Does this make sence:
Right know I have a 3.5" intake pipe. Now I should probably have a 3" but I haven't seen any good data to prove it.
So I got to thinking..
Would I be able to figure out which diameter pipe is better from collecting MAF values?
I was planing on recording a few runs on the scan tool with each. I would graph the maf values (gr/sec) vs. rpm for each pipe. Then I could integrate the function of each line to get the area under both curves. This would show which flows better overall.
I could also just integrate the function of the line for a certian rpm range since I'll only see below a specific rpm once in the 1/4 mile.
Now I'll have to wait till my air/fuel chip tuning is finished so I won't get distorted values from the afc calibrator.
Anyone agree?

It has been a long time since I took Calculus (and did poorly, I might add), but would it be wise to graph the curve and analyze its physical shape in addition to integrating? Could it be possible that the curve with the largest area would not be optimal, as far as shape is concerned? Does that make any sense?

might be worth a shot... i've been thinking about the 3" pipe lately... and it'* a catch 22... you're more likely to create laminar flow in the 3", but by the same token, with an S2, you're going to have a sizeable change in diameter (3->4), and the losses created from that may negate the laminar flow you had established already...

who knows. not I. can't hurt to try though, can it?

In a perfect world you would flow test the individual pieces on a flow bench. Since you don't have access to a bench, install a tap behind each component in the inlet track, make a WOT run on the street and read the vacuum gauge. If it'* "0" there are no losses and, therefore, upgrading components will not help. You can also use this for filters and TB'*.

True, but didn't they do that a while back (zzperformance, methinks), but find that different combinations didn't work out quite the way the numbers would have suggested? I'd just take the two systems that I'd be interested in, and get readings off of my MAF, since that'* what the car is going to base it'* calculations off of anyway...