| Message |
Give me exclusive flow results of the manifolds, and until then, your test is flawed so long as you call it a "manifold flow test". He could call it the "Donkey Dick 5000 Ultra Power Glide Colonic Penetration Test," and as long as the test parameters are properly defined and the data is properly recorded, the test is not flawed. The validity of test data does not hinge on it's moniker. If you want to call it a cylinder head+manifold flow test, that's fine with me. We all know the conditions of the test - I'm just telling you that it is flawed simply because it was not an exclusive flow test. Your subjective opinion of the test does not have any bearing on it's validity. First you claim it's arbitrarily chosen name makes it inaccurate, now you claim because you prefer a different metric that it's flawed. A tests validity hinges on reproducibility, accuracy of measuring components, accuracy of recording data, and full disclosure of testing parameters. "Picking a name Ash Powers really likes" is not in that list, because it has no bearing on anything. The only variable in the comparison metrics is the manifold, the other parameters are held constant. The components are noted, the data was properly recorded, accurate, reliable, reproducible. The test was a partial system flow test, and there is nothing flawed about it.
Recursively Yours,
Kenny...
PETZ Member #5
You guys rock socks. (Click for pie-chart)
 |
 |
