1a.) Buy all brands and test all brands using the same car, under the same conditions. You’ll need a Dyno to do the “under same conditions” part accurately. (Indoor temperature is much easier to control than outdoor)
I like the idea of testing every brand with the same conditions. In order to accomplish your plan I'd need to purchase over $14,000 worth of merchandise. There will be around $2,000 spent on the dyno and over 115 hours of labor just swapping parts, estimate about $5,500 in labor.
Are you willing to cover the estimated $21,000 in costs for your proposed improvements to the testing?
1b.) Testing an IC (a cheap Chinese knockoff at that, which is probably stamped) by puttering around town is useless, this was the reason for my comment. Most aftermarket ICs will perform worse than stock when you do this. This is not their intended application/use. An air-to-air performance system is very efficient; however, it does rely on airflow (from vehicle speed) to generate the needed cooling. Since the OP was debating between DP (Stage 2) or an IC, he clearly isn’t going to be puttering around town, obeying speed limits and driving like Ms. Daisy is in his back seat. If he was, remaining stock would be his best choice IMO.
The data about puttering around town was in response to this statement:
Log your daily commute in July. It’s not as you’re assuming at all
It was the specific topic being addressed, if you take issue with the topic I suggest responding to that person, not me.
1c.) Do you happen to know if you introduced any boost lag with this setup? How did you determine this? (If you did determine this)
I have not been able to detect any through logs of boost onset. The JB4 only records about 10 samples per second so it's not very high resolution data, but based on the trend I am seeing if there is boost lag it would seem to be small.
2.) Do you really want me to compile the ways each performance company performs their engineering/development/testing as posted on their respective websites? What does that do for either of us? I can tell you that the equipment they are using to develop/test is way more complete, precise and telltale than what you’re doing.
Yes please do, you said about the testing: "tests are garbage/half ass'd and don't hold up against R&D from actual performance companies."
There's a difference between performing a test in a sound manner and having material resources. If you can start to describe what equipment these companies are using and how they are going about testing we can establish what the differences are with what I am doing.
3.) I understand that, but that doesn’t mean anything.
You made a statement immediately followed by an example, if you didn't intend to have the example act as support for the claim you may want to rephrase what you were trying to say.
Posting it or compiling it is not helpful, it’s confusing. So many different variables from all of those results including methods of retrieving the data. People that don’t know any better will look at that and make very poor assumptions.
The goal is to take advantage of the law of large numbers.
So now it's back to the first point, your $21,000 proposal for getting better data. Between having next to nothing to base a decision upon, and a very costly plan that is unlikely to ever be put into action, I've decided that compiling data and applying some filtering criteria to it can provide useful information. If you have something better please post it up, pissing and moaning about what others are doing isn't helping to generate better data.
Is that forum member who keeps flexing/coming to your defense your friend? He doesn’t seem very intelligent. I’m not trolling you, I don’t want people making poor assumptions on data that isn’t complete.
Nope, don't know them, perhaps they disagree with you?