8hp for $100? I guess you never spent $300+ for a dual exhaust system on a stock V8 that might have netted you 10-15hp??? Or 600 for an intake manifold and carb that might have netted 25hp?
No, as a matter of fact, I haven't. And never would spend that much for an exhaust system. I'lll stick with my locally bent system and home made exhaust "equalizer" pipe. As for the intake, yea, I spent way over that for the six pack setup I'm running on my 331, but the power factor wasn't a part of my decision to buy it, rather it was to have something different along with the awesome sound three carbs make when you nail the gas. The intake I ran before with the Canfields on a 306 shortblock was a used Vic Jr, and a used Holley 650 dp carb that I milled the choke assembly off myself and blended the airhorn after removing the choke. I acquired it used with a 66 Stang parts car ( basically free) spent $100 for a new base plate & $30 for a kit, and another $15 or so for a new fuel line for it. Worked just as well as a $600 setup would have, for 1/2 the price. Sold it a couple months ago along with the Vic Jr for $250, so I was basically out $50 after all was said and done. The Canfields were also a bargain for the $1050 I spent for them.
While there is truth in what you say about advertising dollars making the mags favor certain parts, I don't believe they would alter dyno results to make a loser a winner because they spend more on ads. That is reaching a little. Hell, that's reaching a LOT.
I agree, they don't forge the results but they do taint the tests. Two particular examples come to mind from the last year...
They did a head-to-head dyno comparison between a 302, a 351W, and two 351Cs. But some of the mills had iron heads to "compare" with the aluminum aftermarket heads on others and some had roller cams while others had hydraulic flat tappets.
Then there was the 427W versus the 428CJ comparison where the parts were set up so the motors were too close to call. They simply took two different approaches to the engine specs with the two motors. It would have been more interesting if the parts had been matched as closely as possible.
I consider average readings VERY important as an alternative to peak. Sometimes I see average from 4,000 to 6,000 RPM, sometimes I see them as in this case from 2,500 to 6,000. The former is a good indication of output in racing conditions, but how much power an engine makes below 3,500 is VERY important to folks like me who want to be able to cruise around and mellow out sometimes. I'd hate to HAVE to leave every light at 4,000+ RPMs, think of all the negative LE attention that would garner
I consider average readings VERY important as an alternative to peak. Sometimes I see average from 4,000 to 6,000 RPM, sometimes I see them as in this case from 2,500 to 6,000. The former is a good indication of output in racing conditions, but how much power an engine makes below 3,500 is VERY important to folks like me who want to be able to cruise around and mellow out sometimes. I'd hate to HAVE to leave every light at 4,000+ RPMs, think of all the negative LE attention that would garner
I think it's more important too. I think the shape of the curve, therefore the distribution of the torque and power is more important though. Having a better average can still mean 90% of your power and torque is from 4000 - 7000. You have to look at the curve to see how nice that power will be to use on the street. This is the reason I like Ford Australia's torque description for the turbo XR-6. They say 400Nm or whatever of torque with 90% of that available at 1500rpm, which tells me that the curve is going to be nice and flat and low down will have PLENTY for getting started.