net that work. The problem is that the protocol spec costs money. Any work that has been done on the software side was done via reverse engineering. The car companies are very tight lipped about their systems, and the automotive spec associations are paid lots of money to keep the information close to their vest. I don't believe you can buy the spec and just go posting it around, as that would violate the agreements you sign to get the information.
You can get commercial All-in-one readers for $350, less for specific car models. These will read out data, error codes, and reset the service lights, etc.
Race Car Aerodynamics: Designing for Speed
by Joseph Katz
Don't forget:
21st Century Automotive Engineering: CAE In The Post-9/11, Post-Columbine Eraby John Katz
There goes some karma for sure... :)
GMD
watch this
You sound way into it.. My suggestion: Go work at the big three.
:-(
:-(
But first, hit the search engines. There's so much freakin' info out there now. Also, the SAE technical papers are an awesome resource. However, they are typically expensive. At the big 3, we had the complete set in our research library and I could check them out 50 at a time. What a library..
Don't miss what is being done in the Formula SAE programs at universities around the country and world (FSAE). That is an incredible program and competition.
I took a systems job at one of the big three. I'd always had a strong interest in cars, but it grew *way* out of control in that environment.
I had a $60K workstation and access to all of the goodies - both the commercial stuff and the proprietary code. Today, your average PC has more than enough power to run these types of simulations.
I used ADAMS Vehicle in those early days for my kinematic suspension modeling.
Much more interesting to me were the proprietary engine simulation tools. Those were difficult to learn to use, but extremely powerful. Constructing an accurate model is a lot of work. Millions of dollars went into that company's engine sim development.
I regularly used those tools to study my engine. Serious geek-fest. Most of my geek friends just did NOT get it.. Search for Navier-stokes.
They had an 'optimizer' for the simulator that would 'wiggle' selected variables and find the best combinations for a particular goal. I found their optimizer somewhat cumbersome and ended up scripting my own (this all ran under UNIX). With this I could optimize valve event timing, and intake and exhaust dimensions. I also decided to develop my own graphing and reporting scripts for gnuplot. Of course all of this was on my own time and was done over a very long period.
I had wanted to use the CFD tools to model the airflow through my cylinder head ports at a more detailed level, but didn't get around to it before I moved on.. It was just a lack of time (not tools) that prevented me. I had gotten as far as pulling silicone molds of my ports and had them laser CMM'd. Funny thing is, the company did not get around to doing port CFD for another year (had I not been out having fun or something, I might have been the first their).
Eventually, I moved on
A year later, I ended up wanting to develop a traction control system for my race car. I decided to simulate it, knowing that such development would likely eat some pistons. I ended up writing an engine and chassis simulator in support of the project.
This simulator used the torque curve from my engine simulations, dyno runs and data acquisition as input. I used Mitchell's book to develop a simple tire traction model, etc. It was Newton physics coming back to haunt me and probably the funnest program I've ever written. Pretty simple code.
William Mitchell's _Race Car Vehicle Dynamics_ is considered a modern bible. It is *awesome*. Since the original publication Mitchell has released some of his software. I haven't checked the code out.
Gordon P. Blair's _Design and Simulation of Four Stroke engines is also excellent. His two stroke book is also considered a bible. I believe he has released simulation code for both.
Both are available via the SAE.
Of the two, I consider engine simulation a far more challenging problem. Most of the commercial simulators are *toys* and fairly crude. However, they can still be very useful.
Of those available, Ricardo's WAVE is reputed to be among the best (definitely not a toy) and is one of the few that would be used by a large manufacturer. Word on the street says it is a ripoff of an early version of a big-3 simulator, but that is just a rumor.
RaceTech magazine has published some good info on suspension simulation and one of the authors, Mike McDermott is a strong proponent of open sourcing his tools. Here's a link to get you started: http://www.mgbv8.co.uk/frontsus.htm
Along the way I learned to be a pretty good fabricator and welder. I have a pretty decent metal shop with a large 2 axis CNC mill and a Logan 12x48" lathe. The lathe is in the laundry room.
I cannot tell you how much this car-hacking improved my skills and abilities as a system engineer and architect. I still believe that the most complex and challenging projects of my career have been on my own race car (and oh BTW, you die if you get it wrong). So I absolutely encourage you to dive in, hit the books, whatever floats your bowl.
