| Author | Message | |||||||||||
     Cixyx_pilot |
What is the horse power gain by putting a race kit on a stock 2000 X1????  | |||||||||||
| Sloppy |
Little to no peak HP difference. The gain is in the midrange, 2k to 4k rpm. Best performance mod I made. Make sure you get the headers, they make a big difference. I'd toss the K&N filter though, only 2 hp difference at peak power and it sends dirt into the engine. IMO, a great filter for the track, but a poor filter for daily use. | |||||||||||
| Xldevil |
K&N filter though, only 2 hp difference at peak power and it sends dirt into the engine I never heard or experienced that before. I'm riding different types of K&Ns on different types of bikes for more than 20 years.I never had any dirt in my engines. Best filters you can get even for very dusty roads. Ralph | |||||||||||
| Cixyx_pilot |
Thanks for the info!!! | |||||||||||
| Sloppy |
My K&N left a fine dust of sand in my air box. Later, the seal on the K&N blew out. Got a new one, and still had fine dust. Switched to standard paper filter, no more dust. Had it dyno'd against the K&N and only lost 2hp on the top end, everywhere else it was the same. There's a report out on the web where someone tests K&N vs Foam vs paper. Results were that while K&N did flow the best when clean, it dirtied up the quickest, bled out the most dirt, and when dirty, flowed the least. The best filter for street use is paper... while the best for race "could" be K&N. Google on "K&N vs. Paper filters" and you'll find plenty of discussion on the subject. | |||||||||||
| Xldevil |
I rely on my own longtime experiences. They are telling a different story. Ralph | |||||||||||
| Rocketman |
K&N filters flow the best when clean because they are the best filters. K&N filters dirty up the quickest because they are obviously doing their work more efficiently than an inferior filter. If it's clogging up quicker it's simply more efficient at capturing crap in the atmosphere than another filter running under the same conditions. K&N filters bled out the most dirt? I find that very hard to believe. K&N filters when dirty, flowed the least. That's because you're meant to keep them clean and oiled correctly. Consider if they are dirty that's a dangerous condition for your engine from a 'what's caught in your filter' point of view if that dirt were to get past the filter. So a clogged filter flowing the least is what you really want. Less chance of contamination entering your engine. You just pointed out every good reason to choose K&N filters. Rocket | |||||||||||
| Djkaplan |
The K&N doesn't work well on the race kit air filter because it doesn't seal where it mates with the CF cover. I hated the race kit air filter, but not the K&N. I've had good luck with K&N filters since 1976 on everything from 125 motocrossers to diesel trucks. | |||||||||||
| Chasespeed |
I use K&N filters for everything, including my air compressor.... I have never had an issue with anythign getting by it...but, for anything in an environment liek that, I also use a pre-filter... Chase | |||||||||||
| Buellzebub |
i use a draft stop removable caulking on the faying surfaces of the race kit air cleaner to ensure an airtight seal, seems to work for me and is easy to replace when the filter is serviced. | |||||||||||
| Sloppy |
Caveat Emptor -- do your research and make your own decision. I'm more interested in riding than removing, washing, rinsing, drying, oiling, dabbing and installing air filters.  All I know is both brand new and washed/re-oiled K&N's left grit in my airbox while paper filters never did. Due to the design of the Buell bread box, you can easilty tell if dirt is passing through the filter as it drops out and coats the bottom of the housing. If dirt doesn't show up in yours then great - I'm glad it works for you. Also K&N didn't offer any effective horsepower advantage -- I had it dyno'd. I don't ride on the street continuously at 6000+ rpm so it's a waste of time, money and engine life for me (or any daily rider?). The nice thing about paper filters is the dirtier they get, the better they filter. Of course, YMMV... live and let live. | |||||||||||
| Djkaplan |
"Due to the design of the Buell bread box, you can easilty tell if dirt is passing through the filter as it drops out and coats the bottom of the housing." Are you talking about the housing that encloses the filter, or at the bottom of the breadbox itself? I got a bunch of grit in my breadbox because the mating surfaces on the cover weren't sealing against the backing plate. It let all sorts for stuff coat the inside of the breadbox. | |||||||||||
| Xldevil |
The nice thing about paper filters is the dirtier they get, the better they filter. And the world is a disc. | |||||||||||
| Hootowl |
Dude, you are so wrong. The Earth is square. http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/square_earth.html | |||||||||||
| Rocketman |
I'm more interested in riding than removing, washing, rinsing, drying, oiling, dabbing and installing air filters. Me too, but rebuilding your grit worn engine takes a little longer. Rocket | |||||||||||
| Sloppy |
Boy, you folks are a joy to converse with... ISO 5011 Test Results: http://home.stny.rr.com/jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm If you have constructive opinions, I'd be interested. | |||||||||||
| Smuige |
