In that comparison, you'll find the BMF has significantly bigger plenum volume, much larger cross section and shorter runners, and costs about the same. Plus it has removable fuel rail mounts which allow easy changes to be made to use custom fuel rails or injectors that aren't stock-compatible.
I got a ZF pump with a bracket off the forum a few months ago for I think $25 shipped? That was probably a great deal and more likely $50 shipped is typical. So I dont see how this is really a major disadvantage of the BMF. The engine will already be apart, and most likely, someone doing a major power build who is keeping power steering will likely be considering rebuilding/replacing the steering pump anyway. Plus, you can sell your old pump. So in the end, its likely to be a zero cost swap that was going to be done anyway. A switch to ZF has other benefits that are handy at this power level as well, like room for a header and/or larger centerline radius downpipe arc.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.
I am not in a position to test a knock sensor mount and verify its performance. The BMF intake is 100% made from scratch and does not reuse any stock castings, so thats why the stock knock sensor mount is no longer present in a BMF install. However, I have made available a CNC machined knock sensor mount, the KSM, which is my best guess as far as a functional knock sensor mount that duplicates the stock one in function and location. Its optional and not included with the BMF because I understand some people may want to do their own thing as far as thats concerned, and save the cost of the extra mount. There have been several ideas in that regard and I'm sure we'll be seeing a few implemented by BMF clientele.no knock sensor provision without having to buy a second part and drill and tap the cylinder head.
Drilling and tapping the cylinder head for the KSM is a very easy procedure that even a mechanical novice could do. At the build complexity level that justifies a BMF, its not even on the radar as far as something to worry about.
Apparently not. I've made no promises to anyone about performance beyond the BMF's physical specifications. If you lined up all the BMF customers and me, you would find that I am probably the least experienced in engine building and racing out of all of them. The BMF was not really designed by me as far as its performance. I observed what smart and experienced people were saying and what seemed to be the "want", and followed that trend, involving people in the discussion and seeing what made them excited and tried to engineer it in Solidworks. My expertise was more figuring out how to make it a reality and low priced. So the BMF is sort of a crowdsourced design, distilling what the best minds on the forums had to say, and at the opposite end, what I thought had to be done to make it a real part people could buy.a shop owner who would be considering selling this product to customers its a question they have to know the answer to.
If you have some ideas about how the BMF should be different, I'm all ears. I dont think Saginaw pump fitment and not having to drill and tap two holes is really significant. Neither effect performance (well actually, fitting the Saginaw would require a smaller plenum and a much harsher wall to cyl #1, so it would be a negative). If those kinds of things are on your priorities list then the BMF is probably not appropriate for your build.