Today, I drive a Z06 Corvette and am Completely satisfied. I can build a car with better performance, but not with the *refinement* that car has. My quicker, faster, more nimble, louder and more violent road race car just isn't the same anymore, big slicks or not
It makes the experimentation so much fun taht you won't bother with a sim.
Accel has a EFI system for Chevrolet V8 Engines (Wussymoble 4 cylinder drivers are out of luck) That is a blast to tune. You can hook a laptop up to the ECM and adjust it while it's being driven, and save the maps so you can load the map for the performance leveal you need for any given day.
I Set up a Corvette with 400 cubes, a Paxton supercharger and the Accell EFI. That was a fun filled day. Beat the hell out of simulating it on a PC. The only bad part was returning the car to the owner at the end of the day.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
> most of the tips and techniques tend to be of 'do it and see if it works' type of experimentation. I am interested in the simulation approach prior to actual experimentation to get a decent picture of what to expect during the experimentation phase, which IMHO should be safer and more cost effective.
:-)
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. In the early stages of vehicle modification, there is such a thing as "paralysis by analysis". In other words, get the basics out of the way first. better flowing Cylinder Heads, Exhaust, Induction, etc. Why spend exorbanant amounts of time & money on software, training, and engineering classes when you could just put the money towards parts?
On the other hand, let's say you're really hard core about this. You're already making....let's say 450 Horsepower in your "fast & the Furious" style Honda 4-banger. Adding 50 horsepower to a 450 horse engine is going to cost ya tons more than adding 50 horse to a 130 horse engine. Heck, a lot of the parts you buy can be right from a stock motor at a junkyard. Need a bigger throttle body? Grab one from a V6 motor. Need a bigger throttle body for your 450 horse motor? You're gonna have to shell out $300+ because you're not going to find one at the junkyard. My point here is, If you're hard-core, then it might be worth it to spend money on software. It can take years to become an expert on Finite Element Analysis, and even then, we still question our results. Finite Element analysis makes assumptions. Materials are assumed homogenous (same throughout), same grain structure (difficult to model forgings & some stampings), no casting flaws, bad welds, etc.
If anybody is interested, I plan on doing some FEA work on my own project vehicle before my school finds out that I've already graduated and kick me off the system
I'm hoping to create a finite element model of a Ford Ranger frame to find out what I should do to strengthen the frame on my own vehicle. My '88 Ranger has been upgraded to 89 Mustang 5.0 power but unfortunately the frame has been twisting so much under load that the spot welds on the bed have been breaking. I'll plan on putting a link on my current webpage for those of you that would like to follow along. After July 1st, my username will change so check Here
I recently participated in a 450 member group purchase for the Megasquirt EFI. Two guys: Bruce Bowling and Al Grippo designed and built this programmable fuel injection computer, and provided all of the information for building the EFI: assembler source code, schematics, PC Configuration program, wiring & tuning diagrams, you name it.
This system will allow you to replace the stock engine management system or fuel inject a carbureated vehicle. The obvious advantage over a the stock fuel injection system is that you can actually manipulate all aspects of the system: fuel curve, startup enrichments, accelerator enrichments, etc.
Since the group purchase, people have been "megasquirting" everything: new cars, old cars, trucks, Rotary engines (Mazda Rx7), even motorcycles!
Check out the website. Be sure to look at the PC configurator...
Megasquirt Home page
Yahoo discussion groups
A lot of this information is very proprietary... They've performed a huge service for the community by developing this project. It inspired me to undertake a comparatively modest project of my own: the uSpark ignition controller
They're kind of slow aren't they? What's the sample rate on OBD-II interfaces? It seems like more professional data acquisition devices talk directly to the sensors rather than being mediated by the ECU or even the OBD-II port.
One of the best programs out there:m l
http://home.earthlink.net/~patglenn/ct.ht
It allows you to change hundreds of variables and run several different tests.
The dos version is at the bottom of the page.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
id be very interested in knowing how the law does or should apply in this situation .. are car companies held responsible for bugs? hobbiests?
