G
Guest
Guest
I believe the test results are relevant because not all of the aftermarket exhaust systems were free flowing, some manufacturers just jumped on the band wagon.
Most owners, started their performance modifications by first installing the favorite 4 into 1 and then discovered the joy/pain of rejetting. The 1982 Cycle Guide test would be fantastic with detailed optimum A/F ratios, but how much time & $ would it take to achieve optimum A/F on twenty different 4 into 1's in a era before the DJ or K&N jetting kits were even invented? Economics probably dictated the scope & limitations. IMHO, the test was done in a different era and the statement of "no value" is akin to Monday morning quaterbacking and benefits from twenty five years hindsight.
Not to be argumentative, but I think the aftermarket pipes were not given a fair test, since they were not used correctly....I know Vance & Hines and I suspect most of the others as well (including my Wolf Racing 4X1) came with info re. jets, as well as some tips on airbox mods if necessary, to get in the A/F ballpark ('82 was before my riding/driving days, but I think both Dynojet and K&N have been around since the 70's?) .
Under the mag's conditions, the most restrictive system, not the most free flowing, would probably benefit, since the conditions were closer to stock .Which means, the hp figures , and the 'best' system they picked, have dubious value (for hp info alone....the info re.oil filter/centerstand retention is great).
For example, if they had decided to test/publish hp figures for various pod-type air filters against the stock airbox set-up, without bothering to re-jet due to time/expense, that test would have had similarly skewed results, IMHO.
Novice riders in '82 probably had no clue on proper aftermarket modding, but I think the tech editors of a major magazine would know better?
Anyway, I think we can all agree (albeit 25 years later), that their hp findings cannot be considered necessarily accurate, given the conditions of the test?
Tony.
