Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

K&N air filters

Discussion in 'Riding Gear and Bike Accessories/Parts' started by zipper, Jan 3, 2006.

  1. Hi, I am quite new to this forum and was after some opions on air filters. I generally use genuine suzuki parts for my GSX-R, but I have heard good things about the K&N air filters. Better breathing for your engine, and they can be cleaned and reused, meaning a one off purchase. One of my friends swears by them. What do you guys (and girls) think?

    Sorry, I think I have posted this question in the wrong section. (scooter)

  2. Listen to your friend :)
  3. probably release a few extra ponies too
  4. Have recently fitted them to the 12. Things i noticed first up was the bloody thing didnt want to go, then the computer figured out what was going on. Now the good news is, little bit better fuel economy, feels more responsive in the top end and more induction noise. But has lost a little between 2-3 in the rev range..Also you will probably looking at exhaust if you havent already done it. The quicker you put air into it the quicker you got to get it out.
  5. yeah its claimed that they do
  6. ive only ever used them on carbed bikes ... and ive always had a pipe too ... in later years ive used the dynojet kits .... but in the old days just upped the mains by 2 sizes ... but u folks dont have to worry about that
  7. Thanks, you guys have confirmed it. I love the induction noise as it is, more of it can't be bad!
  8. Won't go near them .. filtration is not as good as much cheaper/standard paper filters, and I don't want dust particles entering my engine and potentially stuffing it up.

    In this day and age of huge expense and R&D in bike development, I'll trust that the manufacturers make the airboxes on bike adequately big enough, and that fitment of a K&N does nothing but increase risk of engine damage.
  9. Well yes and no
    most manafacturers have to deal with emmition and noise laws
    performance modders dont

    if you have done your research on your vtr ... when they were very first releaced the big complaint was the size if the airfilter ... not being big enough ... there was hicups in the carburation and even with the airbox size they used it ate up fuel capacity

    as one tester put it ..... if honda were to fit an airbox of the required capacity the bike would look like a 2 humped camel
  10. Do you have any evidence supporting this claim or is it just what you speculate because they give better air flow??? I'm not trying to trip you up here i am just curious!
  11. iam not specificaly surporting k&n filters ... theres a few aftermarket ones available ... ive personaly used k&n ...and found a performance gain .... ( dyno comfirmed) go to their website and have a look

    as for the comment on the vtr,s ... there was a lot written about the airbox /carburation when they first came out ... old cyclist /2 wheels/amcn mags will have those referances ... as for the 2 humped camel comment ... that was a quote from an american mag of the time
  12. The evidence is around if you wish to google it. Independant lab tests on paper filters vs. oiled cotton filters (the latter being used by K&N).
  13. K&N Filters have been tested to SAE J726 Standards and have been found to be 97-98% effective at filtering dirt. By contrast OEM paper filters (in the US) are only required to be 96% effective using the same testing procedure. So some paper filters may be more effective than a K&N, but it's quite likely that there are plenty of others that are less efficient (like cheap non-OEM ones).
  14. SAE J726 is old, and no longer used.

    Had a quick google/look ... http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm is an example of one of the studies showing oiled cotton (K&N) being nowhere near as efficient in particle filtering as paper.
  15. How come they tested the K&N with fine dust and the AC-delco with Course dust ?
  16. where did it say that? cos that'd be like doing a crash test for car A and car B, using a brick wall for A and a jumping castle for car B and saying car B performed better :LOL:

    meh, i'm happy with my K&N, easier to clean and re-use than any other i've had and it came with the bike. i dont know about other sportsbikes, but my old thundercat wasn't a paper filter from stock anyways, so the original filter would have been no better than a K&N for filtering anyways :?
  17. If you read through the tables theres a couple where they test using Fine, but only the K&N and one other.

    I don't think it would make much difference to the average bike, they don't normally operate in the same dusty environs as trucks , nor would you expect the same engine lifetime for a vfr as a Kenworth. Don't see 2 many bikes with 400K miles on them
  18. http://www.unifilter.com.au/why.asp

    So how about a Uni Filter then?? The best part is that a uni filter is RE-USABLE but only costs $19.50 which is a HUGE difference when compared to the cost of a K&N Filter (around $100-$130, for my bike). Also as far as i am aware alot of rally cars use oiled foam filters!
  19. A lot of dirtbikes use oiled foam too - it's better for trapping dirt but typically they don't let as much air through as an oiled cotton or paper filter - especialyl once they've picked up a bit of dirt.
  20. Actually SAE J726 just changed its name to ISO5011, still basically the same test. Have to question those results a bit, why is it that the Uni Filter supposedly has a greater efficiency and higher dirt holding capacity, yet let more dirt through :-s . Also they were running the oiled filters to maximum capacity so of course some dirt got through, that's why you're supposed to clean and re-oil them before they get that bad.