[HP Autosport]

Originally Posted by nj335i

My experience was the same.

We recently prototyped a dual ITG Maxogen Filter intake system for our project 335i and is in the process of finishing up the cold air plenum, then it's to the dyno once again!

Perhaps we will dyno it first without the cold air plenum just to see what the gains are.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by aab3218

With all respect due one has to wonder how much technical knowledge you actually have... your coupler taper is very abrupt and could create a stall point in the intake. It shows that you have a muffler shop make them. The edge of the filter clamp doesn't even line up properly.

The BMS couplers are aluminum which isn't sold at muffler shops. Aluminum is generally regarded as superior for intakes compared to mild steel or aluminized steel. It is less prone to heat soak, lighter, and easier to properly remove the burrs. It's more expensive and harder to source.

If you check the part numbers your S&B filters have a similar retail price so it appears not only is your intake 50% more expensive it is also less expensive to "produce".

Given your track record for tuning, trust me I am intimately familiar with one of your products, one has to wonder why you feel you have the right to pick on another vendor who has a great track record. Do you just hope people will read your posts and believe them without research? Do you think this helps your sales or reputation?

Now we are getting somewhere. I'm not sure what doesn't "line up" with our intake. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Regarding material selection, the reason we didn't use an aluminum intake was because it cannot be stretched the way we wanted it to stretch. Try it. It couldn't be made into the shape we wanted without tearing. We'd have to weld sections to gather as we did with our early prototype kits. But that is expensive and had no measurable effect on logged IATs. As for aluminum being the better choice for heat soak management, I'd agree with you if the airflow through the intake tube was long enough and/or the airflow velocity was low enough to allow any significant amount of heat to transfer from the pipe material to the moving air. Fortunately, it's not. And not be a longshot. You're argument would be better left to a discussion on intercooler design.

The question at hand is, and seems to have always been, why do we choice to put the reducer as far as possible for the filter material? Do you honestly think our design can create a "stall". To use your words, do YOU hope that people will read your post without doing research?

Cheers,
Shiv

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by aab3218

trust me I am intimately familiar with one of your products

Which of his products did you fornicate with?

[aab3218]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Now we are getting somewhere. I'm not sure what doesn't "line up" with our intake. Perhaps you can explain it to me. Regarding material selection, the reason we didn't use an aluminum intake was because it cannot be stretched the way we wanted it to stretch. Try it. It couldn't be made into the shape we wanted without tearing. We'd have to weld sections to gather as we did with our early prototype kits. But that is expensive and had no measurable effect on logged IATs. As for aluminum being the better choice for heat soak management, I'd agree with you if the airflow through the intake tube was long enough and/or the airflow velocity was low enough to allow any significant amount of heat to transfer from the pipe material to the moving air. Fortunately, it's not. And not be a longshot. You're argument would be better left to a discussion on intercooler design.

The question at hand is, and seems to have always been, why do we choice to put the reducer as far as possible for the filter material? Do you honestly think our design can create a "stall". To use your words, do YOU hope that people will read your post without doing research?

Cheers,
Shiv

I have attached a photo with the clamp concerns. Either the coupler does not hold 3" long enough or the filter flange length is not properly sized. Something is wrong. You expect this kind of error if you make your own intake for $70 but if you are paying say three times that one would should expect attention to details like this. The bms clamps support the filter properly by the base of the flange.

Regarding the flow, I believe I stated that it is most likely a moot point in this application. It is simply academic.

Both designs will stall at some point, the question is which will stall first. Looking at the very sharp transition over a 1-2" length on your design vs the smooth transition on the bms design I would wager heavily on the smooth one. Lets arrange a flow bench testing of each and I will put my money where my mouth is.

Regarding the coupler material, you can purchase smooth 3" to 2.25" aluminum transitions, they are just not super cheap like 2.25" mild steel muffler pipe. The aluminum is lighter and will absorb less heat from the radiator and engine. It is less likely to overheat the rubber filter flanges. Maybe the length is short but this is another attention to detail item. All else being equal no engineer would choose mild steel or aluminized steel over aluminum in this application. Only someone concerned with profitability would.

As to why you feel moving your transition down 3 inches and making it much more abrupt is better for anything is lost on me. I believe it is inexperience or a misunderstanding of fluid dynamics. It is also likely you did not realize there were filters available with velocity stacks built in and have since painted yourself in to a corner with your flawed design.

[TiAg335i]

Originally Posted by aab3218

I have attached a photo with the clamp concerns. Either the coupler does not hold 3" long enough or the filter flange length is not properly sized. Something is wrong. You expect this kind of error if you make your own intake for $70 but if you are paying say three times that one would should expect attention to details like this. The bms clamps support the filter properly by the base of the flange.

Regarding the flow, I believe I stated that it is most likely a moot point in this application. It is simply academic.

Both designs will stall at some point, the question is which will stall first. Looking at the very sharp transition over a 1-2" length on your design vs the smooth transition on the bms design I would wager heavily on the smooth one. Lets arrange a flow bench testing of each and I will put my money where my mouth is.

Regarding the coupler material, you can purchase smooth 3" to 2.25" aluminum transitions, they are just not super cheap like 2.25" mild steel muffler pipe. The aluminum is lighter and will absorb less heat from the radiator and engine. It is less likely to overheat the rubber filter flanges. Maybe the length is short but this is another attention to detail item. All else being equal no engineer would choose mild steel or aluminized steel over aluminum in this application. Only someone concerned with profitability would.

As to why you feel moving your transition down 3 inches and making it much more abrupt is better for anything is lost on me. I believe it is inexperience or a misunderstanding of fluid dynamics. It is also likely you did not realize there were filters available with velocity stacks built in and have since painted yourself in to a corner with your flawed design.

That second picture is not Vishnus current intake...

I just ordered a set and the filter comes with a built in velocity stack like the BMS one now - in addition to the tapered coupler providing a very smooth transition. And my clamps are way down on the filter stack, like the BMS one.

But nonetheless I would like to hear from Shiv

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by aab3218

Lets arrange a flow bench testing of each and I will put my money where my mouth is.

How much??

The aluminum is lighter and will absorb less heat from the radiator and engine. It is less likely to overheat the rubber filter flanges.

Now come one, the material aspect is moot. The thermal inertia is nearly irrelevant in this application. Peak temperature will be about the same once saturated. At the many feet per second of air velocity and with a smooth inside surface, we are not talking about many feet (or meters) with heat exchanger embossments internally; the heat transferred in either would be practically immeasurable.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by aab3218

I have attached a photo with the clamp concerns.

Maybe you should be more concerned with actually showing a picture of our production intake and not something else.

Shiv

[aab3218]

Originally Posted by TiAg335i

That second picture is not Vishnus current intake...

I just ordered a set and the filter comes with a built in velocity stack like the BMS one now - in addition to the tapered coupler providing a very smooth transition. And my clamps are way down on the filter stack, like the BMS one.

But nonetheless I would like to hear from Shiv

This is the only photo they have published. If the intake has since been revised then I will put my comments on hold pending a photo of the revisions. Can you post one for us?

[aab3218]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Maybe you should be more concerned with actually showing a picture of our production intake and not something else.

Shiv

See above post. You published this photo on your website and this forum displaying your intake. If you have since changed your design you would be best served to publish a new photo for evaluation.

[aab3218]

Originally Posted by scalbert

Now come one, the material aspect is moot. The thermal inertia is nearly irrelevant in this application. Peak temperature will be about the same once saturated. At the many feet per second of air velocity and with a smooth inside surface, we are not talking about many feet (or meters) with heat exchanger embossments internally; the heat transferred in either would be practically immeasurable.

It is simply an attention to detail item. Would you select mild steel over aluminum for this coupler? At the rate Vishnu is changing their design based on my comments they might have already switched to aluminum in the last three posts!

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by aab3218

It is simply an attention to detail item. Would you select mild steel over aluminum for this coupler? At the rate Vishnu is changing their design based on my comments they might have already switched to aluminum in the last three posts!

IMO, with the irrelevancy of the material selection when applied to functionality in this application, my focus would be on availability and cost. This is a business and one would like to maximing profits and limit production set backs.

In the end, the market will determine if the higher selling price is acceptable.

[RiXst3r]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

Maybe you should be more concerned with actually showing a picture of our production intake and not something else.

Shiv

And more lies spill forth from shiv...

So what did you ship to your first customers then? a "non-production" intake? LOL, that was YOUR photo... and it matches photos from your first customers.

Go ahead and continue to sling forth passive aggressive insults towards your customers... its workin' great for ya...

[lawdude]

You vendors sure are a scrappy sort.

And I'm not even sure why anyone takes time to respond to aab3218 - he's a troll.

[TiAg335i]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

And more lies spill forth from shiv...

So what did you ship to your first customers then? a "non-production" intake? LOL, that was YOUR photo... and it matches photos from your first customers.

Go ahead and continue to sling forth passive aggressive insults towards your customers... its workin' great for ya...

It's an old pic..he has since updated the filter design with a built in velocity stack. Sure he probably sold those as the first line of dual cones.

[aab3218]

Originally Posted by TiAg335i

It's an old pic..he has since updated the filter design with a built in velocity stack. Sure he probably sold those as the first line of dual cones.

Very good. I assume Vishnu intake customers who received the flawed design can return their intakes for the new version? It would only be fair.

Can you post a better picture of yours showing the coupler and flange on this new version? I noticed this picture and the filter still looks squared off but its hard to really see?

http://www.e90post.com/forums/attach...1&d=1216948691

[LambOfGod]

Originally Posted by lawdude

I draw two results.

First, insofar as performance is concerned, whatever amount of money you spend on a dual intake setup is a waste. Therefore you might as well spend the least amount.

Second, you are a trouble maker and/or a hater.

What's wrong with being a "hater." Everybody needs to hate something.

I appreciate your use of the word, "Insofar." I think this word is highly underused.

Why would the shipping from Vishnu be $100. Sounds rediculous.

[LambOfGod]

Originally Posted by aab3218

I have attached a photo with the clamp concerns. Either the coupler does not hold 3" long enough or the filter flange length is not properly sized. Something is wrong. You expect this kind of error if you make your own intake for $70 but if you are paying say three times that one would should expect attention to details like this. The bms clamps support the filter properly by the base of the flange.

Regarding the flow, I believe I stated that it is most likely a moot point in this application. It is simply academic.

Both designs will stall at some point, the question is which will stall first. Looking at the very sharp transition over a 1-2" length on your design vs the smooth transition on the bms design I would wager heavily on the smooth one. Lets arrange a flow bench testing of each and I will put my money where my mouth is.

Regarding the coupler material, you can purchase smooth 3" to 2.25" aluminum transitions, they are just not super cheap like 2.25" mild steel muffler pipe. The aluminum is lighter and will absorb less heat from the radiator and engine. It is less likely to overheat the rubber filter flanges. Maybe the length is short but this is another attention to detail item. All else being equal no engineer would choose mild steel or aluminized steel over aluminum in this application. Only someone concerned with profitability would.

As to why you feel moving your transition down 3 inches and making it much more abrupt is better for anything is lost on me. I believe it is inexperience or a misunderstanding of fluid dynamics. It is also likely you did not realize there were filters available with velocity stacks built in and have since painted yourself in to a corner with your flawed design.

Looks like he did his homework. I see what you're saying.

[LambOfGod]

Originally Posted by RiXst3r

And more lies spill forth from shiv...

So what did you ship to your first customers then? a "non-production" intake? LOL, that was YOUR photo... and it matches photos from your first customers.

Go ahead and continue to sling forth passive aggressive insults towards your customers... its workin' great for ya...

Dude....I'm Black Listed at Vishnu for calling him out on V2. I can never buy V3. I received the Full Brunt of his Passive Aggressiveness!

[LambOfGod]

Originally Posted by aab3218

Very good. I assume Vishnu intake customers who received the flawed design can return their intakes for the new version? It would only be fair.

Can you post a better picture of yours showing the coupler and flange on this new version? I noticed this picture and the filter still looks squared off but its hard to really see?

http://www.e90post.com/forums/attach...1&d=1216948691

[TiAg335i]

Originally Posted by aab3218

Very good. I assume Vishnu intake customers who received the flawed design can return their intakes for the new version? It would only be fair.

Can you post a better picture of yours showing the coupler and flange on this new version? I noticed this picture and the filter still looks squared off but its hard to really see?

http://www.e90post.com/forums/attach...1&d=1216948691

I don't see how you can think that it's squared. You can't even see it in that pic.

Here is one still in the shrinkwrap (Shiv sent me two pairs of dual cones by accident).

[aab3218]

Originally Posted by TiAg335i

I don't see how you can think that it's squared. You can't even see it in that pic.

Here is one still in the shrinkwrap (Shiv sent me two pairs of dual cones by accident).

It is still hard to see with plastic wrap and clamp loosely on but looks square? Which shape fits better between the flange and the filter base?

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by LambOfGod

What's wrong with being a "hater." Everybody needs to hate something.

I appreciate your use of the word, "Insofar." I think this word is highly underused.

Why would the shipping from Vishnu be $100. Sounds rediculous.

Is aab3218 starting to decloak?

You jest about "Insofar" and then use "rediculous"?