K&N: yes or no? (last call)
05-06-2005, 08:14 AM
#1
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
K&N: yes or no? (last call)
I recently took delivery of a set of Micron oval (race, I believe) slip-ons and a Dynojet kit which I hope to install in the very near future (note: FYI the Dynojet jet kit is identical to the Micron kit, same needles, springs,...). During the installation process, I will be disabling the PAIR system, adjusting the TPS and installing a long intake trumpet on the front cylinder (increase lows and mids). Based on info received from the well-known VTR tuner at Revolution Racing I will not be drilling my slides (doesn't recommend it for a street bike). My big dilemma now is whether or not to invest in a K&N air filter. I essentially use the bike for sport-touring and want more punch in the midrange (max. 7K rpm). I have been doing a lot of research in the matter of getting the K&N or keeping the stock filter in place and have been getting mixed messages with some claiming that (once properly jetted for of course) the K&N increases power across the rev band while others claim that it gives better top-end but at the expense of mid-range. Does anyone know for sure? I want to get this straightened out once and for all so I do not have to repeat the re-jetting process all over again for nothing. Again, I am mostly looking for extra punch in the mids and am not overly concerned with high-rpm power. Your input would be GREATLY appreciated. Dyno numbers to confirm seat-of-the-pants feelings would also be very welcome. Thanks again and this is the last you will hear from me on this topic.
Cheers
Cheers
05-06-2005, 09:26 AM
#2
Moderator
MotoGP
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: South Texas
Posts: 2,553
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
If you are looking for more "scoot" out of the corners, get a 15t front sprocket and call it a day! Best performance mod you can do.
Are you installing the kit yourself? Adding a K&N requires a jet change from your present setup( (open pipes/stock filter). Not a real big deal but if you are paying someone then it is.
Are you installing the kit yourself? Adding a K&N requires a jet change from your present setup( (open pipes/stock filter). Not a real big deal but if you are paying someone then it is.
05-06-2005, 09:54 AM
#3
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
I am installing a 43 tooth rear sprocket instead (easier on chain, shorten wheelbase for quicker handling). I will indeed be installing the kit myself in either case (K&N or not), I just don't want to double my work for nothing. I may get the final tuning done on a dyno depending on how things turn out
05-06-2005, 01:47 PM
#4
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Cleveland
Posts: 296
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
just got a k&n , no difference in my opinion. but i do like that i will have the filter as long as i have the bike , or for that matter, as long as the newer SH's dont change their airbox. its reusable/washable. get one for 70$ ebay. save in long run, enough said.
05-06-2005, 03:31 PM
#5
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Nananimo, B.C.
Posts: 764
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
He's worried that the K&N will let dirt in.
There must be a difference with the K&N over stock cause if you only change the filter you need to rejet, or so I've read.
I'll find out in the next five days.
There must be a difference with the K&N over stock cause if you only change the filter you need to rejet, or so I've read.
I'll find out in the next five days.
05-06-2005, 09:01 PM
#6
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
Yep, dirt is one concern but the main one is the power curve. Gaining 3 hp on top is not worth a 4 hp drop at 5K, it is really that simple in the end. I was kind of hoping someone would have some info on this one.
On another note, I just got back from rising my 'Storm with the 43 teeth rear sprocket and I love it. I also shimmed the rear shock 4.5 mm and raised the forks 6 mm and the results are awesome (of course the shortened wheelbase from the larger rear sprocket also helps). These minor changes have transformed the bike. I am really looking forward to getting those pipes and jet kit on there. Woohoo!!!!
Again, if anyone has experience comparing stock filter vs K&N (both properly jetted and with aftermarket pipes preferably) I would certainly welcome your input.
Cheers
Micky
On another note, I just got back from rising my 'Storm with the 43 teeth rear sprocket and I love it. I also shimmed the rear shock 4.5 mm and raised the forks 6 mm and the results are awesome (of course the shortened wheelbase from the larger rear sprocket also helps). These minor changes have transformed the bike. I am really looking forward to getting those pipes and jet kit on there. Woohoo!!!!
