K & N RU 1780

[Guest rosso mandello]

I just read an old tread on this forum, from 2003, on this subjekt. What happened on this issue, do you use the big pods, and is there any gain in HP

 

looking for more power every day, ciao Mogens.

[Paul Minnaert]

well I have seperate k&n pods, and no they don't give extra power, they cost power. Inside its to small, and air doesn't come in quick enough. So yes they look more sexy, but you loose power.

[Guest ratchethack]

well I have seperate k&n pods, and no they don't give extra power, they cost power. Inside its to small, and air doesn't come in quick enough. So yes they look more sexy, but you loose power.

Uh-oh....

 

Beware, Paul!

 

As many hereabouts will no doubt recall (not so fondly, I'm afraid ), despite the abundance of consistent credible evidence from many sources that such statements about K&N's (and lots more along the same lines) are without much question very true and well proven (as in CREDIBLY PROVEN with HARD EVIDENCE), many here have been, and will no doubt continue to be PERSONALLY OFFENDED by words such as these!

 

Note to the K&N Blind Faith Contingent who might've missed this (see link). Had an aneurism lately? Looking f'er something to help get you started? : A select few on this Forum seem to be in the hunt quite often.

 

Clicky at y'er own risky.

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...hl=K&N#

 

Many have no interest in considering filter testing wotsoever, but this hasn't prevented them from posting numerously and at length on wot they obviously never paid the slightest attention to, let alone actually read.

 

Others may wish to skip the "opinion" and acrimony in the thread and get straight to (IMHO) a quite comprehensive, well-conducted, relevant, and revealing comparative analysis that has every appearance of being entirely independent and unbiased (see link below).

 

CAUTION: There are those who evidently consider these waters inherited by Satanic demons. Enter here at y'er own risk!

 

The Sept. ‘04 ISO 5011 Duramax Air Filter Test:

 

http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm

[big J]

Christ,here we go again

[guzziownr]

Ever read Tristram Shandy?

 

"hobby-horses": the narrow and often esoteric pursuits (hobbies, essentially) that interest people--often, to the point of obsession.

 

I had dinner with Racer X and John T. one time in CT. Previous to the meal I was worried that I was becoming an obsessed crank. I'm not even close.

 

DW

 

 

Christ,here we go again

 

[Greg Field]

The stock paper filter is not the restriction in the system. Compare the Guzzi filter (which only must supply enough air for the engine to make 75-80 rwhp) to the filter for the 2004-and-later RSV Mille engine (which makes about 130 rwhp). The Mille filter is otherwise identical to the Guzi filter but is smaller than the Guzzi filter by about 20 percent.

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

(as in CREDIBLY PROVEN with HARD EVIDENCE)

 

Many have no interest in considering filter testing wotsoever, but this hasn't prevented them from posting numerously and at length on wot they obviously never paid the slightest attention to, let alone actually read.

 

The Sept. ‘04 ISO 5011 Duramax Air Filter Test:

 

 

I agree with the hard evidence but it still isn't all the evidence. I would still like to see paper filters tested under a full range of humidity levels - not 67.82% or less. For those of us who live here on the 'wet coast' those levels of humidity occur for about 4 monthes of the year.

 

I spoke to a K&N salesman once who stated that they don't like to compare their filters to paper filters in dry climates as the paper filters outperform the K&N's. He prefers rainy days when the paper filters perform very poorly. Only words but if the Duramax test had a full range of humidities then it may show how well the paper filters work under all conditions.

 

By the way I do have a Duramax diesel and I do use a paper filter. I also find that it plugs up quickly in winter monthes with what looks like lint from a dryer. In the summer time it accumulates dirt and dust as expected but is easy to clean out the filter rather that replacing it monthly. I can not clean it in winter monthes.

[Paul Minnaert]

It seems my post is not read well, or being misintrepeted. I make no comparisson between an paper or K&N filter on the same airbox.

What I was saying, is the in my believe, and I've seen some dyno results, a k&n pod directly on the injection body, is worse than an ( guzzi v11) airbox with some filter on it. That you open up the airbox outside the filter a bit, makes it more easy to get the needed air.

Have any of you once made the calculation, how much air a guzzi needs per second @ 6000 rpm?

Imagine that amount of air going through a pod filter. So much surface area on the filter material isn't available.

[nose2wind]

It seems my post is not read well, or being misintrepeted. I make no comparisson between an paper or K&N filter on the same airbox.

What I was saying, is the in my believe, and I've seen some dyno results, a k&n pod directly on the injection body, is worse than an ( guzzi v11) airbox with some filter on it. That you open up the airbox outside the filter a bit, makes it more easy to get the needed air.

Have any of you once made the calculation, how much air a guzzi needs per second @ 6000 rpm?

Imagine that amount of air going through a pod filter. So much surface area on the filter material isn't available.

 

It seem to me that the pod only has to serve one side not both as the airbox.

If you take each pod surface area x 2 it is more that the airbox filter.

 

Yes/no

[Guzzirider]

I ain't gonna bore you with any technical mumbo jumbo bollocks- I've tried both lidless airbox with a K & N filter element, and also the large K & N pods.

 

I prefer the pods- glorious intake noise plus you can junk that big plastic airbox. I can't tell a massive difference between the 2 set ups in terms of power curve- if anything the bike seems nicer to ride with the pods with a slightly better pick up. My friend Mal has also tried both set ups on his V11 and also prefers the pods.

 

I know some respected tuners back up Paul's comments about the lidless airbox arrangement being better.

 

Guy

[jrt]

It seems my post is not read well, or being misintrepeted.

 

 

No, I think your post was read and interpreted correctly. Things went wonky anyhow.

[badmotogoozer]

You were not misunderstood - at least not by MOST of us. Correct on the surface area. The pod filters have a very small, in comparison, surface area that at best negates any performance gain. Strangling, if you will.

 

Ratchet's precious study is not applicable here.

 

Jim is very correct in descrbing the MAJOR flaw in said study. They begin by claiming to have tested to a particular standard. Yet if one is to actually read the standard they will find that only a select few of the tests were performed (or at least reported) in the report.

 

Any researcher worth his salt would immediately be suspicious of any such study. Especially when one has a hard look at what the graphs are actually saying, and how they are presented.

 

Keep waving that study in the air Rat - it carries no weight, even if the findings are completely as expected. It is hardly definitive proof, as you have extended it to be. You have even gone so far as to extrapolate claims that even the study itself does not claim.

 

Once again, if it suits your purpose, it must be God's honest truth, but if not supportive of your preconceived notions, then it can only be bunk. Please.

 

Rj

[zebulon]

To me there is no gain, with pods + air box.

I am riding since 1998 several guzzis only with pods, that i fit few time after i bought each bike.

 

What i could tell for sure is that with pods you loose top power when you are riding over 200 km/h regarding the airbox. Now that is not the common use of our bikes.

For everyday, with pods i think the bikes are more sensible to air "moisture"

 

My dayto rs only with pods