interesting K&N info
05-13-2005, 06:39 AM
#1
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
interesting K&N info
Greetings fellow VTRers. As some of you may recall, I was asking questions a little while back regarding the value of adding a K&N to my Storm (along with my yet to be installed Microns and Dynojet kit). In the end, based on some advice that I received from a fellow VTRer on another forum (based on extensive dyno tuning performed by a tuner friend of his), I elected to stay with the stock filter. I have since found some dyno info posted on a Canadian aftermarket site that helps to support my decision (http://www.dynamohumm.com/HONDA/VTR%201000/my_vtr.htm)
If you use the link, check out the dyno graphs located at the very top (labelled Hindle HP and torque) with those found at the very bottom which show what happened with the addition of the K&N (note how the baseline in the pre-K&N is the same as the post-Hindle from the top). To summarize, the addition of the K&N (once properly jetted for of course) provided a VERY SMALL increase on the very top but left a dip in the torque band at mid revs. In the end, that is why I am staying with the stock filter as I seldom if ever rev it over 7K. Just thought you guys might like to have a look at it.
cheers
P.S. there is also the issue of actual filtration but that is another thread altogether.....
If you use the link, check out the dyno graphs located at the very top (labelled Hindle HP and torque) with those found at the very bottom which show what happened with the addition of the K&N (note how the baseline in the pre-K&N is the same as the post-Hindle from the top). To summarize, the addition of the K&N (once properly jetted for of course) provided a VERY SMALL increase on the very top but left a dip in the torque band at mid revs. In the end, that is why I am staying with the stock filter as I seldom if ever rev it over 7K. Just thought you guys might like to have a look at it.
cheers
P.S. there is also the issue of actual filtration but that is another thread altogether.....
05-13-2005, 10:22 AM
#2
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Nananimo, B.C.
Posts: 764
Re: interesting K&N info
I was talking to a guy with a VTR who said that the stock filter flows 14% better than the K&N. I didn't say anything cause it sounded like bs to me.
If it doesn't flow better how come you need to rejet after putting it on? I'd like to hear from people who've done this install. My new K&N and Dynojet kit is sitting in a box waiting to go in. If there's no point, I'll put it on eBay. My bikes running awesome right now.
If it doesn't flow better how come you need to rejet after putting it on? I'd like to hear from people who've done this install. My new K&N and Dynojet kit is sitting in a box waiting to go in. If there's no point, I'll put it on eBay. My bikes running awesome right now.
05-13-2005, 11:12 AM
#3
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
Re: interesting K&N info
Hello again,
as far as the K&N is concerned, the dyno graphs speak for themselves. This confirms what my local (well-renowned) speed shop said (they said that the VTR and the Suzook TLs are abut the only two bikes that do not benefit from K&Ns) , as well as what RC996 told me based on his buddy's experience (who apparently tried just about every possible combo of mods on the dyno). Maybe if your engine has other mods it works but I will not be installing one.
I just wanted to let you know that I called both the Micron distributor in the US and Dynojet who both confirmed to me that the Micron jet kit has the same parts (springs, needles, mains) as the Dynojet kit. In other words, if your bike is already jetted with the Micron kit, you may be able to recoup some money.
Good luck.
as far as the K&N is concerned, the dyno graphs speak for themselves. This confirms what my local (well-renowned) speed shop said (they said that the VTR and the Suzook TLs are abut the only two bikes that do not benefit from K&Ns) , as well as what RC996 told me based on his buddy's experience (who apparently tried just about every possible combo of mods on the dyno). Maybe if your engine has other mods it works but I will not be installing one.
I just wanted to let you know that I called both the Micron distributor in the US and Dynojet who both confirmed to me that the Micron jet kit has the same parts (springs, needles, mains) as the Dynojet kit. In other words, if your bike is already jetted with the Micron kit, you may be able to recoup some money.
Good luck.
05-13-2005, 11:24 AM
#4
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
Re: interesting K&N info
One last thing. In relation to the re-jetting situation when installing the K&N, I readily admit that this should logically indicate an increase in power (from apparent increase in airflow). This is not a hard and fast rule however. For example, in the snowmobile world, some persons have tried removing the airboxes on Ski-Doo MXZ670 and replacing them with individual filter pods (K&Ns in some cases). This necessitates going up as much as 10 jet sizes!!!! The end result, however, is negligible power increase (if at all). The lesson is that there are exceptions to every rule and as the machinery has evolved over the years, many of the previous tricks have disappeared as engineeers perfect component designs. Modern airbox/filter combos seem to have become finely executed and acoustically designed instruments. Just something to think about.
