MoFO 4.1 - HHP High Flow Cats & S&B Frankentake II - RESULTS

[HighHorseman]

If you drive 12000 mi a year, you'll save $150/yr, so they better be real cheap or he better "think" the mileage difference is much higher. Or hope the wife is poor at math.

I'm just giving you an even better reason to get out there and drive 24,955.2 miles a year now... assuming that you're driving mix gets you in the 24 mpg range. But these numbers don't mean anything, really. You have to base it on how many times a month you fill up. I think most people probably fill up once a week, give or take a few days. That's reasonable, right? Then it's settled, the wife MUST agree, lol. And if that doesn't work, try begging and whining. I think that will work, too.

Joshua, HHP

[CoolVanilla]

Well I totally see both sides of this discussion. On one hand, I'm all for more independent verification. Thats how this whole thing got started after all.

On the other hand, I just don't see how we can control enough of the variables that need to be consistent in order to draw any conclusions between the two datasets that would be derived.

I guess I would ask this. If we can agree there doesn't seem to be any apparent issue with our local, method or operator, what might be gained from a second location? If the answer is diversity of vehicle, I'd suggest we alter future MoFO events to include more vehicles (as we actually did at the last one). This, of course, would drive the price up but if we think there is something to be gained...

[RandomAccess]

Let me make one more point....

If it is SO important that these conditions and external influences be exactly the same to measure RELATIVE gains on adding a particular part...

What are the chances that everyone else buying this part may have the same environment???

What you are saying is that the results you show are only good in the environment and location that you are running them.

If I can't replicate similar results with a similar vehicle in a similar environment, then perhaps the whole premise of testing is not useful.


AND The manufacturer's claims are as good as the conclusions we come to...

[CoolVanilla]

This is a great question RA. I sincerely appreciate you raising these issues.

Let me answer in line:

Let me make one more point....

If it is SO important that these conditions and external influences be exactly the same to measure RELATIVE gains on adding a particular part...

What are the chances that everyone else buying this part may have the same environment???

None! You're 100% right that its the relative gains we are after, when considering an isolated test.

What you are saying is that the results you show are only good in the environment and location that you are running them.

If I can't replicate similar results with a similar vehicle in a similar environment, then perhaps the whole premise of testing is not useful.

Ok, this really is the entire point of the GIFO/MoFO tests: we have chosen a set of variables that have been consistent for over a year now. We have 5 events that we can look back on in a historical context and draw conclusions from. This is the power of the MoFO... its not the given circumstances for any one test, its the fact that those circumstances have been consistent since we started!

The upshot of that? We can literally pull up data from a year ago, and plot it against data derived last Friday. We are very sure the comparison of the relative changes is an appropriate thing to do as our test environment and conditions is as if we had run both sets of tests on the same day.

Also, our relative changes are consistent. I mean if we showed a 10hp increase with a mod, we are assured the next mod that shows a 20hp increase is truly delivering a 100% increase. We can say without doubt our second mod is worth a relative 10hp over the first, when compared to all the other mods we've tested in the past. That, right there, is why the MoFO is so powerful.

Now I'm not saying you cannot do exactly the same thing; hell I encourage you to try. I'll be the first in line to contribute some cash to the cause... but I am saying its going to take you the same amount of cash (so far easily over $7k), time (so far easily over 6 weeks) and effort to get where we already are. Given the payoff off maybe showing there is something slightly wrong with our method, I kinda don't think its worth it. And even then, we'd still need to draw conclusions between the two data sets very carefully.

AND The manufacturer's claims are as good as the conclusions we come to...

Uhh erh well you and I are gonna disagree 100% on this one. Please take a look at the early GIFO's and see how some of the MFG's have responded to our results. One of them completely blew us off when they were put to the task of explaining their test variables. Another has taken our results to heart and is redesigning their entire product around what we've shown. Another still has acknowledged their claims were wrong and has removed performance references from its advertising. And we've got at least 2 more that have yet to be tested busting their butt to ensure we have parts for the next... I'm thinkin we've made some pretty good waves when it comes to MFG's and their claims...

At this point I'd rather not take this thread any further away from the MoFO4.1 results. If we can, and you still feel like there are issues to discuss, please either PM me or start a new thread on the MoFO theory and its validity.

Thanks RA!

[RandomAccess]

Alright... Alright CV... I've caused enough trouble for today... LOL