Ratchie, you clearly do not have a full grasp of fluid dynamics, and flow in pipes especially.
You have posted some dyno numbers that were initially incorrect, then when corrected completely incompatible w/ other dyno results posted by other, and no copies of plots, only peak numbers.
The simple fact of the matter is that given the choice, mandrel bends provide far less loss of flow energy than a crush bend, ultimately giving a far more efficient method of transporting a gas flow.
Does this mean Cardoc's exhaust setup is useless? no, it just means that others feel it to not be the value he makes it out to be. Does it make crush bends a horrible evil? No, many people use crush bends on custom setups for the sake of convenience and expense (heck my own custom quai-dual system uses crush bends)
The reason Cardoc ended up having to defend himself all of the time, is he would make claims, and then when technical questions were asked regarding them, he would not respond, or would whine about having to defend himself. He and I have gone several rounds on several different subjects. He is certainly not someone I would go to for technical advice, especially on engineering matters. (Note that engine/powertrain modifications are inherently an exercise in engineering)
All that said, I still would like to see dyno plots of Cardoc's exhaust, and another, relevant plot to compare it to (ie a basline dyno of the same car, or with a different exhaust or whatever)
And finally, last time I checked, "Cherry Bomb" was not known for being the high quality exhaust component leader, but rather a Pep Boy's special.