05-13-2005, 01:24 PM
#5
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Nananimo, B.C.
Posts: 764
Re: interesting K&N info
You have given me something to think about, possible a couple of hundred Cdn bucks and a lot of potentially wasted time and aggravation to boot. Greg Nemish's input would be interesting as well as some of our racer members.
05-13-2005, 02:29 PM
#6
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
Re: interesting K&N info
RC996's reply to my thread on Speedzilla:
Funny you should mention the intake stack. My well known VTR tuner friend did a TON of dyno work with the VTR. Change one thing, test it, change another, etc. He had me put the short stack on the rear for 1-2 HP on the top end. I did it before building the engine and the difference was not noticeable, but I'm sure it is true. He also experimented with airbox configuration and air filters. Everything he did to the stock airbox made it worse. The K&N filter did add top end power, but at the cost of a substantial hit in the midrange. Even at 130 RWHP, he raced with a stock air filter. He has talked me out of changing filters twice. Once with the stock motor and again with a built one.
cheers
Micky
Funny you should mention the intake stack. My well known VTR tuner friend did a TON of dyno work with the VTR. Change one thing, test it, change another, etc. He had me put the short stack on the rear for 1-2 HP on the top end. I did it before building the engine and the difference was not noticeable, but I'm sure it is true. He also experimented with airbox configuration and air filters. Everything he did to the stock airbox made it worse. The K&N filter did add top end power, but at the cost of a substantial hit in the midrange. Even at 130 RWHP, he raced with a stock air filter. He has talked me out of changing filters twice. Once with the stock motor and again with a built one.
cheers
Micky
05-13-2005, 07:51 PM
#7
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston,Tx
Posts: 267
Re: interesting K&N info
Its just amazing to me that a product that is so critically acclaimed by racers and street vehicles alike could have such an adverse affect on our particular bike. My experience with them has always been good. But considering I bought my Shawk used with the K&N already installed with race baffled Jardines I was satisfied with my Shawks performance throughout the rev counters range. I am changing setups because I crashed awhile back. Maybe I'm missing something with not experiencing the stock setup? Oh well Love my Shawk anyway.
06-11-2009, 04:21 PM
#9
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pa
Posts: 734
06-11-2009, 04:36 PM
#10
Greenmeansgo!
Back Marker
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 199
This is a pretty old thread, but relevant to my interests as I'm going to install my K&N and get it jetted next week. Mikstr's link is dead. Any more info on this? I spend all my time in the midrange revs so top end increase is irrelevant to me. I do have the D&D's on it. Thoughts/suggestions?
06-11-2009, 05:06 PM
#11
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: moncton nb canada
Posts: 1,269
i too am battleing with k&n vs. oem.
i just dynoed my bike. oem filter and yosh slip ons. low rpm way lean. so, i'm going to have my mechanic tinker with the jetting(pilot, aka slow jet). a k&n will effect the jetting so i have to decide soon.
i just read that the PAIR system can throw off the a/f readings on dynos. is this true?
i just dynoed my bike. oem filter and yosh slip ons. low rpm way lean. so, i'm going to have my mechanic tinker with the jetting(pilot, aka slow jet). a k&n will effect the jetting so i have to decide soon.
i just read that the PAIR system can throw off the a/f readings on dynos. is this true?
06-12-2009, 08:38 AM
#12
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 807
The tech put an aluminum plug in the hole in the airbox leading to the PAIR valve on my VTR before he put the bike on the dyno. He was doing an A/F ratio check at the same time.
06-12-2009, 08:54 AM
#13
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Thornwood, NY
Posts: 817
My bike came with the K&N... when I pulled it to clean, I put a new stocker in place for a few days... the bike seemed to run pretty much the same as before (no Dyno to prove one or the other)...
With that being said... IIRC from my Mustang days that a used K&N flows very similar to a clean stock filter (Think I got that from their literature).... thus I'd assume once a K&N is used for a few thousand miles and clogs to some small degree, it's probably just like using a the stocker that gives you the ablility to clean....
J.
With that being said... IIRC from my Mustang days that a used K&N flows very similar to a clean stock filter (Think I got that from their literature).... thus I'd assume once a K&N is used for a few thousand miles and clogs to some small degree, it's probably just like using a the stocker that gives you the ablility to clean....
J.
06-12-2009, 09:11 AM
#14
Fastest Color
SuperBike
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lithia, FL
Posts: 2,091
This is a pretty old thread, but relevant to my interests as I'm going to install my K&N and get it jetted next week. Mikstr's link is dead. Any more info on this? I spend all my time in the midrange revs so top end increase is irrelevant to me. I do have the D&D's on it. Thoughts/suggestions?
