Ok, I guess I am going to play the role of 'that guy' here, but someone has to if only to focus the discussion in order to keep moving towards some kind of resolution.

Again to be clear - I think there is a problem here and that the matter could have been dealt with far better. Also, I am not personally invested as I do not have any of the products that are at issue.


There seems to be 3 distinct issues here:

1) Does the exhaust sold by APR contain RCS technology - that being, by Corsa's claims, "acoustic tuning" designed to eliminate drone. (In my view, a further issue here is what does it mean for the product to contain RCS technology. We are all certainly aware of and focusing on the "vaned" style featured in diagrams, but remember, the claim is the the exhaust is "acoustically tuned" and does not specify any particular method.)

2) Does the exhaust sold by APR meet the advertised claims - Reduce drone, feature "straight-though" (i.e., will pass the golfball test) design, and contains RCS technology.

3) General issues of build quality, included the grade of materials used.

Clearly, there are problems with #3.

The real hurdle seems to be with #1 in that it is certainly possible, and entirely likely that Corsa/APR would take the position that "acoustic tuning" encompasses a vast array of styles and methods with the defining feature being that drone is reduced or eliminated by the cancelling out of certain sound frequencies. It will be their position that if any design element in the exhaust (whatsoever) has resulted in the elimination of drone in this way the exhaust has been "acoustically tuned" and therefore contains RSC technology.

If #1 is made out, #2 follows pretty easily.

Now - Everyones job is to tell my why I am wrong and thats how you make your case.