You would have to tune it, but would likely get it right within the 2nd or 3rd try, and it typically would run better, get better fuel economy, and enlarge many aspects of your life...one being your wallet.

 

See, I know that the information that we collectively have on jetting is good enough that we can, with knowing the pipes and mods, put a person within a jet size. The information is just that good for the stock filter, or maybe, just maybe, the stock filter is just that good. I am confident that if you were incapable of it yourself, you could use recommendations here and with a good local shop, have it back in a state that would make you considerably more happy. Obviously this would go without saying that you aren't going to be anymore happy with HP numbers, as there just isn't a lick of difference to speak of. It has to do with the overall running of the vehicle, the fuel economy, and the fairly linear life of the stock filter which is not mirrored by a K+N.

I understand RK1's advice, though. Some people couldn't feel a dick in their **** if they had a dick in their ****. So, a good running bike versus a bad one feel remarkably the same, leaving said person with a "did I just loose a portion of my life?". I changed my filter and jetting on a good running bike, and I am happy that I did it.

 

Yeah, I tend to think that after cleaning and servicing, which I believe must be done more often than standard filter changes, buying the spray, the filter, and jet kit, you would be better off staying stock and never touching the pieces of crap. I do get that there are bikes that might benefit, but my 78 KZ750B was not one of them and required me to RTV some of the pleats to block it off and get it to run properly. I used duct tape as a tuning device to figure out how many pleats to go. That is what happens when you cant get needles. Now, some people wouldnt have even known what I was tuning out of the bike by doing so just because they would never notice the problem in the first place.

 

Nope, less often than an OEM filter

 

Well, disregarding my qualifiers and context, sure you are right. But I can do that too. But, you are one of the lucky ones to have a perfectly tuned bike using the filter that will remain nameless, some wont be so lucky. As for cleaning, the average person (Which I am not) will have to clean their, um er, filter more often than necessary from dirt due to the natural drying of the filter material. Now, I don't work on bikes that often, and I have only worked on 1 or 2 different models, of which maybe .25 of them had a , er, um, filter...so I am sort of a dipshift when it comes to this. Actually, I only work on lawnmowers. By lawnmowers I mean I read books. By books I mean I listen to them on tape. By tape I mean I watch the movie. Anywho, I don't know what I am talking about, which hopefully brings new value to this, er, um, filter that I am just too dumb to get "perfect". How does $25 including shipping sound?

 

same game

 

As previously stated in post #39

 

The thing is that you have just accused me of selectively quoting, which was my accusation of you. My demonstration of what you do was innocuous. You continue to selectively quote to support yourself and your opinion. Meanwhile, I have represented almost everything I have said by qualifying it as an opinion. The only thing that you have qualified is yourself as an ***. Maybe we can get the moderators to shut this thread down too.

Brilliant filter for sale, $25 to your door.

 

+1 with Thumper on the K&N filter. I have used both the stock and the K&N. I have also toyed around with a couple of airbox mods. When all was done I have retained the stock airbox configuration (including the stacks) and the K&N air filter. I have rejetted and tuned to maximize the current set-up. I was blessed with the advise of Mr. Mike Velasco who now resides here on the Kitsap Peninsula of Washington state. He knows a thing or two about tuning :-) He ran the DynoJet dyno at Brothers Powersports here in Bremerton, WA and my Superchicken gets 107.47 HP with 67.60 ft/lbs of torque. The fuel/air ratio is very nice starting around 14 at idle, dipping to just above 12:1 between 4 - 7K rpm and staying very close to 13:1 from 7 - 9.5K rpm. The bike runs just fine with the K&N installed.

 

Not me, I didn't ask for threads to be shutdown.

Edited for you so as to be sure to not selectively " u

 

Sooo, I guess the real answer is that nobody has really completed the job of tuning and dyno testing with both set ups and give us the "true" answer in a quantified form.

 

ding ding ding, we have a winner.

 

++++1

 

Well Tweety has done a bit of dyno testing with them but because he does not have reams of print outs to post, his opinion is disqualified by the people who don't wish to believe.

Moriwaki did extensive tests and so did Honda USA (AKA Erion Racing) so between Dan Kyle and Bob H. (R.I.P.) I think they might have an idea on which one works the best.

I posted a e-mail I got from Bob, in which he does say to run the stock filter (in direct response to asking about a K&N filter, among other things) and talking with Dan, he has said the same thing.

Though I only have the e-mail (which yeah I could have made up myself but I did think I had a little bit more credibility than that) and the conversation with Dan wasn't recorded, which I guess means that doesn't count either.

So I guess I'm in the same boat as Tweety, As there is no concrete "proof" to post.

Which then leads to the final answer which is, if you really want to run one, go right ahead.

Also as there is only one dyno chart posted (which shows a grand total of a peak 2.4 hp gain with around $1K worth of parts and dyno time) and also just happens to leave off the torque curve. It also shows (it would be nice if the chart listed RPM and gear instead of just speed) that below 40-45 mph the bike makes less power than stock.

The rest are just guys saying "It runs great"

About all I can say is I would think I have a touch of credibility in setting up the carbs on this bike. The carb set up thread, I wrote, does seem to have a few hits and a bit of a following..... And I gave my K&N away because even with the amount of work, testing and research I have done on this set up, I could never get the thing to run without a hole in the power band somewhere with that filter.

With that, I'm done with the topic, you guys argue as to why it works so well for you.

 

I hope you guys can see this -- I've linked to a scanned copy of the dyno run for my 98 Superhawk. You might recall that I bought it with a K&N installed. It's all there to see (hopefully). The blue lines are the "after" readings, the red, the "before." There's still a dip in torque right after 4000 rpm. If you look at the red torque line, you can see how messed up it was with the K&N before it got tuned.

I don't suspect this proves anything one way or the other, especially since both the before and after are with the K&N in.

However, I don't feel that dip in torque just after 4k rpm. Yeah, maybe my senses are dulled, but I've ridden and raced quite a few bikes and it doesn't bother me. Nevertheless, the dip is there.

Just thought it would be of interest -- not trying to add any more fuel to the fire.

98 Superhawk dyno run from 2000 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

 

Thanks definitely of interest. If you're still running this way, what's your average MPG for fuel economy?

 

Your run?

 

yep yep, finally found it

 

Fuel economy? Probably about like a mid '80's Honda Civic. In other words, not great for a 2-wheeler ... probably 31 - 32 mpg average.

 

That's definitely a lot flatter and more even than mine. Not much to complain about there, that's for sure.