K & N Air Filter, Buell Mirrors questions

[bridgepress]

1. Would you please tell me the part number of the K & N air filter to fit a 2003 LeMans? And if you're on the topic let me know if you consider it a worthwhile addition for minor performance gains (a friend thinks the K & N actually flows less air than stock). My air box has been drilled.

 

2. I heard that some LeMans owners replaced the stock mirrors with Buell mirrors for better visibility. Any idea which model Buell mirrors work? Do they fit the existing mounting holes?

 

3. Finally, if anyone has a ballpark idea of the dollar value of a stock LeMans windscreen in fine shape please let me know. I have one to sell. Replaced with MRA.

 

Brian

 

PS I've owned my LeMans all of one month now, and it is the most fun I've ever had on two wheels.

[docc]

1.  Would you please tell me the part number of the K & N air filter to fit a 2003 LeMans?  And if you're on the topic let me know if you consider it a worthwhile addition for minor performance gains (a friend thinks the K & N actually flows less air than stock).  My air box has been drilled. 

 

2.  I heard that some LeMans owners replaced the stock mirrors with Buell mirrors for better visibility.  Any idea which model Buell mirrors work?  Do they fit the existing mounting holes?

 

3.  Finally, if anyone has a ballpark idea of the dollar value of a stock LeMans windscreen in fine shape please let me know.  I have one to sell.  Replaced with MRA.

 

Brian

 

PS  I've owned my LeMans all of one month now, and it is the most fun I've ever had on two wheels.

62354[/snapback]

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

brian,

 

I don't recall the filter changing from the earlier Sport. If they're the same , the K&N iis part# 33-2682.

 

No clue on the mirrors as Sport riders never look back.

[edge]

Buell mirror thread ala search engine:

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...783entry40783

[Dr Gil]

Buell mirror thread ala search engine:

 

http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...783entry40783

62359[/snapback]

 

I am interested in your stock Le Mans windscreen. I need one and MPH Cycles tells me they are on "back order" and I've no idea when it will be available. Please PM me with your asking price.

[dlaing]

snip  And if you're on the topic let me know if you consider it a worthwhile addition for minor performance gains (a friend thinks the K & N actually flows less air than stock).  My air box has been drilled.  .

62354[/snapback]

There is no clear consensus on the value of K&N filters, or the value of one filter over another.

I think Todd Eagan dyno tested that there was no significant difference between a K&N and the OE paper filter.

The K&N lets more dirt through.

But I imagine, a six month old K&N will flow better than a six month old paper filter.

 

Foam filters are an excellent alternative, but they initially don't flow as well, and temperature and time can degrade the filter till it disintegrates and pieces find there way into the engine.

But precautions can be taken to make sure this does not happen.

And a properly oiled foam filter will flow very consistently through a service year.

Plus, particle filtration from a well oiled foam filter is EXCELLENT.

Trying to get one to fit in the stock box, could be a challenge.

 

Any way you slice it, your filter choice ain't wrong.

However, how you maintain it, is critical.

[Guest ratchethack]

RE: K&N's, Roger what Dave said. Many seem to fail to comprehend that when chasing freer-flowing intake, there's no free lunch.

 

I read a credibly done comprehensive test a few years back that measured flow rates against filtration effectiveness of leading air fliter mfgr's. Can't remember how many, but they used a high number of filters (hundreds I think) and different common models to get statistically valid numbers. K&N's generally had the highest flow rates, but the fly in the ointment (Egad, do I dare use that term?) was the fact that the K&N's passed particle sizes 3 times larger than the average filter! The accumulated weight of the abrasive particles captured by the K&N's was some tiny fraction of that captured by most of the other filters.

 

Though I've used 'em before on "throwaway" bikes, I won't use a K&N on the Guzzi, because at 26K miles today, to me, she's merely a "youngster" - this is a bike I plan to maintain until one of us is hauled off to the bone yard... I consider K&N's a fine choice as long as it's used with an understanding of the trade-off here, and that in most applications it's probably far less than optimal at providing the very thing that we have air filters for - slowing down the wear of rings, pistons, valves, seats, etc.

[jimbemotumbo]

I do not want to start another K&N debate, but let me just add this.

 

Years of building up high-scoot motors on cars, and nearly 30 years of motorcycle performance builds on all types of bikes, I can say that the K&N filter (used on ALL my vehicles since 1975 or so) has no impact at all on wear of critical engine bits.

Many of motors have had factory crosshatching still evident on the cylinder walls at very high mileage! All have been as clean inside as a new motor, with a tad of carbon around a few intake ports. Compression on my 1980 Harley FL at 75k was still absolutely perfect, and to this has never been rebuilt or had a bearing fail (3rd owner says it is somewhere north of 90k now). Of course it leaked all contaminated oil out every 1000 miles, so maybe a poor example! My 68 Chrysler mom car had over 200k on it at last count and burns no oil, and still purrs like a kitty. These all had K&Ns since day 1 (the Chrysler since about 30k) and I have lived only in dusty KS and CO. Never a piston, ring, cylinder, or bearing problem on any vehicle.

 

In consideration of my pal Rachet's wealth of expertise, yes, the K&N type filter flows more of everything, air, dirt, and vespas. However, I must disagree on the tests. I've read the tests too, and make my living off critical reviews of scientific research reports (yawn). I can say these filter "tests" are interesting, and even perhaps suggestive, but they are not scientifically sound. The tests merely measure obvious things like flow and initial filtration. None of the filter tests I've seen have considered the effect of passing more "stuff" into the motor.

 

Another thing the tests failed to do was test the filters after a healthy build up of dirt on the outside. This significantly adds to the filtration effectiveness.

 

I know allowing anything into the motor sounds bad, but all filters do just that. Based on my long experience with these filters, my guess is that the allowed particle size, over the first few hundred miles (until the dirt gets built up a bit) is inconsequential given frequent oil changes like most enthusiasts do.

 

Since I am a fanatic about changing oil, I feel this has more to do with my K&N success than anything. Not a scientific fact, but certainly a reasonably good "proof of concept".

 

To each his own.

 

As for mirrors, I use mountain bike bar ends. $10 each. They look cool. Yes, they shake alot, but I just need to see that a car is behind me ... not who is driving it.

 

[big J]

[Guest ratchethack]

I must disagree on the tests. I've read the tests too, and make my living off critical reviews of scientific research reports (yawn). I can say these filter "tests" are interesting, and even perhaps suggestive, but they are not scientifically sound. The tests merely measure obvious things like flow and initial filtration. None of the filter tests I've seen have considered the effect of passing more "stuff" into the motor.

Hey Jimbo, you've raised an important point, but I'm obliged to poke a bit of a hole in your blanket statement that such tests aren't scientifically sound. The test I read was entirely scientifically sound, IMHO. Having a background and academic training in scientific method myself, I can assure you that the test I read followed scientific methodology and all requisite rules of logic, and I was pretty confident in it's objectivity. I don't think there's any question whatsoever about the results, and few could present a qualified challenge.

 

Your point about the lack of direct connection between the tests and engine logevity is valid, but the report made no such claims. As I recall, the report had CYA legalese plastered all over it and a generous slathering of disclaimers, both up front and in the conclusions. The tests simply measured flow rates, qualitative and quantitative particle size analysis, and accumulated weight of particulates. It was made clear that it was up to the interpreter of the study to make any connection between the actual effects of abrasive particles on engine life, since no engine analysis, either short or long-term, was part of the testing.

 

Your FLH and your Mom's Chrysler may well have lived long happy lives on K&N's. I wouldn't be inclined to dispute this in the least, and there might be thousands of similar real-world examples. As I mentioned, understanding the trade-offs up front, I've used K&N's myself on other bikes. Like you said, to each his own. In my opinion, however, and generally speaking, mind you - the assumption that air filters that pass more abrasives by weight and by larger particle size = shorter engine life is a logical assumption. Proving this was not part of this particular study, but IMHO, it's nonetheless a valid assumption.

 

Since I'm not pursuing any land speed records with my Guzzi and I can't in my wildest dreams imagine any advantage of imperceptibly improved airflow to the performance of my Guzzi (at least the way I ride it ), I reckon I'll just do the very best I can to keep the dirt out for the next couple hundred thou miles. Y'see, when I want better airflow, I open the throttle a little more. I don't seem to run out of air flow, 'cause I hardly ever hit WOT. But of course that's just me, and as always, YMMV.

[sharky]

What do you think about the looks of the MRA windscreen?

 

On a picture, I thought it was nice.

When I had it one week on my bike, I thougt it wasn't additonal to the design.

 

What I mean to say, is that I think they are really ugly.

 

Anyone interested in a one-week-used-MRA-windshield ?

 

Send me a mail.

[jimbemotumbo]

The test I read was entirely scientifically sound, IMHO.

62411[/snapback]

 

I am a glutton for the punishment that reading research papers provides. Yes, I am a sick puppy. If you can find it again, can you send me a reference to this article? God forbid there is something out there I don't know!

 

Still waiting for someone to include outcomes in their research. Until this, we must place this topic with all the oil threads.

[Guzzirider]

I won't be panicking about using a K and N- I know several other riders who use them and have never heard of a single problem with the flat filters that replace OEM.

 

In fact I am not going to worry about anything on my V11- I am just going to ride and enjoy it and ignore all the doom and gloom threads.

 

If something goes wrong I will fix it.

 

Guy

[Guest ratchethack]

I do not want to start another K&N debate

Well, I reckon we're past that now. But why not?

In consideration of my pal Rachet's wealth of expertise

Whoa there, big fella. I'm just a shade-tree mechanic with a Guzzi and some tools who's owned and worked on my own bikes for longer than I want to think about. Though I've worked on and rebuilt many kinds of engines on many kinds of vehicles, I've never been anything like a Pro mechanic, unless you count the summer I spent as a knucklehead "boat kid" working for a marina, resurrecting a pile of gummed-up and neglected outboard motors lugged out from underneath piles of duck decoys and old fishing waders in the backs of fishing sheds in Northern Michigan, and tuning them up in a 55-gallon drum...

yes, the K&N type filter flows more of everything, air, dirt, and vespas. However, I must disagree on the tests. None of the filter tests I've seen have considered the effect of passing more "stuff" into the motor.  my guess is that the allowed particle size, over the first few hundred miles (until the dirt gets built up a bit) is inconsequential given frequent oil changes like most enthusiasts do.

Here we have the crux, the gist, the nub, the core, the very heart of things! As I tried to illustrate, the test I read did not have within it's scope an analysis of engine damage due to ingestion of dirt. The conclusion of the test was essentially exactly what you said, "the K&N type filter flows more of everything, air, dirt...[etc.]". You would seem to be doubting a scientific basis for the tests and agreeing with the conclusion at the same time, so I'm not entirely sure that we have a different point of view?

my guess is that the allowed particle size, over the first few hundred miles (until the dirt gets built up a bit) is inconsequential given frequent oil changes like most enthusiasts do.

Fair enough assumption. How about this assumption: If we accept the validity of the test I saw (just for argument's sake) that the K&N's pass both more abrasives by weight (by some multiple) and by particle size (to 3X the particle size of the average filter measured in the test), might it be logical to also assume that all filters build up dirt on the filter substrate the same way, and also get more efficient at capturing particles - in other words, comparing the K&N to others, the varying ability between different air filters to capture dirt as well as flow air is a relative thing that "ages" the same way. So that over extended operation (as also addressed in the test I read), there may be significant changes over the long term in both airflow and particulate capture.

 

How about this assumption: Generally speaking, a freer-flowing filter will pass more dirt. (This is an assumption that IMHO was proven as fact in the test I referred to, and I think others, indicating that there's generally a "tradeoff" involved.) Of course the ultimate extension of the concept of a free-flowing, yet "dirtier" air filter would be that the best possible airflow occurs with a velocity stack, which passes all ambient dirt small enough to get past the throttle and valves.

 

Now if you're saying that after extended use, K&N filters accumulate dirt on the filter substate enough to improve filtration substantially enough to protect an engine to the same level as the protection offered by average filters, yet flow more air at the same time, please advise. This would suggest that there's not a trade-off, and that there's no potential downside whatsoever to a freer-flowing filter.

 

Hey Jimbo - so far I think we've kept this discussion within the realm of friendly debate. Before going any further, it might be a good time to for me to say that I have no desire whatsoever to dive into acrimony going forward to justify my own choice of filter. Since I've made the choce for K&N's and others (in fact I have a spare K&N ready & waiting for my thumper in my shop cabinet), I really have nothing to defend. I've seen plenty of emotional raving on many forums and I find it well...boring and tedious. I appreciate your input, and hope it's mutual.

 

So why all the fuss? Well, I happen to think this is an important topic for my own practical purposes, and I reckon I can always improve on my own understanding thru discussion and other points of view, which to me is the whole idea behind the Technical forum on this board. I also think that others might be interested - and there may in fact be some readers (as you've indicated about yourself) who will actually read posts longer than a few paragraphs of "tech discussion" as long as it seems to be going somewhere worthy of their interest.

 

The chances of me finding the test I originally referred to again after who knows how many years are slim and none, but it might be possible to find a similar test online and post a link. But before I go off and commit to what might be hours of research, let's see if we can get together enough to clarify objectives.

 

I'm of the opinion, based on what I read in the aforementioned test and others, that it has been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt that generally speaking, K&N filters pass both more air, and also more dirt, both by weight, and by particle size, than the average filter. If you disagree with this, pls advise. In this case, I believe the research to back up this opinion might be pretty easily found and referenced.

 

I'm also of the opinion, based on my own assumption ONLY, that more dirt, both by weight, and by particle size has a negative impact on engine life, and I believe this will shorten it. If you disagree with this, pls advise. In this case, credible evidence may be much more difficult to find, to the point of impossible or non-existent - but please note that this has not been the implication of the results of the test I read, and I have not suggested that such proof existed.

 

Way past time to wind this up. Two separate points, my friend. Your take?

[badmotogoozer]

You've sold me on the velocity stacks.

 

Rj