has anyone ever noticed a difference in simulation results when using a
sensible wheel and kw/cfm power input versus a sensible wheel and static
pressure thru the heat exchanger input?

for example, i have an existing building of about 60,000 sf and i have a
test & balance report for it.

if i simulate the building and use a site measured static through the
erv heat exchanger section (sensible wheel, typically about 0.73" wg)
the building has a cost difference of $7,037 dollars less than if i
simulate the same building using the site measured kw/cfm input
(typically about 0.0006 kw/cfm oa supply fan, 0.0012 exhasut air fan).

i have previously found this is not limited to a field measurement
situation. any project i've simulated where there's been an erv in the
design performs more cost effectively using the manufacturer's catalog
data for static input instead of the manufacturer's catalog data for
kw/cfm (or kw).

if kw/cfm and static are both entered equest still uses the kw/cfm for
the calculations - at least that is how i'm reading the help function.
if kw/cfm (or kw) are not entered then either the default static (1" wg)
or user entered static are used.