06-12-2009, 09:47 AM
#15
Senior Member
SuperBike
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,802
I guess more isn't always better. I'm certain the K&N flows more air than the stocker; I have a couple of airboxes, a K&N filter, a couple of stock filters, a stock filter that I have converted to a cleanable filter with some green Uni filter foam and a couple of sets of stock velocity stacks. I have done a few non scientific experiments with the filters, airboxes and velocity stacks and the results have been similar to those reported by others, i.e. it works best with stock filter and stock airbox. I couldn't tell any difference, from a seat of the pants perspective, no matter what combination of velocity stacks I ran.
I tried a K&N, but the bike ran so poorly and was so lean I took it out immediately. I'm sure with several hours worth of jetting work I could make it run acceptably, but I just haven't had the inclination. The converted stock filter made with green foam flows just about the same as the stock filter, so if you want a cleanable filter and don't want to spend the bucks on a stock filter and don't want to rejet this is the way to go.
http://www.unifilter.com/online%20ca...cessories.html
I tried a K&N, but the bike ran so poorly and was so lean I took it out immediately. I'm sure with several hours worth of jetting work I could make it run acceptably, but I just haven't had the inclination. The converted stock filter made with green foam flows just about the same as the stock filter, so if you want a cleanable filter and don't want to spend the bucks on a stock filter and don't want to rejet this is the way to go.
http://www.unifilter.com/online%20ca...cessories.html
07-18-2009, 07:28 AM
#16
Member
Squid
Squid
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bremerton WA
Posts: 78
adding fin to K&N Filter
Can anyone tell me what size the fin is on a stock air filter? I was thinking of fabricating a stock type fin and adding it to the K&N to see if that helps. I was wondering what the height of a stock fin and length is. My bike came with a K&N only and I am tired of playing around with the carb farts and bad midrange power. Already on the 5th notch on the needles, and next is to switch the slow jet and try to find the right notch for those. I am assuming I have the stock slow jets. Don't want the carbs out another 2 or 3 times to get it right. Just want my bike to run nice at 3K-4K, don't care if I lose power above 7K.
What is involved to switch back to a stock air filter? Does the stock air filter insert into a plastic holder of some sort, or is the whole plastic unit built in with the filter like the K&N? If I bought a stock airfilter would I have to buy something else for the filter to attach to after I took the K&N out?
TIA
What is involved to switch back to a stock air filter? Does the stock air filter insert into a plastic holder of some sort, or is the whole plastic unit built in with the filter like the K&N? If I bought a stock airfilter would I have to buy something else for the filter to attach to after I took the K&N out?
TIA
07-18-2009, 10:12 AM
#17
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Thornwood, NY
Posts: 817
Can anyone tell me what size the fin is on a stock air filter? I was thinking of fabricating a stock type fin and adding it to the K&N to see if that helps. I was wondering what the height of a stock fin and length is. My bike came with a K&N only and I am tired of playing around with the carb farts and bad midrange power. Already on the 5th notch on the needles, and next is to switch the slow jet and try to find the right notch for those. I am assuming I have the stock slow jets. Don't want the carbs out another 2 or 3 times to get it right. Just want my bike to run nice at 3K-4K, don't care if I lose power above 7K.
What is involved to switch back to a stock air filter? Does the stock air filter insert into a plastic holder of some sort, or is the whole plastic unit built in with the filter like the K&N? If I bought a stock airfilter would I have to buy something else for the filter to attach to after I took the K&N out?
TIA
What is involved to switch back to a stock air filter? Does the stock air filter insert into a plastic holder of some sort, or is the whole plastic unit built in with the filter like the K&N? If I bought a stock airfilter would I have to buy something else for the filter to attach to after I took the K&N out?
TIA
Look in the top 1/2 of the airbox... at about 1/4 the way back from the front there should be a "rail" running across that looks like you can slip a sheet of plastic into... you'll need to take a sheet of plastic slightly less than 1/8" or you can use 1/8" (or greater) but will need to router, or mill it slightly thinner at the top to fit the that rail. (BTW... if you don't have this rail, you'll need it for this mod, as well as to put the stock air filter in place as well)
Once you have a piece that fits that rail, the best way to decide how tall your fin needs to be is get the plastic seated into that rail, then place the K&N filter into the top section.... keep cutting and trimming your plastic till you get the filter seated properly. You'll probably wind up making (2) fins... one to cut, chop, and fit, then a second based on the first that will be in much better shape!!!
