[iroc_g]

OK, I showed my boss the replies, so I could better answer these issues.

The Heimholtz resistance is in no way relative when testing a forced induction intake manifold. I got a crash course in what Heimholtz resistance is and how it is determined. Not only is it not relative, but even if it were, would differ depending on the individuals COMPLETE setup.

As far as the restrictions further down the line. Yes, those would effect the efficieancy of each individual cylinder. However, each cylinder has 2 equally sized valves, equally sized ports, cumbustion chambers, into the exhaust manifold and finally meet in the turbo. So arguing that these restrictions would change the balance of the intake manifold is not correct.
And yes, a exhaust manifold that is uneven could easily impact the power and afr balance of each cylinder. If you are going to ask a imbalanced exhaust manifold to counteract a imbalanced intake, then you have far more problems with your setup than most either of these parts are going to help.
Simply put, the intake manifold is the first part that divides the engines air charge. If it is imbalanced, then the rest of the parts don't have a chance at staying balanced.

If the flowbench is showing a 10% difference when comparing runners, that 10% is going to carry wether it was at X amount of vaccum, or Y amount of boost. So, if at 400 cfm it is 40 cfm short (10%), then at 1200 CFM, it will be 120cfm short. The more boost you run, the worse it gets. The percentage stays the same, but the difference in the volume of air will grow.

The suggestion of using a 2g maf and wideband per cylinder would be a different way to determine the imbalance per runner. You could also math out the airfolw per cylinder. By looking at the total airflow divided by the amount of runners, then adding or subtracting the different percentages seen with the wbo2's. However, I don't know anybody who is setup to do that, and it would be much more time consuming to get the same information, with much more chance for error. A flow bench can't lie, and there are no extra components to add to a percentage of error.
Infact, there was a period of time that GM and some of the larger race shops tested there intakes by dry spinning the engine to redline, and measuring the total airflow with either a cfm stack or a MAF sensor. This was quickly abandoned though, because of the added time and cost, as well as it did not give the ability to track individual cylinder changes. They all went back to the flow bench beacuse it was considered to be more accurate and much simpler.

Looking at the "whole picture" like the real world has to is the problem that we have been dealing with. The real world (I assume you mean end users, us DSMers) isn't setup to test these either the way I have, or the way that you suggest. If they did, I doubt there would be such a discrepency in these parts. And this is the way the racing world and industrial world tests their parts.

Finally, to the comment that these results don't represent real life at all. That is flat out wrong. Simply put, The auto manufactures, race teams, and industrial research and development departments all use a flow bench for all of their airflow design needs. That is its purpose, and the industry accepted way to do things. I have been told by two intake manufactures featured in this test, that the reason they have not provided any flow information, or even done that sort of testing, is because they feel that the average user will not know what to do with the information. The reason that Beyond Redline sent me a manifold was they wanted to know for themselves how their part does, because they had not yet flow tested it.

My boss (the guy that has been helping me in all of this) has been heavily involved in the development of intake manifolds and cylinder heads for champion nextel cup teams, forced induction race teams, and industrial companys like Catapiller and Daewoo. That is why I consider him to be an expert. He obviously knows what he is doing if these billion dollar companies are asking him to design, test, or fix their parts. I am very fortunate to have him be so willing to help me on things like this. Most of us do not have this type of resource.