Originally Posted by XxToKeSxX
I can find just as many posts about them being praised on the pulsar forums (as well as the internet, here, etc.) that exist with people ****ting on them.
Would you buy a product with a 50% failure rate?I can find just as many posts about them being praised on the pulsar forums (as well as the internet, here, etc.) that exist with people ****ting on them.
Originally Posted by Andreas
What are you talking about
You were saying that just because a company was based in China, it doesn't mean that they produce bad products. I agree with you.What are you talking about
Originally Posted by Andreas
The very early SSAC headers use to crack just like the Hot**** header.
Hotshot always had issues with cracking which is ****ed up if you ask me. N/A headers are under a lot less stress than a turbo header and to have an N/A header crack is pretty rare. Hotshot really messed up here producing their entire header range with cracking problems.The very early SSAC headers use to crack just like the Hot**** header.
The fact that SSAC headers cracked from the beginning is expected. They copied Hotshot's header, and did such a good job of it they had the same problems. No surprises there.
Originally Posted by Andreas
SSAC listemed to their customers and made the header thicker and they stopped cracking.
Good for them. It's pretty comical actually that they did that, when Hotshot didn't.SSAC listemed to their customers and made the header thicker and they stopped cracking.
We are talking about turbo manifolds here though. Saying an N/A header from SSAC doesn't crack means nothing in this context because it is not a turbo manifold. Making an N/A header that doesn't crack is child's play. Your other methods of backing up SSAC are valid. But saying they make an N/A header that doesn't crack so their turbo header is probably not going to crack is like saying a Doctor performed a successful circumcision so his brain surgery must be pretty good too.