Dock

I gave you what I consider to be the "bare minimum information".

9Eleven

No, you missed the point. The MAF problem regarding the V-flow, in many cases was created and/or related to the introduction of the V-flow. The RMS issue was not the result of any aftermarket product.

9Eleven

Whatever, that was as bare as it gets. I think you like to argue for the sake of argument, without ever making a point. For example, by just taking a single line from my post and replying with an opinion. Great in debating class, not very good when it comes to facts. Dock, enjoy your V-flow. The football game is coming on. Good night.

Dock

A quick review...

-You asked me if I agreed with you that the V-Flow had issues.

-I posed a question that included this..."say it's just because of a quality control issue with the MAF".

-You said you "give up" (which has not been true), and implied that the V-Flow issue was because of... " Porsche substandard engineering" (with regard to the MAF)...to me it was somewhat sarcastic, or a "yea right" reply.

-I replied by asking you about the RMS problems with two Porsche models, because the crux of my questions is to show that Porsche does not build perfectly performing cars. They had either poor engineering and/or poor quality control with regard to the RMS. If this is true, and I believe it is, then it stands to reason that they could also have similar engineering/quality control problems with the MAF. If Porsche has produced MAF units with varying quality, and it could be shown that the V-Flow causes problems when use with the substandard units, then the V-Flow is not the problem...its the substandard MAF that is the problem.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Show me that the V-Flow did not work when properly installed on a Turbo that had all OEM parts, with those OEM parts built to and performing up to Porsche's original specifications, and I'll say the V-Flow has problems. Until then...we don't know.

Dock

Then you think wrong.

Oh, and there's another single line quote...but then again, words mean things, and the quote above is the only thing I want to reply to right now. How is that a problem?

9Eleven

There are alot of "if's" in your reply. I don't have any personal knowledge of a MAF just going out like an RMS. I haven't seen any evidence or discussions on this or any other related forum, nor have I seen it occur around some pretty respected professionals and their cars. I think what it really boils down to is this, I personally don't believe that it delivers any additional horsepower regardless of any possible MAF/CEL issues. I base this on personal observations and recommendations by racing professionals who live or die by their cars and knowledge. So, I wouldn't buy one based on that information and my personal belief. My, "You win Dock." was a sarcastic response. My apologies for any miscommunication.

The MAF/CEL issue cannot be compared to the RMS issue. Yes, Porsche isn't perfect. I don't know of any car manufacturer that is, but as far as complaints for new vehicles, Porsche just took the number 1 spot away from Lexus, having the least amount of complaints per vehicle. I am in no way a cheerleader for Porsche, they can and have built some cars that I wouldn't touch. I would only and have only, purchased Gt models, but the MAF/CEL issues have been, in certain cases, directly related to aftermarket products.

I noticed you didn't address my "unofficial" EVO dyno. It show's only a maximum 6 hp gain, which is an almost unmeasurable number on any dyno. That's why I wouldn't buy it. The mechanical issues are a sidebar.

Your method of debate would be objected to in a formal setting. You have to argue and respond to the entire response. The pick and choose/opinion response doesn't rebut the original topic/argument. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe it does not deliver any additonal hp, you do. Geez, I usually get paid to argue like this Dock.

Dock

What's there to reply to? I didn't say I believed the V-Flow delivered the same performance increases in all applications.

The entire response does not have to be replied to when the response has a specific stand alone sentence, or single concept, that presents a discussion topic. I ask questions because your answers will lead to a conclusion that I'm trying to make. Besides, Rennlist is not the place to waste unnecessary bandwidth and/or one's time replying in a debate/legal method. If you can't follow the flow when concise replies/questions are presented, there is nothing I can do to help you.

Yes, and they in many cases represent the unknowns.

Dock

There was no miscommunication, I just decided not to reply to it. I thought the "I quit" remark was a better point to respond to.

Sure it can.

And this is information totally unrelated to the RMS/MAF engineering/quality control discussion.

9Eleven

Judging from this statement, you have now resorted to insults and condescension. That's when I feel it's time to move on. You have a very loose definition of concise replies.

Once again Dock, you skirted the issue and picked a particular sentence that you felt you could respond to without a challenge, since your reply was an opinion.

9Eleven

Your responses are not supported by any argument. They are just opinions. "Sure you can?" That's a concise response to a point? That's the best you can do? Really Dock, not to sound condescending, but you're out of your league. And based on some of your non-sensical responses, you may have some reading comprehension issues. Argue the point, don't just make unsupported opinions. You are right about one thing, this is a waste of bandwith in which I will not longer spend another second of my valuable time. Take care.

Dock

I argue that there might be more to the V-Flow "issue" than the V-Flow itself, and offer why I think this is so. At this time there is not enough hard evidence to support anything *other* than an argument that more evidence is required before a conclusion can be reached. In a non-legal environment, arguments are used to persuade others to adopt an opinion or a course of action (research in this case). And without specific facts, reasoning is used to decide the the best path to take. In the V-Flow case, we don't have sufficient information available to assign failure to the V-Flow alone.

Yes, "Sure you can" is a valid response based on the fact that I did so in a previous post. Why go over it all again?

9Eleven

That is your opinion. In my opnion, based on my research and experience, it does not give you any additional hp at any level. As far as the MAF/CEL issue IMHO, there are some unresolved issues that I would not risk since the product does not deliver any benefit for the risk. No, it is not a valid response. Your orignal comparison was flawed. I responded to your RMS/MAF comparison with a concise answer. Your response to that was, "Sure you can." Once again, based on your responses, or lack thereof, your reading comprehension skills are highly suspect.

Dock

Try reading post #110 again.

9Eleven

No, I suggest you read the entire thread again. Brush up on your reading comprehension skills. The point has been made at nauseum, you seem to be the only one unwilling or unable to understand it.

Dock

OK, you've been over this a few times...you don't want a V-Flow...so be it. Why do you feel the need to tell me/the Forum again?