Chris...
So your saying then this cover is worth 10% in flow rate over the standard BW 66mm compressor cover?.Do you have any factual dyno data or flow bench sheets to back this up?.10% of gain is alot to find in a simple change like this and before I made this leap I'd love to see the data on it.........Andy
Andy
So from what I can see your reading skills aren't quite up to par.
My post of "close to 10% over the std 0.55AR Borg Warner compressor cover when set up properly" is not 10% and may not produce close to that on every 66 BW compressor. The cover was flowed with a properly set up compressor and the gain was almost 10% (7.04lb/min) over the std Borg spec for that wheel and cover combination. Flow has many factors, or hindrances to look at when searching for improvement. Machining tolerances, insertion depth, wheel to bore concentricity and runout are just a few. If you are going to test a part and you know these factors limit your results, you tend to pay attention to them. Not having any control over your charger and the factors that limit flow, its impossible to give something like this a blanket flow improvement number, which is why I made it clear as to how we derived the gain. These are things we take into consideration in every charger we build, thus knowing the stack up and how performance is enhanced or effected. I also noted that given the generous build and machining tolerances of chargers out there, results can vary by some very substantial amounts.
The testing we do to our own products, other companies products and even oem products, we use to further our own product line and constantly refine their performance. The sport is evolving nonstop and to make performance gains, testing is important. Those who do it know the value and know the investment it takes. I don't see any benefit in posting a flow sheet on a set up that that resembles yours merely by description. Then you take the stand of your charger not seeing the same kind of improvement (due to the aforementioned reasons) and post your comments online as to discredit us, the product or the testing, when in reality it's because you read/see/hear only what you want to and overlook at the effecting issues.
So what I'm saying is...... What I have posted was what I wanted to post. What you have twisted it into with your colorful commentary is not what was posted or implied. On the plus side I do admire your creativity. Chris