Dyno Results of Paper v. Gauze

[Tom M]

Just had a map built for the billy bob and spent some time comparing a BMC filter with opern-top box to my stock airbox modified per Phil A.'s instructions used with the stock paper filter.

 

I'm a retard, so i can't figure out a way to post the graphs, but here's what they show:

 

Peak hp slightly higher with paper, but with the BMC more torque and hp from 3,500 to just under where the paper takes the lead again at about 8,000 rpm. From 3,700 to 8,000 rpm, the BMC leads by about 5 lb.-ft and 2-5 hp.

 

All else was left the same except fo change of filter and box lid.

 

The rest of the configuration is '04 Bill Bob with PC III and Mistral crossover and mufflers.

 

Driveability is amazingly imporved after mapping. Money well spent. Time to sleep.

 

Hi Greg,

If you want your dyno files posted feel free to send them to me and I'd be happy to post them here.

[Greg Field]

OK, thanks. I'm back from Alaska and will try to figure out how to post them. If I fail, I'll take you up on your offer.

[jimbemotumbo]

Coming in a bit late on this, so thought I'd circle back around to the original question and post my experience. Don't ask for proof ... I can't find last years tax return let alone dyno sheets from two years ago.

 

I've run both paper and gauze on a multitude of bikes. I've done the research. Read the articles. Debated with Ratchet and others (several years ago). I don't lose any sleep over it one way or the other. However, for a short time a couple years ago I had unlimited dyno access, and took advantage of it to look at my power curves on the V11s. I was happy with my K&N, not from a HP standpoint but a driveability one. I liked the improved throttle response. But I was curious, so on with the testing. Suffice it to say, I found several important differences in the filter types, but not where I expected them:

1) K&N pods gave me a reduction of 7-10 HP and TQ across low to upper mid range. Only at WOT did the pods approach an OEM set up. Sounded cool though!

2) Switching to stock airbox, and comparing the two filter types, all was essentially equal. Certainly within the realm of inherent dyno error envrionmental conditions. A bit smoother curves with the K&N, and a slight tendency towards improved HP in the midrange. Again, we're talking slight.

3) Lidless airbox with K&N gave much better HP from 4500 and up, but slightly less TQ above midrange. This was also the smoothest curve, which is consistent with my earlier perceptions.

 

Keep in mind, I had M4 cans, Stucchi, a PCIII, and a careful TB tune. I find greater potential differences in any single change when accompanied by other mods. They work together, for good or for worse, so my noted differences may be inconsistent with the experience of others.

 

I rode my V11s hard, but rarely at higher revs. I was surprised at how the pods killed my power. They also let water in, which I don't care for. So, for me lidless airbox was the way to go. I kept using a K&N, but certainly cannot justify it for anyone else as I refuse to debate the dirt issue. Let it lie.

 

AND FOR THE RECORD: I do watch the posts. I'm a bit forgiving in the interests of lively and thorough debate (perhaps too much so - you tell me). However, I do not want to see anymore name-calling in the sections I moderate. Certainly fair to severely question, poke fun, heck, even rake someone over the coals if it's all in good fun and in the interests of better Guzziness. It ends with direct insults, name-calling, and mothers. No mothers, man.

 

And you can't make fun of my current mount ... I may be Guzzi-less at the time, but I'm hopeful to return when the war dept eases the budget constraints. Maybe congress will help.

[dlaing]

jimbemotumbo Lives!

Just cause you are gooseless, don't be a stranger!

PS sorry for calling you gooseless....it is the wickedest of personal insults

[badmotogoozer]

I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

 

Rj

[Guest ratchethack]

1) K&N pods gave me a reduction of 7-10 HP and TQ across low to upper mid range. Only at WOT did the pods approach an OEM set up. Sounded cool though!

2) Switching to stock airbox, and comparing the two filter types, all was essentially equal. Certainly within the realm of inherent dyno error envrionmental conditions. A bit smoother curves with the K&N, and a slight tendency towards improved HP in the midrange. Again, we're talking slight.

3) Lidless airbox with K&N gave much better HP from 4500 and up, but slightly less TQ above midrange. This was also the smoothest curve, which is consistent with my earlier perceptions.

Interesting how this lines up with the Duramax series of tests, Jim.

 

Too bad you won't discuss (any further, that is), wot happens as K&N's load up in use, as revealed so dramatically in the tests. O' course, that's where it starts to get MIGHTY interesting. . .

 

Now for those who may not have been part of the original K&N fiasco -- err, discussion -- and who may have recently become understandably confused by the illiterate bleatings of Badmouth-o'-Loozer, who's been whining non-stop like a spoiled brat child told he can't have his way over this, I'll just make one point of a host of points that probably should be made (AGAIN), since I'm too fatigued by dealing for so long with such thudding idiocy to run thru 'em all again to make up for the deficiencies of someone who's very evidently as dumb as a fence-post.

 

Here, my friends, we find yet another example of the reading comprehension of a catawba worm combined with that Classic Badmouth-o'-Loozer "Ready. . .Fire. . .Aim!" inimitable style, and "Shooting off of the mouth by way of putting another bullet in the foot" posting habit, the likes o' which this Forum has never before encountered. . .

 

It seems that Badmouth-o'-Loozer's chronic reading disability is SO debilitating, that after flagging him on the following point at least a half-dozen times (including again 18 months after the first go-round in THIS thread) after each time he's raised THE SAME invalid point, that he's dense enough -- even after all the repetition -- to STILL not have a clue about what he's talking about -- yes, even now.

 

EXHIBIT G (or is it X, Y, or Z by now??!!):

2. This "study" was performed using ONE engine. This is stated as a note in either the synopsis os conclusion - I don't care to remember which. Rat has extrapolated this data to apply to all engines and all filter arrangements. Ridiculous.

 

3. I said it was suspicious that testing of a GM engine would favor the GM part, especially in a "study" so poorly written and giving only vague reference to who has commissioned it.

 

THE MAIN POINT HERE (AGAIN, for the umpteenth time) IS:

 

NO ENGINES WERE USED IN ANY PART OF THIS SERIES OF TESTS.

 

Yes, my friends, I refer (once again, . . . [sigh] . . .) to the fact that Badmouth-o'-Loozer STILL hasn't read the Duramax test as far as the second sentence, let alone "either the synopsis os conclusion" [sic].

This "study" was performed using ONE engine. This is stated as a note in either the synopsis os conclusion

The study contains neither an engine, a synopsys, OR a conclusion. . .

 

Having never read the study, of course, disqualifies Badmouth-o'-Loozer from any credible comment on it of any kind. But how do I know the extent to which he (still) hasn't read it?? Well. As I've pointed out clearly so very many times in the aforementioned thread here:

 

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

 

And in the SECOND SENTENCE of the text of the Duramax study itself here:

 

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

 

And by my posts in response to this idiocy so very very many times since, including links and a direct copy and paste into my posts of the content of the text itself (again here, the second sentence of the text of the study):

 

"The test was independently performed under controlled conditions using a $285,000 machine at Testand Corp of Rhode Island (manufacturer of the machine)."

 

Yes, my friends. It STILL hasn't dawned on Badmouth-o'-Loozer that his unrelenting, yet pathetically futile attempt to discredit the Duramax series of tests based on HIS preconceived idea of how to evaluate filters (sales hype) vs. reading (comprehending at an adult level of mastery would of course present the next big challenge here) the most credible test of its kind ever referenced on this Forum WAS NOT based on testing filters on a truck or a truck motor!

 

I've long ago given up on reaching Badmouth-o'-Loozer with the concept that one should actually read something that one is attempting to discredit and/or debate merely as a starting point for knowing wot one is talking about. I reckon the twisted Badmouth-o'-Loozer reasoning here has it that after one has stated repeatedly that everything on the Internet is "bullshit", that this somehow relieves one of any and all obligation and responsibility to have any idea at all about what one is responding to!!??

 

Alas, and alack. . . To many, everything above one's own primitive comprehension level is "gibberish". But not only is Badmouth-o'-Loozer forever chained to abject ignorance by his primitive comprehension level -- For all of his kind amongst the rest of the Great Unwashed Illiterate, everything in print is forever, and shall always remain "gibberish". . . After so many failed attempts to penetrate a mind as closed as a tomb encased in concrete and as dark as the bottom of a hyena's throat, I have ZERO expectations that he'll EVER get it.

 

But for the benefit of those who're actually interested, and may not understand wot a test stand is, it's a specialty industrial Filter Test Machine designed and built by engineers under exacting standards (ref. ISO 5011 standard adhered to in text of study itself) specifically for the purpose of testing air filters, whereby critical test conditions are achieved and maintained for comparison testing under carefully controlled conditions replicated to real world usage parameters. This would be IMPOSSIBLE TO DO on a truck or on a truck motor with consistency across many different OEM filters on a repeat basis while maintaining laboratory-quality test conditions. The $285K test stand was considerably more expensive than a large pile of trucks buried under a larger pile o' truck motors, f'er cryin' out loud!

 

To repeat just another aspect (again, for the umpteenth time . . .[sigh]. . .) of why the above is significant here, the use of a test stand, rather than an engine, allows the APPLICATION to which the filters are applied to be TARANSPARENT to the filter testing done and the comparisons made. That is, for comparison purposes, it wouldn't matter if one is considering a K&N filter (or any other filter tested) for a truck, a car, a motorhome, -- or a motorcycle (any motorcycle), since any road-going vehicle will generally be used under the test conditions specified by the ISO 5011 standard parameters under which the test stand measures filter performance!!

 

Once again I extend my challenge -- If anyone can find ANY credible air filter comparison test or series of tests that indicate in ANY WAY that the findings of this study are incorrect or misleading, please provide the best you have. You will be the first. No one has done so in 18 months.

 

-- and o' course, that includes Badmouth-o'-Loozer.

 

Once again I extend my challenge (Part II) -- If anyone can find a credible air filter comparison test or series of tests that they think is more credible, more scientific, more unbiased, more carefully designed, more rigorously executed, adheres to superior standards, is more professionally presented, and is more applicable to K&N or any other air filters, please provide the best you have. You will be the first. No one has done so in 18 months.

 

-- and o' course, that includes Badmouth-o'-Loozer (Part II).

 

Cdr. Hatchracket, over and out.

 

Carry On!

[badmotogoozer]

Synopsis/Scope - whatever you want to call it - it exists RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING.

 

Although not directly labeled CONCLUSIONS, several conclusions ARE made and insinuated.

 

The last few paragraghs in Italics do state that they are looking at the "results" WRT ONE ENGINE.

 

It is you who have extended "Conclusions" form this study when there CLEARLY are none to be found.

 

Now what part of that do YOU not understand???

 

It doesn't matter how many times you keep regurgitating the same crap it isn't going to make it any more credible.

 

Go clean your BMC - have you had a GOOD look at it yet??????? Obviously not or you would have dropped this discussion by now.

 

I'm done with this - piss off.

 

Rj

[guzzijack]

 

1) K&N pods gave me a reduction of 7-10 HP and TQ across low to upper mid range. Only at WOT did the pods approach an OEM set up. Sounded cool though!

 

I believe that the stock airbox on the Daytona through to the V11Sport is an underated piece of kit. Dr John Wittner is quoted as saying that they just kept finding more power the bigger the volume of the box. Okay, so maybe it had to be toned down a bit to achieve noise emmissions standards what with the 90 degree intake elbows but do a little bit of work on opening up the intake side to decent bellmouths and drill and shape the lid as per Phil A's pattern and it makes a noticable difference.

 

GJ

[motoguzznix]

I'm a retard, so i can't figure out a way to post the graphs, but here's what they show:

 

Peak hp slightly higher with paper, but with the BMC more torque and hp from 3,500 to just under where the paper takes the lead again at about 8,000 rpm. From 3,700 to 8,000 rpm, the BMC leads by about 5 lb.-ft and 2-5 hp.

 

Greg

 

I enter this thread late and did not read all the stuff about K&N vs paper elements because I think it does not matter for any V11.

 

Let me explain this.

 

My first LM2 that I own for 24 years had open inlet. Engine wear (cast liners) was slightly noticeble after 80 000 kms when I first serviced the engine. But the engine would have worked much longer without replacement of the pistons and barrels. Nigusil barrels last even longer.

After servicing the engine I equipped it with K&Ns on every carb and I think this is much more protection for the engine than before. After further 60 000 km there was no visible wear on pistons and barrels. They all show the signs of the original machining.

 

Paper elements may filter better, but are worse in rain and and flow slightly less. Engine protection is sufficient with the K&N filter at my opinion.

 

Your above mentioned measurements more relate to the differences in the airbox design than to the flow characters of the filter elements. Ram effects will cause most of the differences.

 

Next I will refer to a recent thread of mine that relates to intake flow and shows the real bottleneck of the engine: flow bench

 

When I was on the dyno with my V11 I compared the open top airbox with the standard one and noticed nothing! Neither went the engine lean with the open box nor was any noticeable power difference measurable.

 

I also compared my slightly modified stock exhaust cans with absolutely open leovinci items. The power difference was unnoticible again and the A/F ratio in the relevant max hp area was similar. In the lower rpms the differences were bigger due to different ram effects by design. See the following graph:

 

The two Leovinci measurements were with open top airbox and stock airbox, don't remember which one is what because the difference is small.

The other measurements relate to my modified stock cans, the green one slightly more open. The shape is the same.

Above 6000 rpm where the flow is really needed, the difference in A/F is very small if not below the measuring tolerances. The mapping is not stock but the same for all measurements .

 

The conclusion:

Powerwise the airbox and filter have almost no influence on an unmodified engine as the airflow is restricted in the intake port near the valve.

The discussion bettween K&N and paper element is somewhat religious, not technically based. Both work well when applicated correctly.

 

Just my

[savagehenry]

Performance aside, I've seen mice eat through paper filters and set up nests in the motor , never with a K+N, they don't chew on the wire, S.H.

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

Performance aside, I've seen mice eat through paper filters and set up nests in the motor , never with a K+N, they don't chew on the wire, S.H.

 

FINALLY!!! Something useful posted on this thread!!

 

I can go back to waiting for my helicopter and some logs now!!

 

Cheers all!

Jim

[dlaing]

Performance aside, I've seen mice eat through paper filters and set up nests in the motor , never with a K+N, they don't chew on the wire, S.H.

I had to put wire mesh over the snorkel in my mother's car after they chewed through.

Engine seemed to run okay, so I guess they did not destroy it.

But an excellent point

[Guzzirider]

Performance aside, I've seen mice eat through paper filters and set up nests in the motor , never with a K+N, they don't chew on the wire, S.H.

 

Another use for the wire- when my V11 fell on my knee the other day, I was able to gently pull the K and N pod back into shape (had a big knee shaped dent) using a pair of piers gripped around the wire.

 

Guy

[Guest ratchethack]

I had to put wire mesh over the snorkel in my mother's car after they chewed through.

Engine seemed to run okay, so I guess they did not destroy it.

But an excellent point

Mice in airboxes are fairly common, but little danger of mice ever getting into a motor itself.

 

Any mouse that could squeeze past a closed throttle butterfly by overcoming the throttle return spring, or lift the slide on a moto carb would be one freakin' SERIOUS MOUSE!!

 

Setting this aside, should a motor be left resting with an intake valve follower on the high point of its cam, said SERIOUS MOUSE would then only have to squeeze between said open valve and seat and around the valve stem to get into the nice cozy combustion chamber to set up house. . .

 

I reckon this'd be Mighty Mouse, or one o' his relatives. . .

[jimbemotumbo]

jimbemotumbo Lives!

Just cause you are gooseless, don't be a stranger!

PS sorry for calling you gooseless....it is the wickedest of personal insults

 

 

I'm immune to your insults D ... I'm far harder on myself!

 

I'm only gooseless cause I can have only one bike right now, and it has to be capable of handling my iron butt rallying. Hence the GS. I try to think of it as a soul-less german version of a Guzzi.

If the members keeping posting those nice Daytonas and Lemans on the classifieds something is bound to happen.