... and are you talking about using the car on tracks or my streets? :)
this is one of the first situations that I know of where the result of bad programming on the party of a hobbiest could really fuck shit up physically
"Old man yells at systemd"
Are you referring to this car? I tend to think that it's because linux is embeddable, highly customizable, and free. But that's just me. I'm not biased in this post what-so-ever.
Disclaimer: I am the owner of the vehicle I linked to.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
The AEM unit is ~1500 for the "plug n play" and projected ~1200 for the "race" version. The race version has the same ECU with just a different harness (generic/make your own) and no base fuel/timing map.
Auto tuning is as much of a science as anything else. I know lots of people that figure out suspension changes (spring rates, sway bar thickness, etc) with their own spreadsheets. Fuel/timing programming is pretty straight forward. There are some basic rules that follow when making more power out of an internal combustion engine. The "try and see" is more for unknown new parts, modifications to stock parts, etc. This is mostly for pepole that don't otherwise have the "proper" equipment of a flow bench, dyno, wideband O2 sensor, fine control over fuel/timing maps and so on.
BTW http://www.sema.org/ Look up the Magnusson-Moss act. Also... anything after the cat is fair game, fed laws don't cover anything past that.
FYI, reprogramming your ECU also violates CARB's regulations.
-Mark
Bet yer a Vortexer too, eh? ;>
i am a soviet space shuttle
get a big block V8 and do it the old fashioned way.
With you there 100%. Cars and computers shouldn't mix, other than maybe the mp3 player... :) I work on the car to get dirt under my nails and tinker with something non-abstract once in a while. (Currently building a 4.2L MGB ... gonna be one scary go-kart ... )
What would Lemmy do?
Check out this link:
http://www.ghg.net/dharrison/palm.htm
This guy makes a universal reader for pretty much all makes and models of vehicles, for under $150. This link specifically mentions his version that runs on a Palmpilot - but he also has one for PCs running Windows. I use his "beta" version on a laptop in Windows with my Toyota Supra twin-turbo and it works quite well. Not only lets you see what those "check engine light" trouble codes really are, but lets you reset them, watch your O2 sensor and engine timing, and other nifty stuff.
I used mine to determine that I had an O2 sensor starting to go bad.
Simulation is nothing in the autmotive world, particularly the aftermarket. You have to test and test and re-test. Sure, I suppose a competent mechanical engineer could come up with some formulas to reasonably estimate what modification X might produce. In fact, a lot of drag guys will run simulations that reasonably calculate, based on their current weight, what kind of power they need to do a 1/4 mile at a certain time. That's a reasonably simple calculation.
The catch is going to be getting the actual specs for a given car.
Let's say I want to bolt on a simple turbocharger and intercooler setup. It's a reasonably good quality turbo with minimal lag. Now let's say I bolt the same turbocharger onto the following three cars:
Older model Honda ('98) Honda Civic LX: My turbo and the accompanying modifications make, say, 400 hp at the wheels. My car is now close to undriveable because torque steer is ridiculous when the turbo starts to pull, and the necessary suspension mods will either make the car fast but unable to steer (too stiff a rear) or negate most of the power gain (rear is too soft and the front wheels hop).
97' Camaro SS: My turbo add-in is basically worthless unless I do a lot of engine work. The higher compression pistons on the Camaro mean that unless I knock the boost down to about 6 PSI, I'm going to be knocking my engine apart with detonation. For the same $5,000, I could've stroked the engine, ported and milled the heads, and upgraded the intake and exhaust.
'97 Toyota Supra: My intercooler is too big to work with the factory radiator, and thus, the car constantly overheats (not good). Either I need to get a bigger radiator or a smaller intercooler.
Now, I could probably have predicted that the Honda would torque-steer like a mother, given a basic knowledge of its drivetrain. I would have selected a supercharger and been content to put 250 or 300 horsepower to the wheels and call it a day. Any reasonably well-written program would predict the same torque-steer. But it might not have been able to tell you about the suspension issues, as it would likely assume a purely physics approach to the suspension, while I would recognize that things like gravel on the road, short inclined exits from fast-food places, and crappy roads would mean that my car would lose traction all the time.
As for the Camaro, any reasonably intelligent program could tell you that the compression ratio was too high too feed heavy boost to. It would likely recommend the same Natural Aspiration tuning.
Now for the Supra, that would be the hardest to predict. Without a lot of raw data on engine bay heat buildup in various areas, I couldn't see any program reasonably predicting such an occurence. So, while the '97 Supra would've been the ideal recipient for such an upgrade, the computer would probably fail to recognize the terrible amounts of heat such an upgrade might generate.
Blah Blah... let me shorten the long story: Tuning a car is not an easy process, and it certainly isn't like a lot of tuning mags will have you believe ("Joe had this and this and this done. He rolls on these type of tires and posts this timeslip. Joe hopes to add these modifications in order to acheive this lower time"). There's a reason professional shops charge about 3X what reasonable part and labor costs for a given complete upgrade might be. If you're running straight lines all day long and rebuilding at the end of the day (as in drag), a pick-a-part approach is somewhat suitable as long as you have a good idea of what you're doing. For turning a reliable, daily-driven car into a much faster, reliable, daily-driven car, it's a hell of a lot harder. Open source or no, there's a lot more that a computer needs to know beyond basic physics and math calculations in order to accurately predict what a given upgrade might do.
Making a fast car is a lot like a software engineering project. It has a long stage of planning and research, long before you cut any checks or turn any wrenches.
First, you ask yourself what you want the car to excel at. Most fast cars will be faster than most in a straight line and around curves, but a car can only truly excel in one area. Ask yourself what your priorities are. Also decide on a budget, which will cover the cost of buying the car and the cost of the mods. Here is where you have to be really honest with yourself- you can only afford so much starting car and so many mods- lying to yourself about what you can accomplish with x dollars will only lead to dissapointment.
Second, decide on a platform. The platform should be one that naturally supports your performance goals. For example, a miata for handling, a fox body mustang for drag racing and so on. You probably want to get as cheap a car as possible to save money for mods. Try and find a salvage title car with a straight frame or a car with a blown motor that can be rebuilt. You dont want something with car payments on it.
Third, how much money do you have left? Prioritize and start researching each mod to find the cheapest way to do it. Getting a good spring and shock combo might give as 90% as good handling as a coilover kit selling for 4 times the price- talk to people that are doing what you are and ask them what their experiences were. Most people will be glad to meet another enthusiast who shares their hobby and even drives the same car as them.
Now, where does simulation come into this? It doesnt. If you choose the right platform, it will almost certainly be one that other people are already modifying heavily, one with massive aftermarket support. If you choose the right mods, they will be the ones that are most readily available, with replacement parts for cheap. And the reason there is no need for simulation is because all the work has been done for you a million times.
What if you want to do something extreme that hasnt been done before? People have been doing customizations, weird engine swaps and strange aerodynamic modifications for decades. There are companies that make all sorts of one-off parts like manifolds and braces etc. Electromotive makes a series of computers that can be used to controll nearly any type of engine in existance from a 4 cylinder methanol powered car to a mazda 3 rotor turbo. Once you decide what you want to do, there is assuredly someone who will help you with it for enough money.
As for the guy who said that computers are useless and a sign that your engine is too small, I say thats BS. Any engine can benefit from fuel injection and computer controlled ignition and fuel. A lot of prostreet drag racers have begun to use big block turbos with electronic controls in place of nitrous. The cars are more consistently fast and dont break as often as the nitrous cars- and they run 5 second ETs in street trim.
I spend enough of my life hitting refresh on Audiworld without running into that stuff here too! Slashdot is where I go when I have to stop thinking about the tradeoff between a house and K04's.
Anyway, I did have a reason for replying. VAG-COM doesn't do OBD-II, it just identifies if the functions exist on the car. You need other OBD-II software, although the interface cable will work with them. You might be able to do something simple like clear codes, but I'm not sure you can even do that.
Also, GIAC (via the engineers at AWE and PES), as well as companies like APR do a lot of extensive engineering well beyond simple remapping. Garret Lim is in a slightly different position of not actually doing any engineering himself -- he's purely a software guy, but he works very closely with the engineers via data logging to tune.
Oh well, time to go hit refresh on Audiworld.
