SI BM mk3s are in!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 30, 2010 | 10:14 PM
  #16  
mSaLL150's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,862
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
Good to see more of the F150 crowd enjoying these subwoofers, which IMO are the best performing subwoofer for the F150 if you want to keep a stock look. I can't wait to start competition with the BMs.
 
Reply
Old Oct 30, 2010 | 10:26 PM
  #17  
helotaxi's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
My pair just arrived via Fed Ex this afternoon. Sweet looking subs. Now I just need a break in my schedule to do some install work...
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2010 | 10:28 AM
  #18  
IH8ATTN's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 672
Likes: 4
From: St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
I used a Rodney box and have been loving these subs....its crazy how hard these subs hit at certain tones. I'm glad I didn't go the JL route with the subs
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2010 | 01:19 PM
  #19  
thejake1989's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,673
Likes: 0
From: Rosenberg/Baytown TX
Originally Posted by jdi731
Thejake, 2 of them are insanely awesome. If you can, I'd get another one quick.
i really want to im just hoping i can come up with the 255 to get another one before they sell out.
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2010 | 08:45 PM
  #20  
f150intally's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
I wonder how the 2 JL 10w3v3s would compare to two SI 12s?
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2010 | 09:00 PM
  #21  
mSaLL150's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,862
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
Originally Posted by f150intally
I wonder how the 2 JL 10w3v3s would compare to two SI 12s?
Unless the JLs are ported the SI's will demolish them in output due to sheer displacement seeing as the BMs have far more cone area and also higher usable excursion. There is no comparison as far as SQ goes either, the SI is built with better technology and soft parts giving lower distortion and better low-frequency extension in a small sealed enclosure than the JL10w3.

I switched from 2 high-excursion 10s (more output than the JL10) and the BMs are still much louder.
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2010 | 09:49 PM
  #22  
f150intally's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
Originally Posted by mSaLL150
Unless the JLs are ported the SI's will demolish them in output due to sheer displacement seeing as the BMs have far more cone area and also higher usable excursion. There is no comparison as far as SQ goes either, the SI is built with better technology and soft parts giving lower distortion and better low-frequency extension in a small sealed enclosure than the JL10w3.

I switched from 2 high-excursion 10s (more output than the JL10) and the BMs are still much louder.
this site is going to blow my bank account. I am fairly happy with the 10w3s but the Fox enclosure is a bit disappointing to me. I'm not sure I have the power to drive the SIs since the Rockford amp (bd501) I have is not stable at 1 ohm. I would need a new amp, box, and the subs most likely.
 
Reply
Old Nov 2, 2010 | 12:09 AM
  #23  
mSaLL150's Avatar
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,862
Likes: 0
From: Northern California
Originally Posted by f150intally
this site is going to blow my bank account. I am fairly happy with the 10w3s but the Fox enclosure is a bit disappointing to me. I'm not sure I have the power to drive the SIs since the Rockford amp (bd501) I have is not stable at 1 ohm. I would need a new amp, box, and the subs most likely.
Maybe try porting the 10W3s?
 
Reply
Old Nov 2, 2010 | 09:02 PM
  #24  
f150intally's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
From: Tallahassee, FL
Originally Posted by mSaLL150
Maybe try porting the 10W3s?
I'm using a fox enclosure and don't have the space to port. I would like to maintain the stock look.
 
Reply
Old Nov 4, 2010 | 01:56 PM
  #25  
usa414's Avatar
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: NJ
Originally Posted by jdi731
mSall, it ended up being 50.5" long, 13" deep, and 6" tall using 5/8" MDF. We used your base dimensions and found out we could shorten it a half inch and make it taller to achieve the proper airspace. The side parts where the legs are are 8" tall to give it the proper ground clearance.

Thanks Nick, they sound great. I love them and it was well worth the wait!
I was just wondering if your box slopes toward the rear, i.e. not perfectly rectangular? I wasn't sure if it was an optical illusion in your photos or if that was the way the box was designed because of the way the rear seat rests on it? I'm trying to use these measurements and your pictures as a reference for the box for my BM mkIII's and just wanted to get everything right...you know measure twice, cut once. Thanks!
 
Reply
Old Nov 11, 2010 | 05:41 PM
  #26  
Mid Life Crisis's Avatar
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
From: TexAss
I have a box similar in my truck. I cant believe the BM's..... All my friends are using standard depth 12's and my BM's outperform a few of them. But in SQ I blow them all away. It was well worth the wait. I just need to get some pics and post up my build!
 
Reply
Old Jun 5, 2012 | 10:03 PM
  #27  
gsxr1300's Avatar
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Im looking to buy 1 BM MKIII anyone have 1 they will sell?
 
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:47 AM.