Keith, I don't think anybody will take you up on your offer unfortunately. You are about as unbiased as anybody in the community and I hope that your don't get involved in the poo slinging process. For me as an unsponsored and unbiased customer its easy for me to get involved. I thank you for taking the time to test stuff and was pleased to see your results without off cuff comments.

 

JohnBradley, I am with you on not selling something that doesn't work. The fact is based on what people on these boards are asking for, YOU, I nor anyone else associated with EVO's/DSM's can perform an unbiased test. You have your favorite vendors and you are in the business to sell parts. That means you nore any of the rest of us have the ability to perform an unbiased test.

Keith, the above goes for you too.

 

Here's the problem for many vendors sending ANYONE a part to be tested. Remember the excitement when we were going to have 2 completely different tests conducted on the manifolds? One was to be completed by Paul Nelson, the other by David Buschur. I remember post after post of manifolds being sent to Paul, 12 to be exact, but not a single test was completed. Tremendous post counts, but no testing. David completed his tests and posted the results. That's the bottom line. What happened to the 12 manifolds that were going to be tested? Who knows, but a lot of the arguements would have been mute points, since we could have compared the different test results. Now, we're asking those same vendors (or at least one or two of them, to supply parts for INDEPENDENT testing, yet 12 have already been supplied and who knows where they are. Do those manifolds still exist? Were they returned? Were they ever tested? If so, what were the results? My point to this is, How can you ask a vendor to supply an expensive manifold to be tested, when within our own ranks, we don't fulfill our promise? Testing is time consuming and expensive. Not just for the vendors, but for the testing facility. If we're going to expect a vendor to supply a part for tests, we at least need to follow through and make sure we hold up our end of the bargain. The only true test that everyone would probably accept would be to have BOTH sides of the test be represented during the actual setup and test.

As far as creating a NEAR lookalike of a Wilson V2.3, that wouldn't work because it wouldn't be a Wilson V2.3. There could also be 'Intellectual Property Rights' involved if it were copied. Many top notch companies don't take that area too lightly. A relatively small company can lose their shirt AND pants for doing something like that. Remember the Judge with the ruined suit pants? The cleaners is gone, but he's still not happy.

Maybe the 12 manifolds sent to the NW can be forwarded to Keith at Pure Tuning and all of this data can become public information. Just a suggestion. Sorry for making my original post, but that's why I tried to keep it to just the facts as they had been previously posted. I even took the time to make it more 'reader friendly', but that didn't even work I guess.

 

Spoke with Keith from Pure on the phone.

 

I just wanted to say I was one of the customers that was going to ship his V2 to Keith but I backed out because of the length of time he wanted it for his "testing" was absurd.

I ended up selling it along with my FPRed to a good friend of mine anyways so this is a moot point at this point in time. I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't a "bluff" but a constraint on the length of time it would have been out of my hands.

 

The time needed was more than acceptable given the time of the year it was. With the holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years), current customer projects & appointments (we are still a business), and PRI in Orlando so I thought a little more than 40days was more than acceptable. If anyone felt otherwise I wasn't ever informed until now. In the end there was no final decision form anyone so I was left without any answer!

 

I agree with you, but only in the literal sense. I don't agree when you say nobody on here is able to perform an unbiased test.

By saying that you are stating your own tests are biased.
We have performed several tests in the past on other companies parts and posted up the results with nothing gained.

We are in the business of making money but who isn't.

If I have to purchase a manifold I will, but the reason people would ask for or offer one would fall in faith that what is stated about a product is as advertised. Testing done by someone who isn't directly affected is a great way of certifying it, but having testing done by someone not in the industry induces inconsistencies and uncontrollable variables which will skew the results. If it performs as advertised then the product will solidify it's place in the community, but if it doesn't then it will only suit the naive & uneducated.

The other thing everyone is failing to realize is I don't really care about the V2...I never even started to discuss the V2 until it was brought up by the community in my thread. If I don't ever test one then so be it. That manifold will not make or break any setup for any type of racing we or any of our customers are involved in. I myself have always preferred (even on older Mitsu's) the stock intake manifold, as it yielded the best overall curve with an emphasis on mid-range power. I'm a spool-up freak myself anyway!!!

