Quote:
Originally Posted by spdu4ea
To go off topic a bit, I personally find the different vendor approaches interesting... There's an old (bad?) joke about the pessimist, optimist, and the engineer. The first says the glass is half-empty, the next says it's half-full, and the engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needed to be. AA has specified exactly the "right" size supercharger for the power and paid a ~50% premium for one that is quieter, lighter, and has a longer service interval. But imo they've left no room for an easy upgrade, and I'm not sure the average FI customer will appreciate AA's zen-like engineering restraint.
ESS used to have a similar philosophy with their E46 CFR kits, but I'm guessing they grew tired of trying to convince peak-power obsessed Americans to pay more for a SC that doesn't make the same 'number' despite having similar/better area under the curve & driving dynamics. Instead, they're now going with a less expensive but larger charger than required. This means there is room for further inexpensive upgrades and, despite committing the engineering sin of overbuilding, I imagine most customers feel better knowing they have some cushion rather than being at/near the SC's rated limit.
From a business standpoint, I think ESS absolutely made the right choice. From an engineer's perspective, I admire AA's willingness to make what they consider the ultimate driving machine even if their kits appear to come up short in every popular comparative metric. It's similar to DCT vs 6MT: there is no question that the DCT is faster, but how do you quantify the pleasure derived from driving a 6MT? And I just can't help but wonder what charger ESS would have picked if they didn't have to compete with Vortech numbers put down by kits from VF and Gintani...
/rambling
|
Well said -
You're summary above is a beacon in the fog of all the dick measuring that has occurred over the last 12 pages