| I won't respond to the first portion of your post, I agree with it enough to fall within the agreement margin of error. Now about this: "Your presumption that all stock heads are identical is where you just went into the deep end." I have to assume you aren't reading my replies very carefully, I never posited that the heads are identical, the closest I came was setting it as a conditional statement preceding a conclusion. "Agreed it has an important effect on flow dynamics, that being said this should not be an issue if the heads geometries are similar enough to end up in the margin of error percentile." ([ http://twinturbo.net/net/viewmsg.aspx?forum=general&msg_id=1872204 ] ,6th paragraph) Margin of error, that's the name of the game. That's an explicit acknowledgement that the heads are not identical and that they do cause some variation in flow data. It's regrettable that when these tests were conducted, they didn't flow the heads themselves to get a baseline rate from which they could later derive a margin of error relative to other head+manifold package comparisons.
Recursively Yours,
Kenny...
PETZ Member #5
You guys rock socks. (Click for pie-chart)
 |
