Okay, so you guys are biting on the low hanging argument, which on the surface looks to be a fair argument...but you have to look at the design of the T3 to see why its a flawed argument. And once I move my lab to the new room in the house, I'll loop up the same loops and add nylon Y's (I'm not buying $30 BP Y's) and show you the numbers to end the debate.

I tried to explain this in the review, but apparently did not do it well enough. The flow rates achieved with the T3's dual loop capability are not just because it has two inlets and outlets, the impeller intake is very different from a D5 with Detroit Thermo or EK top. The suction side of the D5 can only pull so much water...here is how I explained it in the review...

Quote Originally Posted by skinnee
So now we have increased the amount of water the D5 can push out with deeper draw and a larger outlet, and even given it a place to go that helps regulate (and maintain some of) the pressure. Again, you don't have to be an engineer to know that if more water is being pushed out then you need to draw more water in through the inlet or you starve the pump and a nosy neighbor calls pump protective services on you. Feeding the inlet is a large "tank" that is, in turn, fed by the inlets on the back of the T3 that you connect your loop or loops to. The problem is that the inlet diameter is precisely matched to the impeller in the D5 and any change in diameter kills performance. An area that has long been considered the biggest limiting factor on gaining any more performance out of the D5. At this point the discussion turns to laminar boundary layers and feed angles and stuff that Vapor and the engineering types wax on about at length. Fortunately for most of you, I barely understand it, so you do not have to read my poor attempt at explaining it. BoxGods tried to explain it in layman's terms for me by saying:

"Although water is not compressible in the very limited pressure ranges we are working in, it CAN be redirected and moved in a more efficient manner similar to a venturi. I actually got the idea to try it from an article by Martin (from Martin's Liquid Labs =)) where he suggested (amazingly based just on observation) that although the impeller on the D5 was obviously optimized for maximum efficiency, the inlet feed angle didn't seem to be. In simplified terms this means that although the inlet diameter and the impeller are matched for efficiency, the perpendicular inlet angle dictated by the tubing type fitting is actually pretty bad."
To think of this a different way, think of a D5 with Detroit top with Y's at the inlet at outlet--opposing Y's. Now look at the Typhoon III the same way, only move those Y's into the pump head and think of an X instead of opposing Y's. The pump head itself is the opposing Y's, in order to achieve this the pump head has to not only be able to output more volume, but intake has to increase as well. In order to boost the intake you have two options, both of which require tweaks to the inlet. The two options are to attach that pump head to a reservoir, so the pump can pull as much water as it needs or you add dual inlets right before the pump head. The Typhoon III went the reservoir route combining two WC loop components in one, a better design choice IMO.

So yes, the Typhoon III is different, no other pumping product is designed the way the BoxGods did it. Trying to compare any serial or Y parallel loop is going to raise intial reaction of an apples to oranges comparison...but how the hell do you test and compare something that wasn't a possibility before? That last little nugget there is what took so long on the testing and review...I battled back and forth on how the heck to properly test the Typhoon III in order to show the capability and performance that was unattainable before. Again, I will test the Y's just so numbers will be available and the debate will end. However, I need something from all of you, once the numbers are release can we put the issue to bed? I need to get this backlog I've accumulated taken care of.