Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Misc News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-06-2006, 01:28 AM   #31
ulysses
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3
Default Re: K&N vs. BMC vs. OEM

I too have noticed the 'pinholes' and wondered but I can tell you that I have used K&N airfilters for about 25 years and two of my last bikes did 138,000klm and 124,000klm almost all on K&N's. The 124,000klm bike is my VFR750 which definitely showed a seat of the pants improvement in pick up and flexibility with the K&N. It also has a Staintune pipe (Arrrrrrh!).



Both the earlier bike (FJ1200) and the VFR run just as well as when new, better probably! The main reason I chose to use K&N filters was to avoid replacing the original paper filters. I ran the FJ K&N filter for over 50,000klm before cleaning it, with no noticable drop in performance.
ulysses is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 07-06-2006, 04:08 AM   #32
Casey_Daniel
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 96
Default Re: K&N vs. BMC vs. OEM

Okay, well since I'm not doing track days right now the suspension is just fine. However the carburation has been a major problem for me so that's what I chose to fix first.
Casey_Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 05:16 AM   #33
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default Re: K&N vs. BMC vs. OEM

If you go to MCUSA you can read about their project Z1000 where they spent $1.5K plus to get a gain of 6 hp. However the new pipe gave the bike a power hole at around 3000 rpm that no tweaking with the mixture could fix. This is a gain of about 5%. You'd be faster by spending the money at Keith Code's Superbike school.



Definitely, $1.5K spent on suspension components would make a bike a lot faster around the track than some dumbass tailpipe.



Accessory exhausts have been one of the most persistant areas of marketting lies and the ripoff of riders by sellers of crap.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 05:40 AM   #34
bollert
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default Re: K&N vs. BMC vs. OEM

I'll refer you to Ivan as well. He tested all filters on the ZRX-1200R. He tried filters, pods, etc. and on the ZRX, it performed best with the stock airbox and filter modified with some holes. He'll talk about the fuel curve, and how it is the most important aspect of performance. Many times the manufacturer uses the combination of airbox design combined with the filter to get the highest peak power AND best driveability. You almost never see a stock bike lean on top, only in the EPA tested areas of the RPM range. What did my ZX-9R need for a perfect fuel curve? A .050 washer under the needle. The Factory Pro kit with pipe was being advertised that it put out higher hp than the Ivan kit, but I had mine dynoed against another guy and had 2 more peak hp and a stronger curve in the lower/middle. On the other hand, Ivan recommends an aftermarket filter for the FZ1 I think. My recommendation. Call Ivan, or get on a ZX Forum and absorb as much knowledge as possible.
bollert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 05:50 AM   #35
Casey_Daniel
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 96
Default Re: K&N vs. BMC vs. OEM

I completely agree. The big advantage of the aftermarket can is the weight savings.
Casey_Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 05:52 AM   #36
Casey_Daniel
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 96
Default Re: K&N vs. BMC vs. OEM

Who's this Ivan guy?
Casey_Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 06:05 AM   #37
bollert
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 58
Default Re: K&N vs. BMC vs. OEM

ivansperformanceproducts.com
bollert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 06:19 AM   #38
Fenton
Founding Member

 
Fenton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 1,900
Default 2:09?

Is 2:09 any good? I haven't been around the track but that looks to be an average speed of around 79mph. I would guess the bike mods would be to address either the turns or the straights. What was your bike missing at the track?
Fenton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2006, 06:42 AM   #39
Casey_Daniel
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 96
Default Re: 2:09?

That was my F4i. No, it's not as good as it could have been with suspension mods and more track time. First place for the club racers are turning like 1:54-1:56 for 600's
Casey_Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2006, 06:19 PM   #40
Hipshot
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 52
Default Re: K&N vs. BMC vs. OEM

I added K&N to my 99 Dyna Twin-cam, along with a better exhaust and big flat sided Mikuni, thus freeing up the breathing in and out. I also changed the ignition module to take advantage of these improvements. My Dynojet charts showed 65 HP and 72 ft/lb torque in stock form, and 78 HP and 82 ft/lb torque with these mods. I thnk you have to remove restrictions both in and out to get the full advantage. I am a big believer in K&N, and have one in my 300 HP Silverado PU as well.
Hipshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off