All of the weaker parts used are more expensive to produce.
We used a process called rapid prototyping which uses CAD models to produce products from nylon. The production process of these parts does not come down no matter how many are produced.
The by product of rapid prototyping is that you can test many variations of one part and have it produced quickly.
Production parts are much cheaper to produce.
Some of the expensive parts such as the air separators inside the plenum are there to ensure equal distribution of air flow across all cylinders. This is functional but to us essential to stop any one cylinder running lean. We will put up an image of how this looks.
Other areas of expense for example is the bracket system. The outer cover may seem like it's there for looks but the function is something different altogether. The idler pulleys and tensioners are given massive reinforcement by now allowing them to have outward forces applied which in turn increases their life. Of course the bracket is also much stronger.
The final major expense is the intercooler.
This was done because of demand of air to air and also because the recovery rate is non compatible to a air to water system which can actually be packaged in such a tight space.
Temperatures will rise on any system but for us the recovery and stability was of most importance.
It's by no means the most expensive kit.
If you compare to other top level kits it's actually cheaper once you factor in that we include the programming cable and the special xylan finish on the plenum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
That's awfully defensive.
There is no doubt among any of us that you guys have put together a very fine, high end kit. I understand defense of a product that you have poured your brains, hours and passion into. In that way defensiveness is a good thing.
But is there overkill? If some of your parts absolutely won't fail or break in their weaker versions then the intentionally stronger ones are over-engineered (by definition) and perhaps then also overpriced. We can revisit the machined plenum topic. Machining really is not the most cost effective process to make such a part. Machining does provide the least up front costs and actaully requires less engineering (mold engineering is expensive and almost an art to it).
At the end of the day, what real world performance or longevity advantages are you bringing to the table compared to lower priced kits? Do you have any quantitative comparisons? For example will your system exhibit less power loss under hard conditions in high ambient temperatures? If so, again some quantification or comparison would be great. Most folks have no problem spending more for more performance but personally what I look for is the ratio - the old bang for the buck point of view.
|