Again, if anyone has experience comparing stock filter vs K&N (both properly jetted and with aftermarket pipes preferably) I would certainly welcome your input.
Cheers
Micky
05-25-2005, 07:26 AM
#9
Senior Member
Back Marker
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 201
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
If I trust the advise from my dealer, this is not only the K&N that improve the gas milleage, this is the whole correct setting; K&N and jet kit and dyno run to calibrate all them!
Mikstr go see the web site of my dealer that I've talked you about it before, you will see the "What happens when you add a K&N?" chart at the end of the page.
http://www.dynamohumm.com/HONDA/VTR%201000/my_vtr.htm
And also, for the gas milleage, I'm not sure but I think there is also another factor that can have a big influence; Your right wrist!!
Mikstr go see the web site of my dealer that I've talked you about it before, you will see the "What happens when you add a K&N?" chart at the end of the page.
http://www.dynamohumm.com/HONDA/VTR%201000/my_vtr.htm
And also, for the gas milleage, I'm not sure but I think there is also another factor that can have a big influence; Your right wrist!!
05-25-2005, 08:31 AM
#10
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
Hello Icebud,
I looked at the DynamoHumm site a while back and it helped me to decide about the K&N. Based on the graphs and excellent work done by Brian Law, I will NOT be installing a K&N filter (a drop in torque from 68.4 ft-lbs with the stock filter to 67.1 with the K&N is hardly the type of performance "improvement" I am seeking, not to mention the dip in the mid-range: NO THANKS)
I am looking forward to adding my Dynojet kit though
cheers
Micky
I looked at the DynamoHumm site a while back and it helped me to decide about the K&N. Based on the graphs and excellent work done by Brian Law, I will NOT be installing a K&N filter (a drop in torque from 68.4 ft-lbs with the stock filter to 67.1 with the K&N is hardly the type of performance "improvement" I am seeking, not to mention the dip in the mid-range: NO THANKS)
I am looking forward to adding my Dynojet kit though
cheers
Micky
05-25-2005, 01:59 PM
#12
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
thanks L8RGYZ,
in the eternal battle between (added) Zing and Bling ( 8) , I will take Zing every time. Having read up every link I could find on the topic, it seems to me that the K&N offers no advantages other than possible long-term cost saving from cleaning vs replacing the paper element stock unit. On the downside, however, it gives less performance (as evidenced by DynamoHumm dyno reports and other credible sources) and is less effective at filtering out dirt (again based on credible tests, an important consideration for the longevity of the engine). All things considered, the choice was obvious.
in the eternal battle between (added) Zing and Bling ( 8) , I will take Zing every time. Having read up every link I could find on the topic, it seems to me that the K&N offers no advantages other than possible long-term cost saving from cleaning vs replacing the paper element stock unit. On the downside, however, it gives less performance (as evidenced by DynamoHumm dyno reports and other credible sources) and is less effective at filtering out dirt (again based on credible tests, an important consideration for the longevity of the engine). All things considered, the choice was obvious.
05-25-2005, 05:41 PM
#14
Senior Member
MotoGP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,631
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
Norrth wrote: It wasn't so obvious before your posts.
True, but I have done A LOT of research since then (thank God for Google, lol). At the end of the day everyone is entitled to his/her opinion (hte beauty of living in a free country). Speaking strictly for myself, however, the dyno readings found on the DynamoHumm (a very reputable speed shop and good source for parts BTW) website, along with additional dyno work performed by others that I have uncovered along the way, indicates quite clearly and in an unbiased fashion that the stock air filter is the way to go, at least for "close to stock engines". Now for a full-mod engine it may be different of course as the air flow characteristics are somewhat different. I cannot speak to that and will leave that to those who have actual experience in the field.
