Over a quality ported 2 piece intake how much better is this intake.
For anyone that owns this intake how much modification is needed to install one of these.
It's peeked my interest to go along with a tu cast header and nice turbo
Over a quality ported 2 piece intake how much better is this intake.
For anyone that owns this intake how much modification is needed to install one of these.
It's peeked my interest to go along with a tu cast header and nice turbo
If you plan to make power above 5500 rpm it's tremendously better. If you don't, it's probably not worth it. So it kind of depends on the rest of your setup.
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
You're talking 2.2L 5500rpm right?
I would like to see Dyno results before and after vs. a factory 2 piece with the BMF intake being the only change.
This is going into the mini build most likely a 2.5 auto
I could be wrong about the following but off the top of my head..
The only two people who have operated a vehicle with a BMF installed are:
moparzrule (87wagon)
me
Neither of us did a dyno. Moparzrules car blew up before he could get solid data. My build was too near stock to mean anything.
Now this info is months old and many people now have BMF's in their hands, some for months, so maybe they have ran their cars with them and have some more info, I dunno.
I really hope that eventually people actually start using their BMF in race cars. (impatiently taps foot)
EDIT: If you want to see how the BMF design ended up the way it did, check out these two threads:
The first thread is HUGE and at times had 20+ people viewing it simultaneously, it spans many things including manufacturing experiments like casting. So make judicious use of skipping pages so you can see the parts where actual BMF design was being contemplated. This thread was closed at my request so a true BMF design thread could be restarted and kept clean. Good times.
http://www.turbododge.com/forums/f32...-planning.html
The second thread is alot shorter and more focused. You can probably just read the second thread to know whats what.
http://www.turbododge.com/forums/f32...ig-plenum.html
Doesnt really matter. I think what i said would apply to either engine size.You're talking 2.2L 5500rpm right?
I wouldn't be surprised if it showed gains at lower rpms, but i'm sure it will show MASSIVE gains at 5500+ rpms vs a ported stocker unless it's something extreme like Warren Stramer's 2pc bottom half which is a work of art.
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
No built-in knock sensor hole is a pretty big hurtle to get over to get the BMF intake installed.
Maybe not the best reason but my reason for going with the BMF was due cost. 2pc intake is 200-300 then custom plemnum, and porting (including welding for big ports). You end up having more in an intake that you can "out grow". The BMF was just an easier choice. I plan on bolting it, a log manifold, and a 50 trim to my stock head(minus gasket match) and seeing what I can make. I have a head I'm building but it will have to wait till next year for machine shop funds.
Ian Adams Function>Form 1990 shadow scrapped, too rusty:( 1991 Spirit R/T Scrapped, parts sold:( 1989 Turbo Caravan Daily beater with built-[I]ish [/I]engine slowly evolving into weekend turbo beater.
The KSM knock sensor mount is now available!Originally Posted by tryingbe
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/sh...34#post1075934
As far as I can remember, there were no additional modifications necessary to install the BMF.
Actually, that was one of the sticking points during design.
However, if your vehicle uses the Saginaw P/S pump, there may be an issue.
Asa would be the one to chime in here with the facts.
But one of the main reasons the BMF was designed for was to eliminate the factory intake's choking points.
Now you can take a cylinder head as far as your FULL-ON imagination can go,
and the BMF will feed it! lol
Also, the cost of the BMF is WAY under what you'd have tied up in a ported 2pc.
Keeping the price of the BMF within reaching distance was a HUGE factor,
and IMHO it's one of(if not THE) best parts available for the 2.2/2.5 today.
(Both in potential for performance gains, and cost)
Speaking of which Donnies build here should be EPIC...and just one of the reasons is the BMFiAs far as I can remember, there were no additional modifications necessary to install the BMF.
Actually, that was one of the sticking points during design.
However, if your vehicle uses the Saginaw P/S pump, there may be an issue.
Asa would be the one to chime in here with the facts.
But one of the main reasons the BMF was designed for was to eliminate the factory intake's choking points.
Now you can take a cylinder head as far as your FULL-ON imagination can go,
and the BMF will feed it! lol
Also, the cost of the BMF is WAY under what you'd have tied up in a ported 2pc.
Keeping the price of the BMF within reaching distance was a HUGE factor,
and IMHO it's one of(if not THE) best parts available for the 2.2/2.5 today.
(Both in potential for performance gains, and cost)
Re Saginaw, the BMF will not fit with a Saginaw. It could be modified to do so but that puts the plenum wall right up to the #1 runner.
There seems to be some grinding necessary to fit the BMFi with larger than stock manifolds, check out knownenemys (signsoflife22) and moparzrules (87wagon) build threads, they show detailed pics of what was required. With a stock manifold and 0.63 chrylser housing, it should bolt up together with very little or zero interference to those two components.
I would like to see this also! As long as it's on a modified engine. (ported head, bigger turbo, etc.)
Ab-SOL-utely!!!
I would LOVE to see flow bench results, head to head results, back to back with other intakes, etc.
But for the moment, my thinking went like this,
Anything that ChryCo built, even if I port it out to the utmost edge, the BMF would flat out stomp.
(Thas is, in addition to the supporting mods I'm performing)
The only way one of the factory manifolds would possibly be better is in overall efficiency in factory(or near factory) setups.
Thanks for the great adjective......EPIC lol
The BMF was almost like an idea ripped from dreams I've had tinkering with Turbo Mopars for years!
Asa crawled into my thoughts somehow, and built this crazy intake for GLHS#0896!
But really, with supporting mods, I don't think there's "further" to go than the BMFi.
It utilizes nearly every square centimeter of space available for intake volume,
and really doesn't take up much more space than a factory 2pc.
The great thing is that this intake CAN be and IS used with factory setups too.
So, buying this intake over a factory piece(ported or not) is almost an automatic decision.
Last edited by knownenemy; 04-10-2015 at 07:48 AM.
lol "ripped from dreams"..would make a good taglineThe BMF was almost like an idea ripped from dreams I've had tinkering with Turbo Mopars for years!
The BMF Intake.... ripped from your dreams
So what psychological pump do I need to run then?
Also this is going along in the mini. With the following
Tu exhaust manifold .63 housing 3" sw full 3" exhaust either a t3/4 50 trim or a gt turbo. With a steve head it will be an auto van
Sounds like a monster!!!
The BMF is designed to fit with the ZF pump.
Yea same build as my daytona but learning from "mistakes" from that build. Cool I'll research the zf pump
comparing the BMF to a ported 2 piece is comparing apples to oranges. a more realistic comparison would be a BMF vs a ported lower half of a 2 piece with one of the available plenums attached.
along with flow bench data we need to see real world results on the dyno with a moderately modified car that should be capable of putting down a minimum of 375 hp to the wheels.
so far without supporting data the bmf has a couple major drawbacks over a modified mopar intake.
wont fit with the Saginaw style pump. if someone has to replace the power steering pump because the original one wont fit that kind of negates the cost advantage.
no knock sensor provision without having to buy a second part and drill and tap the cylinder head.
those 2 things tell me this is definitely not a bolt on part. kind of negates one of the "selling points" of this manifold.
with those points , the real selling point is will it out-perform other manifold setups that have been available for a few years now?
as a consumer its a question I have to know the answer to. a shop owner who would be considering selling this product to customers its a question they have to know the answer to.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
