[T Bone]

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?

BMC filters actually fit. I can use a specific example where they killed the K&N. In the BMW M5 / M6 application. The K&N filter didn't fit and the surface area was smaller than stock. K&N didn't measure properly. The BMC fit like a glove. Everybody who has a BMC noted improved throttle response including me. Everybody with the K&N reported loss power and running hotter.

See for yourself.... Remember this is just one example....I am sure there are others.

Also the K&N Typhoon CAI for the M5 / M6 threw codes and reduced power..... Sorry K&N, this ain't a Ford Truck....you will have to do some engineering to improve on the work of BMW's engineers.

K&N (compare against the BMC's surface area)






BMC vs. Stock

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by HyperM3

6 to one, half a dozen to another. I had the ITG filter before I got the BMC filter.

Yup, when it's comparing the K&N to the BMC. You just pay quite a bit more for the BMC, which makes no sense really.

But the ITG, as you know, is a completely different, so it's not a 6 and 1/2 comparo.
And I know why you left the ITG (or have my suspicions) based on what I've heard from others who left the ITG fliter behind.

[Orb]

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

[Driver72]

[QUOTE=T Bone;1854188]BMC filters actually fit. I can use a specific example where they killed the K&N. In the BMW M5 / M6 application. The K&N filter didn't fit and the surface area was smaller than stock. K&N didn't measure properly. The BMC fit like a glove. Everybody who has a BMC noted improved throttle response including me. Everybody with the K&N reported loss power and running hotter.

See for yourself.... Remember this is just one example....I am sure there are others.

Also the K&N Typhoon CAI for the M5 / M6 threw codes and reduced power..... Sorry K&N, this ain't a Ford Truck....you will have to do some engineering to improve on the work of BMW's engineers.

K&N (compare against the BMC's surface area)


That may be the case with the M5/M6 fitment.
I've had probably 15-18 different cars I've used the K&N filter on, never a fitment issue.
And you could probably find tens of millions of people who've used K&N filters without any fitment issues either.

But look at the actual filter itself. BMC even copied the pinkish-red color of the K&N filter.
I agree though based on your picture there, the BMC clearly has more filter air space than the K&N for the M5/M6. But my guess is K&N, as is usually the case, was the first to release an aftermarket filter for the M5/M6 and probably didn't (as you say) measure accurately or rushed it out to market. I would think they've changed that and reengineered it by now.

But again, the point wasn't a measurement fitment issue.
It's the point that when I've said the BMC is a K&N copy, people have said, "ahh he doesn't know what he's talking about" or "surprising that a car enthusiast doesn't know any better".
The fact of the matter is, the BMC filter is engineered and made as a direct take-off of the original K&N design. With the exception of the anomoly from you M5/M6 fitment issue, in 99.9% of cars the BMC won't flow and better/differently, make any more power or so forth than the K&N...because it's filter is the SAME thing. You just pay more for it.

OK, that's enough for me.
I don't know why really I care.
If people want to pay 60% more for the same thing, by all means, go for it.
It's just the untruths about the BMC (making more power on the dyno, that it's really different than the K&N, etc etc) that I was trying to clear up.

Later

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by Driver72

That may be the case with the M5/M6 fitment.
I've had probably 15-18 different cars I've used the K&N filter on, never a fitment issue.
And you could probably find tens of millions of people who've used K&N filters without any fitment issues either.

But look at the actual filter itself. BMC even copied the pinkish-red color of the K&N filter.
I agree though based on your picture there, the BMC clearly has more filter air space than the K&N for the M5/M6. But my guess is K&N, as is usually the case, was the first to release an aftermarket filter for the M5/M6 and probably didn't (as you say) measure accurately or rushed it out to market. I would think they've changed that and reengineered it by now.

But again, the point wasn't a measurement fitment issue.
It's the point that when I've said the BMC is a K&N copy, people have said, "ahh he doesn't know what he's talking about" or "surprising that a car enthusiast doesn't know any better".
The fact of the matter is, the BMC filter is engineered and made as a direct take-off of the original K&N design. With the exception of the anomoly from you M5/M6 fitment issue, in 99.9% of cars the BMC won't flow and better/differently, make any more power or so forth than the K&N...because it's filter is the SAME thing. You just pay more for it.

OK, that's enough for me.
I don't know why really I care.
If people want to pay 60% more for the same thing, by all means, go for it.
It's just the untruths about the BMC (making more power on the dyno, that it's really different than the K&N, etc etc) that I was trying to clear up.

Later

Don't go away so quickly, this is a good discussion topic. The claim for fame for BMCs is the way the mould the plastic. Very few seams and great integration with the element.

I am not sure if it is constructive to discuss whose idea it was to use oiled cotton first. It is about who has a better filter for your application.

