Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Now if it did increase fuel economy, that'd be a plus, but I haven't seen anything like an honest test (other than that link from Darrin, which I think was too short for accuracy)
|
Hey, I won't dispute that.
I've learned a lot in the last few years about what constitutes good testing, and that particular one (and more than a couple of other early ones I did) doesn't qualify. A-B-A or bust,
just for starters.
Quote:
|
So where's the real-world test? Put one in a vehicle, drive a couple of thousand miles, or at least a tank or two, and see if mpg improves.
|
That's the whole point! Neither of those things constitute a valid test.
Too many variables.
What bothered me most of all was that they deemed a
dyno test the best way to evaluate the intake & filter's effect on power production (hey - why not do "on road" timed acceleration or top speed runs for that?), and then decided basically uncontrolled
on road testing was adequate for fuel economy evaluation.
They could have done both on the dyno!