If we can't use their "advertised" claims of HP, what exactly are we supposed to use as a measuring stick for real world performance? Reputation, reliability, accessibility to info, and turn around time are all important, but the REAL reason we want a kit (any kit) and are willing to pay for it is the biggest increase in performance for the money. What you and some of others seem to be saying is pick a reputation and hope it was the best performance for the price. I have a hard time making a decision based on that kind of logic.
That being said, you are right, the HP numbers can be manipulated to tell the buyer what they want to hear. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's that they simply neglect to include all the pertinent data such as altitude, temp, jetting, etc.
Absent some real world comparisons side by side with identical sleds and riders I guess the "who's runs best" arguments will run on forever.
I had hoped that RK had a REAL gain of some kind (their reflash program,etc), as they have been silent on how this extra hp was obtained I will now view their claim as nothing more than advertising hyperbole.
That being said, you are right, the HP numbers can be manipulated to tell the buyer what they want to hear. Sometimes it's intentional, sometimes it's that they simply neglect to include all the pertinent data such as altitude, temp, jetting, etc.
Absent some real world comparisons side by side with identical sleds and riders I guess the "who's runs best" arguments will run on forever.
I had hoped that RK had a REAL gain of some kind (their reflash program,etc), as they have been silent on how this extra hp was obtained I will now view their claim as nothing more than advertising hyperbole.
Last edited:
