K&N or BMC filters for 360 ?

I am sorry, I know this has been discussed and I did the search. However, I still couldn't find the advantage of one over the other.
If anyone can give me a quick summary of which filter to pick.
Thank you in advance.

 

K&N - check ebay. I run them on my 360 and like them.

Ray

 

K&N 33-2854

http://www.ricambiamerica.com/product_info.php?products_id=262580

 

Do any of the aftermarket drop in panel filters actually make any difference to performance at all? I mean ANY dyno proven BHP gains at all?

Has anyone dyno'd before and after with BMC vs K&N vs Stock Paper elements? I can understand the theory behind them but in Ferrari's case the stock paper filters are very free flowing and have a large surface area in their original design anyway. These kinds of things seem to sell more on the fit and forget approach - but many people forget to clean and re-oil them.

For ultimate in performance (think +2 to 3% performance) I think you'd be better replacing the filter case design itself, the AFM's (go larger) and air box resonator box with a freer flowing design. Fit in place paper vs cotton ones I'm not sure where the power will come from and at what point in the rev range? Will you even notice?

The thing that always concerns me about cotton oil pre-empregnated filters is all that oil and cack can damage AFM's (air flow meters - the hot wire gets coated in oil ) and also the extra dirt getting into the engine. At least the paper filters they have excellent dirt retention capabilities (admittedly @ cost of performance when they get dirty). Paper ar efar superior from the point of view of engine longevity and AFM's lifespan.

I have ran many different aftermarket filters in the past on different cars but I can in all honestly not notice any difference in performance, sounds more aggressive for the full cone replacement filters vs the panel's but performance? Hmmm. And yes I've also had AFM's die on me too because of the oil in the filters.

Just worth considering all the pro's and con's before spending your hard earned...

 

Probably not.... and I'll be the first to admit it with K&N's and my personal experience with them. It's a nice filter, it does give bit more growl. At least with K&N it's only a $50 item rather than these elaborate CAI snakes and boxes that cost thousands.

 

I was just thinking about this yesterday so it was nice to see this thread pop up. I used search and did some background. I also visited the various web sites.

FYI: BMC has dyno tests for a bunch of cars, but no Ferrari's. They show a couple of HP gain, mostly toward the top end, but nothing significant.

After looking I wasn't able to tell if there was much/any difference. Definitely not enough to worrry about making a bad choice.

K&N runs $40 each from Ricambi. BMC is $110 each from their online store. I have experience with K&N on motorcycles and they always performed well. All other things being equal, price tips things toward K&N.

Trev is correct, you have to make sure you clean them and oil them properly. If you over oil them you can loose some performance. The oil will restrict the flow some. Plus they can destroy the MAF. You have to maintain them correctly.

As for more dirt in the motor .... I think it is mostly a don't care. The motor will need rebuilt before that will have any measurable impact.

One of the threads claimed that you shouldn't use cotton/oil filters in wet climates. The claim was that the moisture encapsulates the dirt and it fails to stick in the oil. True? heck if I know. The claim was that the information was from K&N. I will check the site and post what I find.

 

Thanks guys for the responds,
now I am more confused. So You guys are recommending to stay with the OEMs.

 

Did some additional research.

Filter efficiency -- K&N claims 98% efficiency on the standardized test. They say that paper filters are typicaly 93%. Additional searching shows that the specialized area of air monitoring has filter efficiency at 97%. There was a lot more but I also found this,

"A filter is considered to achieve absolute filtration efficiency at a certain micron level if it can remove 98.7% of particles that size. So, if a filter can remove 98.7% of particles 20 microns or larger, it achieves absolute efficiency at that micron level."

The info says that filter efficiency is excellent on the K&N and may well be better than paper. Contrary to Trev's post (sorry Trev).


MAF Problems -- K&N also has a section talking about this. They say that it is a myth but they go on to provide a lot of detail.

The summary is, they get very few complaints on this subject and they follow them all up with the shops. They ask for evidence that they filter caused the MAF problem. Apparently they have had many of the MAF sensors sent to them and they did lab analysis of them to determine the failure. There was no sign of K&N filter oil on any of the MAFs that have been sent in for inspection.

