What I would like to see is baseline numbers before and after improvements to the intakes. I mean, $450 is alot of money for what realistic gain? Everybody knows that providing good airflow is a good thing, but that implies that the current design, stock, was in fact designed sub-optimal, and if so, then the designers did so with that sub-optimal design with full knowledge and should be chastised for that. But I don't think they did that on purpose-that makes no sense to me. I don't think they would have done that. Everything is a trade off in one form or another. So I assume that the stock design was for some other variable that maximized some goal.

If we assume that there is a better airflow for $450, then what is the expected result? If better fuel economy, what's the payback? If it's just in less fuel use for the planet, then that's ok too, and one must determine if their goal of less planetary fuel is worth it to them. If it is better sound, or performance than one must also do their own trade-off analysis, cost versus result. For me, 1/10 better in the 1/4 mile is not worth it. A .5 mpg increase may, or may not be either. 5 more mpg, and a 20% better throttle response would be, but I'm not sure we're seeing that. Mark