Well I'll be the first to jump off the ledge...so pause with the pitch forks and torches and hear me out.
My opinion is, I am very disappointed in Gales "technical" assessments of aftermarket differential covers in his latest video. That being Mag Hytec since no others were even mentioned. Actually I thought his "testing" was incredibly incomplete as he threw out a lot of speculation and conjecture with no data to support any of it other than a see through view.
First off, Mag Hytec does NOT specify in their directions to overfill. The added capacity Gales referring to is because of the extra room the aftermarket covers can offer. So for him to throw MH under the bus I felt was bad ethics...
Also, maybe he forgot that in his last video with the plastic curved cover we got to see how the fluid moved about. And if you watch both videos back to back / side by side, you can see that the fluids in both covers do the EXACT same thing. It moves about the same, it aerates the same, and it sloshes about the same. Well actually I thought the MH cover didnt aerate as much as the curved cover.
The only real difference I noticed is the round cover didnt have any mood lighting. Not to mention that he started the MH cover test ideo with much slower speeds to show the sloshing, whereby he didnt do that in the curved cover video.
All that said, (and I dont mean to seem like I'm picking on Gale) the one thing he clearly didnt test, which is the main reason for adding an aftermarket diff cover (next to bling factor) is any reduction of fluid temperatures through capacity and dissipation. He also didnt bother to offer any testing on the resistance of fluid "work" which he claims is taking place by the fluid hitting any flat surfaces.
So...point being, I think Gale better step up the testing with some good solid results showing heat comparisons and fluid resistance comparisons. All of which cant be refuted in any way either, otherwise this is one big waste of time.