transsam

iTrader: (5)

For far too many years, we have seen companies claim to have invented the best cutout. So will these companies step up to the plate and put a small amount of money where their mouth is?

The test would simply need:
2 3" diameter pipes, both with 3" flanges
Pipe 1 would need a length no longer than 1-2 feet
Pipe 2 would need to be only between 2-4 inches
An accurate measuring orifice
A disinterested party to run the test
A camera to watch if desired for accuracy

The test I propose is simple and as follows:

1. Pipes 1 and 2 are connected to the cutout being tested.
   A. Pipe 1 represents incoming exhaust
   B. Pipe 2 represents cut-off flow
2. The pipes are placed vertically, with the cutout installed and Pipe 1 on top, over an empty testing tank.
3. Pipe 1 is filled with a predetermined amount of fluid (water with food coloring would be fine)
4. The last step could be conducted in one of two ways.
   A. Hopefully, over the period of perhaps 12 hours, the fluid that made it through would be measured.
   B. The second measurement would be the amount of time each cutout held the water. This is only if the cutouts leak badly enough that it is necessary
5. Repeat, using new gaskets with each continuing test.

So, QTP, DHM, Doug's, MPP and anyone else who has laid claim to having the best cutout, let's see if you can step up!
Additionally, this test would need to monitor closed to open times as well as, if possible, 2,000 mile tests to see how well each holds up to carbon over a similar period.

Considering this is an attempt at scientific testing and is not advertising, I assume and hope moderators would also welcome an honest test with the other brands included.

transsam

iTrader: (5)

And can we please keep the nut huggers out of this. I don't care if your brother's worked great, or your's broke, or if so and so at wherever was curt with you on the phone. I would like to see this remain a test thread, not one of these:

Zmg00camaross

iTrader: (11)

Interesting

Element

iTrader: (5)

You're not taking into account environmental exposure that can lead to gasket breakdown, corrosion, rust, and loss of performance from the electric motor. You're also not taking into account any heat change - you'd need to do the test cold, cold ramping to hot, and sustained hot, and cycle the cutouts multiple times (refilling them with water after cycling them closed) in order to even approximate real-world conditions. That test also ignores the positive pressure differential between the exhaust pipe and atmosphere that exists at different engine conditions - idle, part throttle, cruising, and full throttle.

transsam

iTrader: (5)

Motor degradation would be a warranty issue, so cover it there. If I am not mistaken these are all stainless, so corrosion shouldn't be an isue. I have considered all of this. One option would be using a flow bench. Another would be attaching it to a running engine on an engine dyno with the cutout attached and run into another room to measure leakage.

These tests would be much better, but when it comes to leaking, this is simple and would be effective. Equal pressure from the fluid due to equal weight.

Simple is best on this test and it needs to be done.

Element

iTrader: (5)

Simple doesn't equate to the real world. This sort of thing is my job; I do it every day, from determining what spec a product needs to be tested to, to doing the testing, to writing the report when it's all done.

Corrosion and carbon buildup can cause premature motor failures and cause the plate not to seat correctly, causing leaks. A flow bench won't do anything to approximate extended real-world conditions. You wouldn't even need the cutout hooked up to an engine - you can pressurize the upstream exhaust with any sort of detectable gas, then put a gas analyzer on the atmosphere side of the cutout to measure for any, or how much, leakage occurs.

The simple tests tells you how much the units can leak brand-new out of the box. That doesn't help people who want to buy a cutout that'll last for years.

transsam

iTrader: (5)

We aren't actually on different sides here man. This is simply a leak test - I don't trust many of them to last for years anyway. I agree that a time based test would be needed too. 2k miles is short, but would give us an idea. Read my OP; I totally agree with you about needing to test how carbon builds on them:

And don't hear me as fighting with you, PLEASE. Your insight would be extraordinarily valuable here. My only point is that the goal would be to test leaks, and if possible over time.