In direct regards to the V2...David Buschur has done what many companies have already but he has just put it in our face for everyone to see and purchase. If the manifold does perform as advertised then cool and he should be able to profit from it till he sees fit or the market dies. Profit isn't a dirty word!
I could care less about trying to prove someone wrong or right, but rather provide our customers products that work and suit their needs.
I could also care less about "he said she said" b.s.. We all make mistakes as that makes us human.

 

I would like to nominate Razorlab to do a roundup test of the Magnus v5, Wilson v2.3, and maybe a DI or AMS unit. Razorlab has shown to provide some of the best data out there in the forum lately and seems like one of the sharper members of the board.

 

I of course to not agree with a non-biased test not being able to be performed, Keith. I am simply telling the rest of you that if I can't do a non-biased test then neither can anyone else with any connection to this market. I am being accused of having a vendetta, being in it for the profit blah blah blah. None of that has any effect on what works or doesn't work on my dyno. I want to use the best parts and sell the best parts, plain and simple.

I have posted results from products we don't sell before that made power. As recently as today I did some testing and posted the results with nothing to gain and only something to lose.

Haters.............that's the problem with all of this.

Personally, a car equipped with a turbo similar to a GT35r (which after speaking with Keith today is close to what the Borg Warner turbo was that was used for his testing) that starts losing power at 7600 rpm has something wrong with it, that was on the original MSMIM. Then the car got the new style intake and power went up but fell off even earlier, starting to fall around 7400 rpm.

Then the stock intake was installed and power fell of starting at the same 7388 rpm.

I'd think a turbo that size would drop power that soon on a full build such as that. Just my observation.

Here's my car today with the Wilson V2 on it, the HTA86 turbo, running to 8,000 rpm at 41 psi of boost, manual boost controller. This is no comparison but the power isn't falling off either.



Hell if I am going to get bad mouthed how about atleast giving me some credit for my car making power and not falling off on these graphs below. This is the test of the stock intake/original Magnus intake with my car at 30'ish psi on the HTA82. Note that the power on both intakes climbs to 8,000 rpm.

 

If this is as factual as you can get, then all of your tests of the Magnus manifold you claimed made no power should be retracted by YOU.

I mean, if you want to be a straight shooter, honest and upfront about this test, everything you said over the past year about marco's manifold should be retracted as you say it is a biased test. Then let someone who has nothing to gain test the manifold perform the test. You had something to gain by posting the results you did.

I guess you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

BTW, crcrain, I think if you contact razorlab he's already done some V2 installs/tuning and I believe he has had some very good results. Don't quote me, contact him for yourself, I could be wrong.

 

Dennis F, I am being sarcastic with a big taste of reality. Read all the posts so you can understand why I said NOBODY involved can do an unbiased test. It's like Romper Room around here.....

 

You really can't please everyone.

I still give Dave mad props for at least testing the pieces. I have a sincere doubt people would put so much effort into their products if it wasn't for people willing to go out on a limb to test and prove pieces.

Honestly I really think people should just throw the whole scientific method out the window for car part testing. Probably the only thing non biased in car part testing is two products on the same flow bench on the same day. Other than that you got hundreds of variables to deal with. I'd much rather have a part thats consistently fast than some part that is sometimes great.

Ah but i'll be called a buschur fanboy because i have a grand total of 3 parts from you guys on my car.

 

Yes I think your right Dave. I have no doubt in my mind the v2 works great. But seeing as how there is some new products out there it would be fun to see a new shootout.

That said this intake manifold stuff is definitely a touchy subject around here so maybe it's not the best idea.

 

I'd like to test a few more intakes crcain. If I find something better, I will run it. I want to be as fast as I can be.

roadspike, I have a flow bench about 200' from our front door. We use it quite often for cylinder head development. I can easily bolt an intake to a head and the head on the bench.

It would be pretty interesting to do that actually. I wonder if I'd be accused of messing with the flow bench too.............nope, not possible because I don't even run the bench. Might make for a good test. You'd be completely shocked at how much bolting an intake manifold or exhaust manifold to a head effects the flow of the cylinder head. It blew my mind years ago when we flow benched a bunch of exhaust manifolds on a cylinder head.

The one that flowed the best also made the most power on the dyno, it was the header design we ended up with on our tube chassis 2g. Actually that header was "copied" by someone else for their car too.