Fred wouldn't it be a good idea to get proof this is more beneficial.
As I am sure a standard top mount can do the same job, be it slightly more restrictive.
Rob's aim was to run no more than 350. The top mount issues i.e heat soak in stop start warm weather driving conditions, so had people using front mounts for better flow and remove the inter warmer issues.
I just think tests need to be done first to prove its worth while.
Have tests even been done on the Arc over standard? Would like to see.
As if the results are very minimal and do not make much difference why bother.
Not trying to put anyone off but it needs to be justified as spending this much on a recored top mount..hmmm not too sure.
I would have thought, standard top mount and water injection/ menthol would be sufficient.
The whole point of the front mount was to get better airflow. Yes I know some people may not want to chop up their front bumper or sections of the front end, and some may experience more lag depending on the pipework routing and length.
But if you use any kind of top mount but no airflow gets to it, it's pointless, weather arc, std, or re cored.
If you are stuck in traffic, hot weather and you do not drive above 20mph for the whole journey I am sure you will be plagued with the same issues. It's only when you to get better flow I.e high driving speeds that you will see differences. Hence wrc cars can proved real tests on the re cored top mounts as they are driving at manic speeds and getting true air flow at the top mounts.
Just my thinking, maybe i am wrong....Discuss...
P.s have. Read on this interesting top mount comparison and a font mount. Looking at core/ mass/ flow.