calc HP/TQ from EvoScan using Excel
I asked ESP what HP@50MPH setting they have and he said its 15:1.
Question to anyone who has Excel AND openoffice.....when I open up the spreadsheet in excel (version 4.1) my torque values are elevated but when I open the SAME logs in OpenOffice, the peak torque values reflect my actual torque numbers from the dyno much more realistically. Can anyone else confirm a variance between the two programs for me????
Try two things - copy and paste the same info into the comparison data tab and seeif that graph comes up.
2. Completely delete all the data you entered from base pull tab and try again.
I'm also having a problem selecting only one gear for one of my runs. I select one and then they all disappear or they all appear depending on what I do. I'll try doing the stuff you said to get the picture up. thanks for the help.
Edit: according the Virtual Dyno, here are my new numbers...
448 WHP @ 6027 RPM
428 WTQ @ 4192 RPM
It has been a while since I've dyno'd- I'm very pleased id this is accurate.
Edit: according the Virtual Dyno, here are my new numbers...
448 WHP @ 6027 RPM
428 WTQ @ 4192 RPM
It has been a while since I've dyno'd- I'm very pleased id this is accurate.
Last edited by lan_evo_mr9; Jun 2, 2009 at 10:45 AM.
From what i can tell the MD factor looks pretty dead on, if not a little low. The DJ factor seems a bit unrealistic. Not that i dont want to believe it is true.
I used DJ-let me try the MD
Edit: This is more realistic
Comparison Pull
381 WHP @ 6027 RPM
364 WTQ @ 4192 RPM
Edit: quite the difference between the two correction factors when it comes out with the totals. I still cant get the graph to show up even if I have the same data in each pull or erasing one pull completely. I wish my car was more like the DJ numbers
Edit: How do you have the chart templates setup? I was able to get some lines(not correct), but none the less, some sort of picture, which makes me think it has something to do with the chart template- or I could be completely wrong- like usual.
edit: The MD numbers do seem to be pretty spot according to my last "real" DJ numbers. Good work J of T!
Edit: This is more realistic
Comparison Pull
381 WHP @ 6027 RPM
364 WTQ @ 4192 RPM
Edit: quite the difference between the two correction factors when it comes out with the totals. I still cant get the graph to show up even if I have the same data in each pull or erasing one pull completely. I wish my car was more like the DJ numbers

Edit: How do you have the chart templates setup? I was able to get some lines(not correct), but none the less, some sort of picture, which makes me think it has something to do with the chart template- or I could be completely wrong- like usual.
edit: The MD numbers do seem to be pretty spot according to my last "real" DJ numbers. Good work J of T!
Last edited by lan_evo_mr9; Jun 2, 2009 at 12:05 PM.
Question to anyone who has Excel AND openoffice.....when I open up the spreadsheet in excel (version 4.1) my torque values are elevated but when I open the SAME logs in OpenOffice, the peak torque values reflect my actual torque numbers from the dyno much more realistically. Can anyone else confirm a variance between the two programs for me????
^^^^^^ I meant for the dyno graph plot picture. My picture isn't showing up, but the number calculations are all there. there's specific settings for that chart- wondered if you had messed with them at all. I'm using the openoffice also.
No. Sorry, I didn't touch the chart settings.
Ok, been crazy busy but it looks like my smoothing for the Base HP Smooth column is a bit too aggressive. I tried scaling it to MrFreds original spreadsheet but I guess its not as solid of a plan I thought lol. I have a fair amount of data between Spins4's dyno results I datalogged plus the data GST Motorsports contributed so hopefully I can find a good ratio that works overall.
The thing tat sucks is trying to make it work for small files AND huge files. Maybe someone can find a way to have it average each log to fit in only 50-70 cells (average 'small' file I have seen when people log a lot of things at once). If anyone wants to figure out how to do that, we can probably get the consistency to be pretty fair.
The thing tat sucks is trying to make it work for small files AND huge files. Maybe someone can find a way to have it average each log to fit in only 50-70 cells (average 'small' file I have seen when people log a lot of things at once). If anyone wants to figure out how to do that, we can probably get the consistency to be pretty fair.


