...ehemm...cough...cough...gasp...wheeze.... (sifu clearing throat)...
Actually, all you guys are neither right nor wrong...
Dyno testing is the absolute method of determining if more or less power or torque is produced by an engine. BUT Jeffrey is right in the sense that practical performance is sometimes more important. Because dyno tests are done under controlled conditions, where many parameters are constant. In practical applications, ALL parameters are constantly changing, hence, the question here should be,"Can the K2N system accomodate these variables?"
Ong is also right to say that a lot of people get conned by all sorts of improvement systems with negligible effect, but people are so convinced by the pure marketing of the product...something I know well as my marketing, or "structured bs" as I call it has been my career for a long time (a side activity since everyone knows that my primary activity in life is playing with engines...
)
But, Jeffrey has made the best and most honest offer yet ever made to this club, that is..."NO POWER or NO MONEY". On the basis of his position, and the conviction with which he writes, I would argue to give him and his product a fair hearing and review.
I have many reasons for this. The most important being that whilst the internal combustion engine has been around for close to a century now, we hardly understand it. Companies have researched making the hardware more and more efficient by different means. Petroleum companies will swear by their additive formulas, researching into different ways to modify the burn rate, burn efficiency, and flame front by the addition of other chemicals.
But lately, people have been saying that there are other ways to improve fuel i.e. magnets, fuel catalysts, etc. Whilst I hardly understand (at this time) how these things work, there is enough evidence to merit some investigation.
These products work on the theory that fuel can be "modified" on a molecular level. Magnets are supposed to allign the hydrocarbon chains in such a way as to improve combustion efficiency i.e. the simple combination of O2 with fuel (oxidation) and the breaking of the native carbon to carbon bonding. This is clearly possible. Imagine setting fire to a ball of thread...as opposed to setting fire to a long strand of thread. Clearly, the ball will not burn, nor release it's energy as cleanly as a length of thread.
"Catalysts" have different ways of working. The problem here is that the "marketeers" tend to use scientific words as it suits them and not to any real degree of accuracy. A catalyst is a material that speeds up chemical reactions by "bridging" but in itself is not affected by the reaction that it affects. But, marketeers tend to call EVERYTHING a catalyst. Some magnet applications are even called catalysts...just sheer marketing bs. To be a true catalyst, the material has to be present in the middle of the chemical reaction.
This product, like many products like it, is basically a "conditioner". They affect the fuel before it reaches the combustion chamber. Whether by allignment of hydrocarbon chains (perfectly possible) or by the addition of some material into the fuel (also possible). I will need to look at the technology, and see the test results before I can even venture a guess as to how it works.
So...next steps. I'll give Jeffrey a call and see what develops...