Quote:
Originally Posted by Driver72
And why wouldn't they?
Just out of curiousity, for those who think the BMC is worth paying the $30-40 more than the K&N, what exactly do you guys think makes the BMC better?
Does it not use the same cotton gauze weave that the K&N invented in 1969?
Does it not use an oil to catch and filter particulars again, copying the K&N?
There is a clear difference in type of filter between the ITG and K&N but please explain to me how you guys feel the BMC is superior to the K&N and worth spending 60% more for it?
K&N started making these filters for offroad motorcycles, and even that BMC copied.
BMC started 4 years later, also for motorcycles.
K&N has been making these performance filters for cars shortly after they design these cotton gauze filters back in 1969. (I remember using them back in the mid-late 80's when I started driving)
BMC just started making there copy for cars in 1991.
Again, if the BMC is not just a copy of the K&N, somebody please explain to me how you think the BMC is better and can do a better job, considering they just used the knowledge and technology the K&N designed?
|
Good observation. I was thinking this myself and guess who does have the expired patent. What it does tell us that BNC filters may be slightly less restrictive at the cost of far less filtration. I couldn’t even find any data on this which leads me to believe that don’t want you to know. Not worth 2 whp for long term engine damage this will cause.
I like to go with Helena filter when they come out but K&N this week for me as your test showed it was worth the $50 investment.
I am not sure why there is a mob mentality to jump the BNC band wagon.
Orb