One last thing, my local dealer (Ami Sport) who also has a dyno, and is known as a knowledgeable and competent speed shop in Eastern Canada, informed me that based on their work, they have found that K&N's work on most bikes EXCEPT the VTR and Suzuki TL-S. This can easily explain how people who have had a good experience with K&Ns in other applications would expect the same benefits on their VTR's. Finally, I don't mean to offend anyone but the fact that "everyone has one" is not grounds enough for me to discount hard evidence that it is not effective on my motorcycle.
Best of luck to all in your tuning experiments, K&Ners and non-K&Ners alike.
cheers
True, but I have done A LOT of research since then (thank God for Google, lol). At the end of the day everyone is entitled to his/her opinion (hte beauty of living in a free country). Speaking strictly for myself, however, the dyno readings found on the DynamoHumm (a very reputable speed shop and good source for parts BTW) website, along with additional dyno work performed by others that I have uncovered along the way, indicates quite clearly and in an unbiased fashion that the stock air filter is the way to go, at least for "close to stock engines". Now for a full-mod engine it may be different of course as the air flow characteristics are somewhat different. I cannot speak to that and will leave that to those who have actual experience in the field.
One last thing, my local dealer (Ami Sport) who also has a dyno, and is known as a knowledgeable and competent speed shop in Eastern Canada, informed me that based on their work, they have found that K&N's work on most bikes EXCEPT the VTR and Suzuki TL-S. This can easily explain how people who have had a good experience with K&Ns in other applications would expect the same benefits on their VTR's. Finally, I don't mean to offend anyone but the fact that "everyone has one" is not grounds enough for me to discount hard evidence that it is not effective on my motorcycle.
Best of luck to all in your tuning experiments, K&Ners and non-K&Ners alike.
cheers
05-25-2005, 09:01 PM
#15
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Nananimo, B.C.
Posts: 764
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
I agree with you and I have heard and read the same information but I haven't thoroughly researched it. I got a deal on the K&N off eBay, then a member here gave me a deal on the jet kit. Then I found out from you that Micron used the same Dynojet kit with their race slip ons. This turns out to be true from first hand experience.
It all had to come apart to do the APE CCT's/spark plugs anyway so I thought I may as well try it. I'm out about $200 cdn if it doesn't make any diff. Doing it with my mechanic friend is an education so its all good.
It all had to come apart to do the APE CCT's/spark plugs anyway so I thought I may as well try it. I'm out about $200 cdn if it doesn't make any diff. Doing it with my mechanic friend is an education so its all good.
05-28-2005, 10:16 PM
#17
Senior Member
Superstock
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 281
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
I'm fairly certain slip-ons create near zero power gains. The K&N replacement filter is an oiled filter, just like the one in the bike, and creates near zero power gains (but is slightly more cleanable than the stock filter? Nope, both are equally as cleanable). I believe K&N pods may make an infinitesimal power gain of maybe 1% Hp after rejetting with the DynoJet (owned by K&N) kit.
I agree with the others. The 15T is a good way to go, as is rejetting with a complete muffler system (such as Muzzy or whatever) where the headers are included and are lighter and better flowing.
I agree with the others. The 15T is a good way to go, as is rejetting with a complete muffler system (such as Muzzy or whatever) where the headers are included and are lighter and better flowing.
09-28-2005, 06:55 PM
#18
Senior Member
SuperSport
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 882
Re: K&N: yes or no? (last call)
Maybe I'm reading the dyno charts wrong but the only combo that beat the K&N filter with carbs jetted for the K&N (i.e. richer) was the D&D.
All the others were lower torque.
Aren't the D&D the loudest pipes out there?
When I called Dynojet they said to jet for the K&N at 190/195 and jet for the stock filter at 180/185...seems a pretty big jet difference to me.
What are your thoughts???
All the others were lower torque.
Aren't the D&D the loudest pipes out there?
When I called Dynojet they said to jet for the K&N at 190/195 and jet for the stock filter at 180/185...seems a pretty big jet difference to me.
What are your thoughts???
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
inderocker
Classifieds
6
04-28-2010 10:25 AM
