Quote Originally Posted by gbaumann View Post
The point here is unless you know how each calibration table is set up at a given RPM you just can't know what's going on inside the cylinder and what the HP/torque numbers will (or should) be.
And my point is that if the difference is not primarily the type of forced induction (which I don't think it is, because both are a centrifugal compressor, and the turbo should theoretically be more efficient anyway), then there must be some combination of RIPP exaggerating their claim, or a difference in the calibration (tune) causing the difference in low RPM gains. It's the same engine on the same vehicle, so there's no sense trying to get into details of how port size, runner design, etc. can affect the results. All those details are exactly the same between the two vehicles being compared here, so it's irrelevant.

Quote Originally Posted by gbaumann View Post
Of course, all that said (rambled) I think RIPP could be "a bit off" in their claim unless, of course, the thing is tuned just perfectly and you wouldn't really need any boost to get the gain with the larger injectors, cams timed right, ignition spot on and high octane fuel.
And if that's the case, then a dialed-in tune with the turbo should get similar results at those low RPMs where boost is similar to RIPP. I heard a rumor that a new tune for the turbo may have some low rpm improvements, so maybe Prodigy and RIPP won't be so far away from each other at low rpms after all.

Still no response from RIPP. Maybe they don't check their PMs on that forum.