[hapisok]

we both know that 20/25 are generous numbers...just saying. i didn't see numbers like that until i had full bolt ons (CAI, LT's w/high flow cats/tune, & ported TB...still didn't break 300) with the addition of E85. stock i was sitting around 250...with ALL of that i got into the 280's, almost 290. i do agree that there is a HUGE loss when it comes to heat soak. but to say that the addition of your "ICE-o-lator" increases HP/TQ by that much is complete BS. the increase comes from an engine that is heat soaked by helping to reduce increased temps to the intake air temp...its not as simple as a guaranteed bolt on 20/25 HP/TQ adder.

and we've been through this discussion before. fluid dynamics and air flow are KEY when it comes to maintaining velocity in these DI engines. if you can claim 20/25 without port matching, then why not give your customers the maximum return on their investment by maintaing proper air flow by port matching vs gasket matching? your "claims" would be even higher if you were to smooth out those transitions giving you the edge (pun intended) over your competitor (MACE).

there were tests done, i was a part of those tests and the results weren't all that different. just a shift in where the HP/TQ was made. looking at the two products from a mechanical/physical viewpoint, REVeX held up well under the test. honestly, i thought they took the lazy road when it came to making the template for their product where MACE did it right. and by doing it right, i mean it is more efficient. im certain somebody with a flowworks background would be able to produce a .gif that shows the difference in flow in the transition from the IM to the isolator to the block between the REVeX and MACE insulators.

i suppose it doesn't really matter at this point, I'm just offering some feedback from the studies i've done that are completely unbiased. im not a vendor and i tested both products back to back purely as an enthusiast. IG: i spent MY money on dyno time with no kick back or compensation from either party.

you also claimed that there was no difference in the thickness of the insulator...but there are plenty of formulas on the internets from leading mechanics and engineers that show there is a DIRECT relationship between the runner length and the RPM range at which power is made...AKA the power band. a longer runner length shifts the power band to the left...this is essentially what the thicker insulator does and puts the power band more toward the mid range. also a prime example of engines that run with variable intake runner lengths. because the manufactures know that there is a power to be made from longer runner lengths (lower RPMS) in addition to having shorter runner lengths (higher RPMS).

so to simply say that the gain is in 20/25...is not exactly all the facts laid out on the table. you may see the gain, but that gain comes in the form of skewed representation of the facts. and in comparison to the competitors (where the MACE was tested at 25mm and the Black Ice 3/8"(?)) the math for the additional runner length in comparison to the power band shift was right on point with the mathematics provided by other professional engine builders.

one thing that you also fail to mention with that claim is PEAK gains. peak gains aren't even that close. maybe at some point through out the power band there was a difference that significant...but definitely not at PEAK HP/TQ and that is the number the majority of the folks on here are looking at. here is a listing of "independent testing" taken directly from REVextreme's website:

Other independent testing showed similar gains on a dyno:
+10.5 RWHP / +21.5 RWT at 2500
+11 RWHP / +19.5 RWT at 3000
+9.5 RWHP / +15 RWT at 3500
+20.5 RWHP / +27.5 RWT at 4000
+13.5 RWHP / +16 RWHP at 4500
+13 RWHP / +13.5 RWT at 5000
+11 RWHP / +11 RWT at 5500
+11 RWHP / +9 RWT at 6000
+4 RWHP / +3.5 RWT at 6500
+1 RWHP / +2 RWT at at 6800

a gain of 21 RWT at 2500 RPM can simply be an error on behalf of the dyno operator. i will agree that it DOES help with airflow especially down low. that is where i personally felt the increase from both products. but i believe your claims are a bit misleading as some of the amplifying facts are left out from the rest of the data when you straight up try and claim 20/25 HP/TQ. honestly i could careless. i have no beef with you, just that i think if you are going to rep a product, you should do it without misleading your audience. there IS science behind how all of this works. and if you can make your product better...why not take the extra steps to do so?

just my .02