They also provide a warranty and will cover if there is a documented problem.


Performance -- BMC and K&N both have similar expectations. BMC says 2-3 HP and K&N says max 4 HP for a flat repalcement filter. The users say that the car feels faster. Likely they have better throttle response because of the lower restriction in the intake, lower restriction = less throttle lag. Doubtful they can feel the few HP.


Dirt in the motor - See the efficiency section and it pretty much sums it up. I also found a long discussion of dirt, particle size, and engine wear. Apparently most wear is caused by particles in the 20u size range. The efficiency of these filters is excellen, by the definition above it is absolute, at this particle size. Suffice to say you can read a lot but it appears to be a non-issue.


Water/moisture comments -- I can't find anything supporting this anywhere. I have to go with the post that I read was just speculating. That makes this a non-issue also.


Summary -- I think the BMC and K&N are very close so pick what you like. I am going with the K&N. There is no down side and some possible up side.

 

go with K&N..used them in my 360 and f430.the one gent is correct..a little more growl.

 

I am new to this site, and have just swaped my Porsche 996TT for an 02 360. I can tell you that K&N filters for my TT had to be dried out after even light oiling or it would foul the MAF. It turned out the fouling of the MAF was no big deal as you could clean it with non-lubricating electrical contact cleaner and it was good as new. Good news as they were about $350 a pop. However, there was no question the fresh filter would cause the MAF to throw codes if not dried out for about a week. I went back to paper on the TT and really never noticed any difference. I previously put a high flow filiter in just about every car I owned, but I don't bother anymore.

 

Thanks John, great summary
I think I'll go with K&N and change them once a year.

 

FWIW - I would personally never re-oil a K&N. Money doesn't grow on trees, but I'd still toss the filter into the garbage and just install a new factory pre-oiled one instead of messing with that glop.

At $50 (or whatever) per year, it's pretty insignificant.

 

you must buy BMC for your car,beacause;

RACING & SPORT NEWS


BMC'S RESULTS:
22/7/2007
G.P. EUROPE - NURBURGRING, GERMANY

1° BMC
2° BMC
4° BMC
6° BMC
7° BMC
9° BMC

 

I think this thread is informative for everyone concerned. I stand corrected and thank everyone for the great information offered, thats what this forum is all about freedom of information.

While they do not offer huge power gains or massive advantages over stock filters like they can on some manufacturers cars at $50 they are cheaper than the Ferrari paper filters and work just as well, if not a little better.

I also agree 100% with Daniel with not re-oiling these cotton panel filters and treating them as throw away, they are not that expensive and compared to replacing the MAF's its not even worth questioning it. I'll probably give them a try when I next need to replace my paper elements.

Another interesting point is that the K&N part number exists because they where originally made by K&N to 360 air box specifications and dimensions for used on the 360 GT cars. Of course if you buy the part using the official Ferrari part catalogue you'll be paying big time $ but essentially its the same K&N so there must be good if its used on the racer cars.

Trev

 

Thanks for not getting bent. Don't know if you noticed but the last post corrected an error that I had repeated from reading earlier threads

 

Do they use BMC on F1 cars and K&N on GT cars?

 

Only one concern..... I was told by a Lambo friend that when driving hard you could suck the oils from the foam and screw up the O2 sensor. Can anyone comment on that?

 

I run BMC filters in my 360. Hard to tell if there is any performance change...definitely hear a sucking sound under hard acceleration vs. the stock filters.

The BMC's are a much more rigid design and about 1/2 the thickness - so I assume better airflow.

Had K&N in my 12 cylinder car and they basically look like the BMC filters.

I went with the BMC to try something different and based on racing reputation.

my two cents,

MB

 

Ditto changed to BMC based on F1 reputation and other Fcar guys input

 

Hit this subject with the discussion on MAF sensor. K&N says no problem. Some say they have had an issue but it can be cleaned easily. Likely a problem is you over oil the filter. Otherwise not issue.