just baught one and im curious if you get a bit more power better fuel milage or if it usless..

 

Google

 

 

The general concensus on the forum is they are all but untunable. They flow too much air for the carbs to be easily jetted for. Lots of conversations on the forum. If you have access to a great tuner & dyno, you might be able to tune your bike to run with it, but you are likely to lose some power over stock and get worse mileage.

 

+1 Well said... RZracer.. For that fact , I went back to OEM... Meanhawk.. I would have give a fine deal on your choice... BMC, K&N. Both with less than 3k miles..

 

The only benefit to me was I lived on a dirt road and didn't have to keep buying oem, as far as power depending on how you tune it there can be gains in top end at the expense of midrange power.

 

It's a wash. You won't find any opinions of that on here whatsoever

 

Lol so the only benefits would b I.can wash it instead of buying a new one every time and I might get to stop at a gas station more often is pretty much where.I'm goin with this? Lol

 

As far as mpg I haven't noticed any difference.

 

What it comes down to is that it's not a simple swap. To get it to work correctly you have to spend some effort tuning it. And even then, people have had mixed results. Superhawk22 has had good results, but he put in some carb time getting it there.

Also, foam/cotton filters are known for filtering LESS dirt, so maybe not the best choice if you're worried about longetivity (especially on dusty roads).

 

I have read about the dust problems as well but have never experienced any troubles, this may be because I keep it oiled all the time and I don't over clean it as the trapped dirt actually helps filter the smaller particles. Not sure really but 20000 miles or so and the only carb issue I had was when I wasn't riding due to injury and they got gummed up, maybe I'm the exception to the rule?

 

Don't get me wrong 7, I'm not disputing what you wrote, just pointing out my personal experiences.

 

Everyone has an opinion, my guess is that the "general concensus" is from so many people just putting a K&N ail filter in without doing any tuning and their bike runs worse so it must be the air filters fault.

I have two VTR's running the K&N filter and they both run exceptionally well. I have never had a hiccup or flat spot or any noticeable problem with running them.

One previous owner told me he dyno tuned the carbs between adding each part to the motor, thereby getting a perfect tune, or as close to it as possible.

Both my bikes had the K&N in when I got them so I can't say if it made an improvement myself and I don't have an OEM filter to compare, but to say that the K&N is un-tunable or not good for X reason just makes me think not enough time was put into tuning by the people giving their opinion.

 

Hey I'm all for discussion!

I actually can't say I know the foam/cotton to filter fewer particles from first hand... or even that the difference would be big enough to make a difference (if there is one). I'm just relaying what I've read and seen in researching filters, and it seems that a lot of testing finds that paper filters work better in terms of filtration abilities throughout their life.

 

Also, and again not trying to be abrasive or anything here, there are people who have tried any and all possible means to get the filters to work without success. People with years of experience and access do dyno's and that competitive edge to want to eek the performance out of a K&N. And have had success with other bikes. I'm not convinced 100% either way, but in my limited abilities have gone with the stock filter.

What I'm saying is that the general consensus IMO is drawn off of fairly reliable tuners, not just shade tree mechanics.

 

Right back at ya... Since you haven't tried the OEM filter at all, you are uniquely unqualified to discuss the merits of the K&N filter vs the OEM filter...

I have had the K&N filter, I have had the OEM filter, and I'm currently running a BMC Street filter... All of them have been through several hours of tuning, by me personally... On a dyno, using wideband, and by trial and error, tuning fork and by wearing blue or green underwear, you name it...

The end result was that the only possible solution to get the K&N to perform reasonably, was to live with rather horrible "holes" where it dipped noticably... And other areas where it surged, being incredibly rich... But it did produce the highest possible HP, beating the others by a mile... The fact that you sacrifice driveability and fuel mileage for it, is probably not important?

So before you make those statements... READ... You make biased, unsubstantiated claims... Out of ignorance, but still... I have done the legwork, and I'm one of the people saying the K&N is impossible to tune to a point where you get better HP, better driveability and better mileage than OEM... You can get one, and possibly two, but not all three... It's simply not possible... And a lot more knowledgeable tuners than me have come to the same conclusion too... I'm fairly sure they spent the time and effort too, since they went racing with their bikes...

It's a benefit on a heavily modified engine, and it's washable... But it's not an improvement on a stock engine... The BMC street is a decent compromise... It's also washable, and it performs roughly the same as the OEM filter, with very small gains in the mid band, and even smaller in the top end... That holds true for both stock and modified engines...

So, please... Don't tell me I didn't spend the time...