As far as the width of the fin (side to side).... make it as wide as possible that still fits into the box.... I lined mine up with the "edge" of the K&N filter where it is routed for the airbox to fit/seat.
You'll find when you fit the fin in place, you'll need to account for the rubber seal around the K&N filter... I just cut a notch to fit over it... you could silicone any small gaps if need be.... I didn't bother, as I had it almost perfectly flush... slightly tight.
Once you have the part... glue/epoxy it, or use plastic welder to insure it' s attached very well to the filter. That's pretty much it.
J.
07-18-2009, 10:25 AM
#18
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 210
Most airbox/exhaust mods do more moving of the powerband up higher in the rpm range versus making more "actual" horsepower. More top end power = higher dyno readings that sell products. Less low end power means less real world used accleration.
07-18-2009, 12:22 PM
#19
Member
Squid
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denver
Posts: 75
Maybe yes, maybe no. Some heavy construction manufacturer tried an oiled foam filter for that reason, but decided that their increased engine maintenance costs outweighed the cleanability thing, and went back to paper. Not the same thing at all, so I'm not claiming it transfers.
Similar thing about tradeoffs here. The top Formula Ford racers tried no air filter at all, since they rebuild the motors every weekend. They found that they were losing power by the end of the weekend, when it was most important, and went back to oiled foam.
For many of us, the number of miles we ride per year make the cost of paper filters unimportant. I'm in that group. It seems unprofitable to me to go away from OEM paper, and deal with fabricating fins, etc., for a very small improvement, if there's any at all.
Similar thing about tradeoffs here. The top Formula Ford racers tried no air filter at all, since they rebuild the motors every weekend. They found that they were losing power by the end of the weekend, when it was most important, and went back to oiled foam.
For many of us, the number of miles we ride per year make the cost of paper filters unimportant. I'm in that group. It seems unprofitable to me to go away from OEM paper, and deal with fabricating fins, etc., for a very small improvement, if there's any at all.
07-18-2009, 02:51 PM
#20
Member
Squid
Squid
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bremerton WA
Posts: 78
Yes, want to try to convert the K&N back to stock airflow characteristics. I want to include a fin to mimic stock airflow. I don't have a stock filter assembly so I don't know what it looks like or includes. If I buy a stock filter does it include the whole plastic assembly with a fin and all the plastic tray, or does it just include the filter and all the plastic is a separate part #? How tall is the stock fin?
SlowHawk, do you have a picture of yours?
I agree with MLB , moving the power up the rpm band, increases peak hp, but ruins acceleration. The true way to measure true Acceleration is the total area under the curve on a dynosheet. A higher peak hp from moving up the rpm band will mean a lower total area under the curve and less acceleration usually. What you want in a performance mod is more torque across the entire rpm band. A big plateau. People who chase just HP numbers usually have no idea. I'll race my 90 hp TDI against any same weight car with 180 hp naturally aspirated car and I'll usually win. I have more area under the curve. I have around 230+ ft/lbs torque @ 1900 rpms. Turbocharged cars are fast, because they increase the torque significantly across the entire band, not just increase peak hp. Not trying to hijack my own hijack thread
.
Back to Superhawks, I just want to remove the big dip I see in my dyno from 3K to 4.5K rpm. Sure my bike makes 106 hp peak, but it would be a faster bike only making 100 hp and adding a fatter torque band from 3K to 5K rpm. I want to try the fin mod I read here before I order parts and tear into the carbs again.
SlowHawk, do you have a picture of yours?
I agree with MLB , moving the power up the rpm band, increases peak hp, but ruins acceleration. The true way to measure true Acceleration is the total area under the curve on a dynosheet. A higher peak hp from moving up the rpm band will mean a lower total area under the curve and less acceleration usually. What you want in a performance mod is more torque across the entire rpm band. A big plateau. People who chase just HP numbers usually have no idea. I'll race my 90 hp TDI against any same weight car with 180 hp naturally aspirated car and I'll usually win. I have more area under the curve. I have around 230+ ft/lbs torque @ 1900 rpms. Turbocharged cars are fast, because they increase the torque significantly across the entire band, not just increase peak hp. Not trying to hijack my own hijack thread
. Back to Superhawks, I just want to remove the big dip I see in my dyno from 3K to 4.5K rpm. Sure my bike makes 106 hp peak, but it would be a faster bike only making 100 hp and adding a fatter torque band from 3K to 5K rpm. I want to try the fin mod I read here before I order parts and tear into the carbs again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Rollin20z
Technical Discussion
14
12-28-2008 09:47 AM