Actually, if you are dumb enough to just strap on a supercharger or turbocharger (they still make these for non-diesel? What's the point!) you will most likely blow a valve out the head, or shatter you cam or crank! you need certain things replaced in your engine before slamming 5-50x the airflow and fuel in! Besides, if you have money for a supercharger, why not go with a bigger cam, stronger rockers, flat top pistons (or domed pistons), better rings... porting and polishing the heads and a header exhaust system... Hell, you could bore and stroke it and get more than your "slap on a supercharger" and you'd have a stronger motor.
As for changing to high octane gas, DON'T! The octane rating is trivial most of the time (low to midgrade is best for most cars); if you increase your compression of course, you'll want to go higher octane...
As for the "least expensive" My Camaro started with a 305 G motor (High output). It's now a 327 stroker with 3" exhaust, I pull mid 12's in the quarter mile, and it's streatable. (about 370 HP). I used the stock block, replaced the cam crank, lifters, pistons, rings, bearings, intake and carb, timing setup, and HEI. The total cost (built it in my garage) was about $800 and that was because I went with alot of crome and forged parts (if all I had done was use forged pistons, clevite bearings, and molly rings, it woulda' cost about 250), and had everything temp treated so that, if in the futue I want to, the engine can handle a 300+ HP NOS boost.
It took my dad and I about 40 man hours (one weekend, two twenty hour days with both of us working); that was from engine-out to backing outa' the driveway. (average engine swap time for us in the camaro is about 1 hour each way).
And, 2.0 at 900? never seen that! Not even on the little foreign cars... what would the point of that be? you'd have to rebuild the tranny, replace ALL of the suspension parts, etc.
It's actually easy and pretty cheap to build up a car to outperform a stock, or even most NASCAR cars. But, for 3d CAD, your SOL!
you are dumb. you are exactly what the story author is talking about. anecdotal crap with no explanation of the theory involved.
how will a 4bbl carb help a fuel injected motor ? how will a 3" exhaust help a car that already flows enough that its torque peak is beyond the redline of the engine, and is thus gutless off idle and until redline ?
There are a number of formulae for calculating basic performance issues. But much of the literature on the subject is closely guarded, unknown, or both. For instnace, the best publication on exhaust design is a book called "the scientific design of exhaust and intakes". it was published in like 1956 or some such ridiculous timeframe. it gives some basic math for designing collector lengths and header lengths and so on. getting the exhaust correct is significantly more important and more involved than your infantile suggestion of putting a 3" exhaust on every vehicle.
incidentally, one nerd has seemed to do pretty well using computers to analyze and develop performance modifications for cars. Hes a software engineer that completely reveresed engineered the Motronic DME system found on all post 1984 BMWs. Once upon a time you could download a windows app that would burn you a custom chip program, and let you create the relevant curves for engine performance you desired, then wrote out the right tables into the eeprom.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
First, you cut away all the dead weight, leave youtself with just a frame, then you put light weight fairings over the frame, then you tune the engine until it will rev to 18,000 rpm and finally get rid of the extraneous two wheels.
It leaves you with something that looks approximately like this
Pfft, "performance" and "car" used in the same sentence.
Deleted
FI is good stuff, especially when you mix in a nice amount of displacement.
:-)
Add some forced induction, and you've got a 700RWHP vehicle that you can still manage to drive on the street (or something along those lines).
Never underestimate a 383 LT1 running 20psi of boost.
Who needs this fancy smancy CAE tools stuff! You guys should see how fast my Honda Civic HX goes now that I've added a triple spoiler, dual exhaust with headers, extra headlights, hood scoops, type-R and VTEC stickers, and cut the springs. I bet ground effects will give me another 5mph when I save up enough allowance!!!
Or the old saying "Speed is Money, how fast can you afford to go?"
Back when the Ford Escort had the 1.9l engine, there was some VERY VERY interesting parts/plans available from Ford - we are talking multi hundred horses, instead of 85hp. There were a few problems of course - cost, legality, and worst of all, lifespan. They told you right off the top that some of these mods were going to get you into the = 500 mile before before overhaul range - aka real race engine class
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
900hp out of 2.0l has been done. You just get a REAL short time between overhauls. 900 isn't even pushing it that hard - As someone else said, look at the Mid 80's F1 cars (Before rule changes) - they were in the 1300hp range. It all depends on how fast you want to use up engines. If all you want is a couple of hours out of the engine before you throw it away, there are all SORTS of tricks
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso