BMC sports filter V BMC CDA V K&N

Which way should I go according to personnel opinions?

Does the CDA fit the 156 JTS alright? I assume it does at least..

Yeah it'll fit. I'd get the CDA myself, had two of them now and would definitely get another

i would second that, the CDA is very good but it is quite expensive. I had one fitted to my 147 sele and now have it fitted to my TF, on my TF it give me a 4bhp increase over stock and a 13lbft torque increase! that and it really enhances responsiveness.

waste of time imo - just noise and clogged up maf sensor with oil....

can you really tell 4bhp? - rolling road accuracy cant even get 4bhp measured properly....

directing cool air into the standard airbox and dremeling out any resonator tubes is the cheapest way to 4bhp and more noise

Originally Posted by marko

i would second that, the CDA is very good but it is quite expensive. I had one fitted to my 147 sele and now have it fitted to my TF, on my TF it give me a 4bhp increase over stock and a 13lbft torque increase! that and it really enhances responsiveness.

I thought the best induction kit for VVC engines was the K&N? I heard that you can get upto a 15BHP gain from fitting one to a VVC MGF.

Originally Posted by Darren156

I thought the best induction kit for VVC engines was the K&N? I heard that you can get upto a 15BHP gain from fitting one to a VVC MGF.

15bhp from a filter alone? Maybe only in conjunction with one of those awesome resistor chip thingies..

No, seriously, the VVC engines are supposed to gain 15BHP from a K&N, dunno how, but that's what I've heard...

Love it.

It must be true, the advert told me!

I saw independant tests carried out by MGF owners that clearly showed a 15BHP increase! I'm not making it up, it's true!

Well, it might not be true, but it's what the internet told me anyway,

darren - dont confuse the MGF with the MG TF.

The MGF (none VVC) can easily gain up to 15bhp from an enclosed induction kit because the stock systemis majorly restrictive. this was rectified on the VVC model and on the TF range.


as for feeling 4bhp, nah, but you can half feel 13lbft torque increase... keeping in mind thats over a 10% increase!

Originally Posted by marko

i would second that, the CDA is very good but it is quite expensive. I had one fitted to my 147 sele and now have it fitted to my TF, on my TF it give me a 4bhp increase over stock and a 13lbft torque increase! that and it really enhances responsiveness.

Theoretical quoted or proven?

thats proven on the rolling road mate, stock is 128ftlb and 157bhp

with the bmc (and nothing else) the car made 141ftlb and 161.4bhp

Originally Posted by marko

thats proven on the rolling road mate, stock is 128ftlb and 157bhp

with the bmc (and nothing else) the car made 141ftlb and 161.4bhp

sorry - missing the point - the rolling road isnt sensitive enough to be able to realy pick up such low bhp / lb/ft differences IMO. a slight temperature change / atmospheric change can give +/- 10bhp no probs. The other thing is that the RR can be 'influenced' by the operator to give good results of his tuning!

Back in the days of minis etc an airfilter swap made a big difference - on modern stuff where £££ has been spent on R&D for fuel economy etc the difference is negligible excet for noise.

true if you were sticking a turbo on the likelyhood of the oe filter being good enough would be marginal and would require a change...

my 'other car' fluctuates between 490 and 530 bhp on the same RR in the same day - some of it way be tyre slip however ;-)

If you get more air in you get more power, its not rocket science.... A rolling road is wholely designed to measure engine power/torque i think Marko got his extra bhp......

Originally Posted by Stevie28

If you get more air in you get more power, its not rocket science....

if only....

The BMC-CDA really does it job...tested it myself, have it on my JTD...I am HAPPY with IT...and Yes I will buy another one for my 159JTDm.

So I believe 100% the difference Marko is stating with his dyno run.

esh i dont know, you ask for proof of the gain, i give it to you, you still complain. how does one win?!!

stock the car pulls at the MOST 157bhp and 128ftlb torque, as you can see this chart shows with an otherwise stock car that the bmc has added 4.4bhp and 13ftlb torque.

anyone who says that 10% more torque is unnoticable or not worth having obviously doesnt drive properly

sorry - missing the point - the rolling road isnt sensitive enough to be able to realy pick up such low bhp / lb/ft differences IMO. a slight temperature change / atmospheric change can give +/- 10bhp no probs. The other thing is that the RR can be 'influenced' by the operator to give good results of his tuning!

i disagree with that in so many ways. firstly, dynodynamic rolling roads are PROVEN to be accurate to within a tolerance of 1bhp/1ftlb. a slight temp or atospheric change? that is accounted for by the sensors on the RR that monitor atmospheric pressuer and temperature so you ALWAYS have the same end result. any garage that 'influences' the results should be shut down. also, the dynodynamic rollers are set in such a way that for the garage to do this they would pretty much have to rewrite the entire software program for the rollers. some dodgey back ally garage may do this but any respectable garage will not. simple as.

'anyone who says that 10% more torque is unnoticable or not worth having obviously doesnt drive properly :-)'

lol! 10% of very little is.... ahem... very little ;-)

i've been tuning cars for a very long time now - trust me on a modern normally aspirated 'performance' model its nigh on impossible to improve power levels significantly without spending lots of dosh on cams motec etc.

in regards to the vvc - I imagine rover managed to strangle the poor thing to death for drive for noise emissions? or in good old rover style cr@p design due to a 2p budget? :-)

rip the vvc out and stick an audi vw 1.8t if you want reliable power ;-)

good to see the rr debate still upsets people! only use them for indicative purposes on a back to back purpose imo

You have the right to disagree!!!

But you don't have the right to insult people!!!

i would say 10% gain for a simple thing as a new air intake is a lot.

as for vvc being crap, how many NA 1.8 cars make 160bhp stock? most 2.0 NAs struggle to get near that!

strangled? lets see, full stainless exhaust, cat bypass and 4-2-1 manifold... gains? 5.6bhp PROVEN. thats not strangled. induction - 4.4bhp PROVEN. tahts not strangled. oh, did i mention its still doing 38mpg too? emissions are low at 179 also... sorry, i dont see your point.

finally, why ON EARTH would i want to stick a big fat ehavy GERMAN engine into a BRITISH sports car?

as kgb says, feel free to disagree but dont come onto sites and insult members.

ps - hard to improve on a performance car? lets see what i pull on sunday - im expecting to hit at least 210bhp NA, ive spent less than a grand. i do the work myself. thats what, a 50BHP gain over stock?! not shabby for a 'crap design 2p budget' 1.8 NA engine i think.

NOW. lets get back on topic!

lol! 10% of very little is.... ahem... very little ;-)

i think you meant to join this website:

Scientology Video Channel: Church of Scientology Official Site

some odd ens there as well, that think 10% bhp increase is no good.....