Sorry not Buell but air filter... My girlfriends 220CDI Mercedes had paper filter that broke and make big mess +$$$ in engine. It broke some air sensor and that did cause engine to run in "emergency mode"... means nothing did work well, was using lot more diesel, lack of hp etc. And repair, shit. Only that f***in' sensor cost 500$ + work. Yeah, thrust those paper filters. And good luck! You can use those if you change them regularly. Same amount of time you can spent for cleaning the proper air filter. | |||||||||||
| Rocketman |
If you have constructive opinions, I'd be interested. KEEP YOUR K&N CLEAN! Good link too  Rocket | |||||||||||
| Sloppy |
"Compared to the AC (paper air filter), the K&N plugged up nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt." Ref: see link. Yea, keep those K&N's REAL clean or just change a paper filter after you would normally clean a K&N filter 3 times... Folks, I'm not saying a K&N is a bad filter - it's great for increased air flow, but it's at a price of frequent cleaning and filtration efficiency. And according to the the dyno, the increased air flow sure doesn't seem like it's worth it to me. So depending upon what you use your bike for, there are much better options. The more loosely packed your filter media, the more flow you get, however, the more dirt will pass. The more tightly packed your media, the less air flow you get, but less dirt will pass... it's not that hard of a concept (flow through a filter is an inverse function of pressure loss). Hence, up to a point, when you have a layer of dirt on the surface of a paper media filter (remember it's a depth filter, not a surface filter), it acts as it's own filter. That is, until, the pressure loss across the filter exceeds the integrity of the filter media -- which is, I assume, what happened to the Mercedes. I'll give full credit to K&N on having a strong cotton weave with a screen backing, but unlike a paper media filter, K&N has no depth filtration capability -- as evidenced in the data -- so it gets dirty very quickly. It has to rely on oil to try to hold the dirt in suspension. If, for whatever reason you loose this oil film (heavy dust loading, long hot day, infrequent re-oiling) you loose the filtration capability of the filter. With a paper media filter, you never have to worry about whether or not you have enough oil on the filter. So unless you can describe to the contrary, I'll still hold that a paper media filter is a better choice for a street bike than is a K&N. Unless you enjoy re-oiling filters, lubing non-o-ring chain drives and adjusting solid lifters... | |||||||||||
| Rocketman |
Sloppy, you miss one fundamental point when you speak of paper filters. Most people change their air filter to improve the looks of their Buells. That creates a problem for the use of paper filters. That said, I was a little surprised by the test results but I will stick my neck out and say this. The findings of that test might appear to show the K&N in a poor light but the figures they're dealing with are at an extreme. That is to say, I'd like to see a comparison of a K&N against a paper filter by running two engines in identical conditions and inspecting both after say 20.000 miles. I'd wager the difference in wear to those engines would be negligible. Throw in a third engine running an open bell mouth and we really would have a baseline to work from. Rocket | |||||||||||
| Xldevil |
Sloppy,have you ever asked yourself: Who paid that test? | |||||||||||
| Djkaplan |
"Unless you enjoy re-oiling filters, lubing non-o-ring chain drives and adjusting solid lifters..." I enjoy adjusting the lash on my old '55 Ford. | |||||||||||
| Scott_in_nh |
I agree with Sloppy and Rocket, I have read tests before of paper vs K&N and paper is a better filter! That said, I have a ham can on my bike and paper would get wet. To Rockets point, on a street bike in the relatively clean air I ride in, I agree, I doubt it will ever be a problem. I would not run one in a vehicle used off of paved roads like a Jeep or a Uly though! Guys over at the Jeep Cherokee site NAXJA.org have reported dirt getting by K&N's in off road conditions.... As to a HP difference, it really only shows up on a dyno at higher rpm's. If you doubt what I say- try a days worth of testing at a dragstrip and change back and forth between a paper and K&N element and see if it shows up on your time slips in the real world....I have- changes in air temp and density show up in big ways, changes in air filters, if there at all, are so small that they are lost in run to run inconsistencies (1 tenth or less of a second quicker or slower). I'm not saying not to run one, just to be realistic about what an air filter can add to what is already, arguably, an efficient system. (Message edited by scott_in_nh on December 29, 2006) | |||||||||||
| Blake |
Some comments on the test report referenced above. The graphical presentation of filter efficiency results lead one to question the intent of the test reporter(s). The scale for such results should not begin all the way up at 96%; it should start at 0% which would represent an unfiltered condition. The same point applies to many of the remainder of their graphical data presentations. But this issue does not call into question the integrity of the data itself; it only indicates a possible effort in the reporting to bias how the results are perceived. Valid scientifically based testing requires multiple, at least 2, tests per filter type. Without some minimal statistical basis, the results are near meaningless, scientifically speaking. This is a huge strike one. The "Resistance to Flow" results disagree significantly with the results presented in the "Dust Loading Curves" chart. Since the dust loading tests were reportedly conducted at a flow rate of 350 CFM, the initial (zero dust delivered) restriction values shown in that chart should exactly match those at the 350 CFM level shown in the "Resistance to Flow" chart results. They do not match, at all. See following for comparison:
Testing was performed on all filters using "course" dust. Additional testing using "fine" dust was performed upon and reported for only two filters, the K&N and the AFE filters. This indicates possible bias and warrants a concerned strike three. The K&N filter is an oiled reusable filter; it depends upon the oil film for much of its filtering efficiency. No mention is made of the state of the filter's oiling. I'm also wondering how much oil may have have been transferred from the oiled filters to the test station's "post filter." That could be very significant as it would skew the test results toward less filtering efficiency. A lack of discussion addressing this issue warrants strike four. It is an interesting test report, but it is sorely lacking in statistical integrity and scientific method and exhibits serious indications of bias. As an engineering professional, I could not accept as valid the conclusions derived from the testing. The concept of improved flow with improved filtering efficiency through the use of a sticky oil film is 100% valid. Flypaper without the sticky wouldn't catch any flies. Without the sticky film, a flycatching filter would need a much finer mesh, one that would be much more restrictive to air flow. The concept behind oiled dust catching air-filters is exactly the same. Given that, one might see how an oiled filter could clog up more quickly when exposed to extreme dirty conditions. Fun stuff to talk about though. | |||||||||||
| Sloppy |
The test was conducted by a couple of folks interested in air filter performance. I agree, it's not an SAE white paper, but it's still data -- and the only indepedent test that I have seen. If someone else has another reference document that would be great to see! The results of the test mimic "my" experiences with various K&N's (new and re-oiled) and supports other discussions on forum nets about the poor filtration retention of K&N's. It's funny though that the only information I can find about the positive benefits of K&N (without any negatives) are those that are trying to sell them... now you know who paid for those tests, right Xl? Heck, even Amsoil and K&N are slinging cr*p at each other... | |||||||||||
| Oldog |
Sloppy: I removed the standard Buell air box and placed a forcewinder with a K & N on the inlet, this was done to prevent the ingress of dirt into the intake tract, which was a problem with the X1 "suitcase" air box, The force winder inlet horn and a spigot mounted K&N have been on the bike for over 2 years in all kinds of weather with no visible ingress of dirt present in the horn or throttle body, I serviced it for the first time this year, there was no evidence of dirt in side of the filter and there was plenty of oil present. most off road veihicles are subject to major bouncing [ thrashing ] My CZ had a hand made air box and a tubular Twinair filter, dirt was allways present in the carb, a clamp down open ended tube type filter will allways have issues in a rough service environment like off road racing, unless an extreemly strudy canister/clap is built for it servicing the filter one time in 2 years did not cut into the riding time too much.  | |||||||||||
| Aesquire |
Paper filters catch more dirt than oiled cloth. I've seen more than 1 study. Even K&N reps will agree. With exposed filters, you better not get the paper wet. Oiled cloth is better than foam, in tests I've seen. Foam is easier to clean, Cloth is more resistant to solvents. It's a trade off. The above test may be "true" but it's also reported in a biased manner. Rocket & I agree on this one. How long does it take to wash an air filter? Most of the time is spent waiting for it to dry. I've never used up a whole can of filter oil either. I have to buy new ones because I moved or can't find it. | |||||||||||
| Rocketman |
Blake, I missed most of what you read, though I don't know how, lol. Thanks all the same. Your input opened my eyes wider. As for air filter oil. I've had two aerosol cans for years. Now I can't find either! Rocket | |||||||||||
| Danny_h__jesternut |
Can anyone tell me what size these particles that get tru the air filters? The particles are measured in microns rigt? Paper filter = size microns K&N filter = size microns Sponge filter = size microns Size matters? What type of partical matters also? mineral, organic, inorganic? At what size do these particles, and at what rate do these tiny particles damage your intake tract,cumbustion chamber,exaust tract? Jest realisticaly how worried should I be over tiny microns? | |||||||||||
| Rocketman |
Danny, we used to run our Triumph's with velocity stacks, which are open bell mouths with not one iota of filtration. Don't lose sleep over it, or distract yourself by thinking about what those little hairs up your nose do, then think how fortunate your Buell is in comparison! Rocket | |||||||||||
| Rick_a |
A little grease around the filter sealing surfaces on K&N's can fix the "dirt leak"...or you can cut the standoffs a little for a tighter seal. A guy told me he gained 10hp on a 98 S1W by putting on the race filter setup and a V&H slip on. Of course, the shop he went to is known for gaining a magic 10hp by simply doing a few runs. 2 horsepower at $50 with a K&N is one of the best deals you're gonna get! |
