Janna,
That's a good question and yes I'm expecting the Spider to produce better results than any EXISTING direct port (Fogger) type system, including my own.
However, my latest HIGH END direct port systems (which only my existing top customers have seen on a manifold and will be using for the first time this year), use the same core technology as my Spider and can best be described as Semi-Internal Systems (SIS).
You can see the components of the front of such a system here;
http://www.noswizard.com/product_info.p ... cts_id=100Compared to my Semi-Internal system (SIS), I expect the Spider to come close but I'd still expect my Semi-Internal direct port system to have the edge for the following reasons;
1) The SIS has a perfectly straight flow path, whereas the Spiders flow path has to turn through two 90 degree bends and this means the flow will be better.
2) The positioning of the discharge nozzle tips on the SIS is more flexible than the Spider, making it possible to optimise the location of the discharge to a higher degree.
3) The flow capabilities of our SIS systems are even greater than the Spider, as our SIS systems are available up to 3,000+ hp, whereas the Spider is currently limited to 700 hp, although we do plan to launch a 1,000+ hp Spider when we launch the high flow Revo valves but that could be the end of the year.
4) The SIS systems use either 4 or 8 prs of Pulsoids and for a given power output, this means that it's possible to run the SIS systems at a higher frequency than the Spider (with only 2prs of Pulsoids, although it is possible to run 4prs at a push), to achieve smoother delivery.
Anybody who is interested in running one of my system on an engine with a sheet manifold will almost certainly run quicker times with my SIS systems but if you're limited to a cast manifold then the Spider is going to run a close 2nd.