I have had K&Ns in all of my past cars going back to the 1990's but things have evolved and competition is better. You can go search the M5board and K&N completely screwed up on the drop in filters and the CAI kit.

At the end of the day the difference is around the price of a tank of gas and I have not heard one bad thing ever about the BMCs.....

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Don't go away so quickly, this is a good discussion topic. The claim for fame for BMCs is the way the mould the plastic. Very few seams and great integration with the element.

I am not sure if it is constructive to discuss whose idea it was to use oiled cotton first. It is about who has a better filter for your application.

I have had K&Ns in all of my past cars going back to the 1990's but things have evolved and competition is better. You can go search the M5board and K&N completely screwed up on the drop in filters and the CAI kit.

At the end of the day the difference is around the price of a tank of gas and I have not heard one bad thing ever about the BMCs.....

Exactly,+1 Thank you for pointing out the comparo pics in post 67.In my own experience the BMC is better period and is worth whatever the differance in price is. I can afford it I want it it's built far better.You get what you pay for it's that simple if you can't understand that concept then buy a pep boys filter because it "looks" the same. Kind of like how the the 335 "Looks" just like the M3

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by Jonmartin

Exactly,+1 Thank you for pointing out the comparo pics in post 67.In my own experience the BMC is better period and is worth whatever the differance in price is. I can afford it I want it it's built far better.You get what you pay for it's that simple if you can't understand that concept then buy a pep boys filter because it "looks" the same. Kind of like how the the 335 "Looks" just like the M3

Your comparison/analogy is way off there Jon, not even similiar.
The 335i and M3 ARE completely different from the engine, suspension, brakes, etc, etc, etc. MANY MANY differences.

On the otherhand the BMC is a cotton gauzed weave filter that is oiled, a technology and design they got and copied from K&N, 4 years after K&N developed and was selling the technology, out came BMC.
In that sense, they ARE the same.
BMC obviously had to make some changes otherwise they'd be sued and those changes are the rubber seals around the cotton filter. I can't believe BMC even copied the color of the filter.
BMC didn't start making these filters for cars until 1991 either, after K&N's patent for these car filters was expired and 20+ years after K&N have been making them for cars already.
I don't know why people can't see the truth in that, and have delusions of grandeur from spending more for the same filtering technology.

I only responded to this thread again because T-Bone didn't want me to go so soon. But the reality is, if people want to believe that the BMC is better because they paid more for it, so be it. If they don't want to believe that BMC started making the same design/technology filters as K&N for cars many years after K&N had been because K&N's patent expired, so be it.

But K&N spend many, many years engineering and designing these filters to get the most air flow through without sacrificing filtration quality.
Since BMC is using the EXACT same technology and design, if there's flows a bit more air, it's at the expense of filtration quality.
Therefore, as stated, pretty sure BMC's flows just the same as K&N's and with the same filtration qualities.

No reason to debate it further.
Over and out on this one.


Jon, you available for a dyno in Dec. 27th?
You can meet up with me and a few others.
We'll test the two filters and I'll bet you lunch there is no real difference in power and flow.
PM me and let me know.

[Jonmartin]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Your comparison/analogy is way off there Jon, not even similiar.
The 335i and M3 ARE completely different from the engine, suspension, brakes, etc, etc, etc. MANY MANY differences.

On the otherhand the BMC is a cotton gauzed weave filter that is oiled, a technology and design they got and copied from K&N, 4 years after K&N developed and was selling the technology, out came BMC.
In that sense, they ARE the same.
BMC obviously had to make some changes otherwise they'd be sued and those changes are the rubber seals around the cotton filter. I can't believe BMC even copied the color of the filter.
BMC didn't start making these filters for cars until 1991 either, after K&N's patent for these car filters was expired and 20+ years after K&N have been making them for cars already.
I don't know why people can't see the truth in that, and have delusions of grandeur from spending more for the same filtering technology.

I only responded to this thread again because T-Bone didn't want me to go so soon. But the reality is, if people want to believe that the BMC is better because they paid more for it, so be it. If they don't want to believe that BMC started making the same design/technology filters as K&N for cars many years after K&N had been because K&N's patent expired, so be it.

But K&N spend many, many years engineering and designing these filters to get the most air flow through without sacrificing filtration quality.
Since BMC is using the EXACT same technology and design, if there's flows a bit more air, it's at the expense of filtration quality.
Therefore, as stated, pretty sure BMC's flows just the same as K&N's and with the same filtration qualities.

No reason to debate it further.
Over and out on this one.


Jon, you available for a dyno in Dec. 27th?
You can meet up with me and a few others.
We'll test the two filters and I'll bet you lunch there is no real difference in power and flow.
PM me and let me know.

I cannot dyno that day My service Appointment was moved to that date.But any other day will do.

[Driver72]

Bummer, I'll see if I can find another BMC filter to test than.

Cheers

[O-cha]

Hey your stock filter looks different then mine, mine does not have the filter on that smaller section.

[e.n335]

Originally Posted by O-cha

Hey your stock filter looks different then mine, mine does not have the filter on that smaller section.

No 335i filter on the pictures.

[pikkashoe]

Driver, what are your thoughts about the difference between the BMC Filter and the ITG Filter? Is it safe to say that there also would be no considerable benefit to changing.

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by pikkashoe

Driver, what are your thoughts about the difference between the BMC Filter and the ITG Filter? Is it safe to say that there also would be no considerable benefit to changing.

Other ppl who have had both have said that they like the BMC Filter better. I will let you know as well in Jan. when I get mine.

[Driver72]

Originally Posted by pikkashoe

Driver, what are your thoughts about the difference between the BMC Filter and the ITG Filter? Is it safe to say that there also would be no considerable benefit to changing.

The ITG is completely different than the K&N or BMC.

I haven't used the ITG, but from what I hear, again, it probably offers similiar gains to the K&N and BMC filters.

However, I know a couple people who have had the ITG and when they saw the K&N, switched and have sold their ITG.

For $50-60 you just can't beat the performance, price, and filtration ability of the K&N.

[Orb]

Originally Posted by Driver72

The ITG is completely different than the K&N or BMC.

I haven't used the ITG, but from what I hear, again, it probably offers similiar gains to the K&N and BMC filters.

However, I know a couple people who have had the ITG and when they saw the K&N, switched and have sold their ITG.

For $50-60 you just can't beat the performance, price, and filtration ability of the K&N.

The STREAMLINE filter is coming out soon so it should be the best of both worlds. It has comparable flow vs restriction to K&N and BMC with around 99% filtration efficiency.

The BMC will be proven that it filtration efficacy are lower than 96% so short term gain for long term engine damage. The K&N are known to be above this but would like to find out as I have one now.

Orb

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by e.n335

No 335i filter on the pictures.

That could be why they look different.

[smartitalian]

Originally Posted by DrewKo

Holy shit...I didn't expect much difference with a drop in filter, but I was wrong. Car is spooling quicker and the engine feels smoother and slightly quicker. I don't know why, but this appears to be a very good improvement for $85. I have a dyno day this week so I'll update this with dyno information.

confirmed...

excellent.

[midlife]

Originally Posted by Orb

The STREAMLINE filter is coming out soon so it should be the best of both worlds. It has comparable flow vs restriction to K&N and BMC with around 99% filtration efficiency.

The BMC will be proven that it filtration efficacy are lower than 96% so short term gain for long term engine damage. The K&N are known to be above this but would like to find out as I have one now.

Orb

source please

[Turbo-335CI]

Does anybody know what is the height of the BMC filter for our 335i? I can not get any data from BMC website. Is it heighter than K&N filter or not. The K&N 335i filter size is:
Height: 1.125 in (29 mm)
Outside Length: 14 in (356 mm)
Outside Width: 11.125 in (283 mm).
Can someone post a picture of both filter side by side? Thanks for any input.

[Car Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Driver72

Where are these dynos that you claim have shown more power gains than the K&N? I have yet to see one legit dyno of the BMC air filter compared to stock or the K&N.
You paid 60% more for basically a copy filter.

Why does F1 use BMC you ask?
Paid marketing, and/or free donations would be my guess.

BTW, there are dozens and dozens of race teams that use K&N, from Nascar to Dragsters, to Superbike, to you name it.
That's great that BMC advertises f1 uses their filters. Ever stop to think of why they ONLY advertise F1 as being the race organization that uses their air filters??
Hint: paid endorsements, free advertisement, and because every other major race organization is using the K&N as the vast majority.

There are so many more race teams that use K&N and have used K&N for decades it's not even funny.
K&N has even has sponsor race teams for their filters, and yet the competition still used the K&N's, so you know they weren't getting paid for it.
That's great that BMC has one race organization though.

I just think it's funny how some of you think the BMC is superior and how you think it's so much different when in fact it's basically a direct copy of the K&N and they use the technology K&N invented and designed, that's all.

If you've been into modifying cars for any significant amount of time you'd know that just because 2 products look the same, are designed similarly, and are based off the same concept, doesn't mean they produce the same power. Just look at intakes and exhausts....several manufacturers build them and many of them have similar designs, but they often show significantly different results on the dyno, even when tested one right after the other on the same dyno and on the same car. It's simply ignorant to go "well all cold air intakes have larger diameter piping and pull cooler air, so they're all the same thing."

Also, the fact that K&N designed filters first and that they're widely used means nothing. Ford designed cars way before Lexus...Is Ford vastly superior to Lexus now?

[stressdoc]

Wonder if BMW might offer improved filters to go with their performance intake?