Quote:
Originally Posted by phrosty
I think you misunderstood me. Here and in my original post, I talked about tuned for stock & tuned for aftermarket. So, a proper maf table on each end. Literally every dyno you've posted has been flawed in this way. You can't compare two things but leave one end uncalibrated. So, no pass for now.
But, I really did not intend to turn this general industry criticism into an argument with a specific vendor. I'll put it to a rest. I cede that you have been among the most open vendors to develop an intake, and I do respect that. I'm sure I'm coming off as some biased dude because I own something else, but I'm really not.
|
I think that its more than a little unfair to say that "Literally every dyno you've posted has been flawed in this way" when of the countless dynos we posted, almost none of the dynos posted were comparing tunes, but instead were comparing hardware.
Also, our testing method is substantially more reliable, repeatable, and applies to the majority of owners. Using the same tune file for the stock intake (which is what the tune file was made for) and on our intake makes the testing of the output with a tune more valid because it removes another variable. If we had done a protune on our intake, and a protune on the stock intake people would just accuse us of not fully tuning the stock intake, and going balls-to-the-wall with our intake. By using the same tune file it shows that the gains are still there, even after the hardware switch, and proves that the difference is BECAUSE of the hardware switch. The only thing that protuning our own intake would accomplish is that we'd see a greater gain. But in a world where the majority of users aren't going to get a protune, but rather will use an OTS from the OFT, showing the data that the majority will get is even more advantageous.
Also we've proven that there is validity in using the tune file for the stock intake because the MAF table is proper for it. The maximum variance between the stock MAF table, and the one Shiv developed was 4%. A variance so small that he nor I have to recommend anything other than his staged tunes for the stock intake.
But clearly we're not going to make you happy, and that's just fine. I just find it extremely unfair to claim that we were cheating data, and that our testing was flawed, when what we did was actually the opposite. To date no one has ever provided the amount of effort, information, or dyno charts for a single product here. I get it, it's fun for people to call shenanigans on manufacturers on the forums, and I encourage that wholeheartedly. Some of these shops are "sweetening up" their data, hell I even saw one intake dyno on here that was clearly done in two different gears, and I remember one company that was posting them with two different IAMs. So always be critical of what someone is telling you even if they are "trustworthy," but make sure you understand what they're presenting to you and why.
Chase
Engineering