SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> DIFFERENCES: K&N cone & K&N flat
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1183489113

Message started by Oldfeller2 on 07/03/07 at 11:58:33

Title: DIFFERENCES: K&N cone & K&N flat
Post by Oldfeller2 on 07/03/07 at 11:58:33

Which one works best? Why?

Picked up a sportster muff and I am planning out my attack plan for opening up the intake side, dropping in some new jets and installing the sporty muffler for this winter when I am down for cold weather. Got my chain drive conversion coming as well for the same time frame.

This makes my mix a bit "new" so I thought I'd ask.

Advice please -- "search" gets very fat with a lot of other muffler combos and different K&N options to the point I have to ask "which setup really works best".

Oldfeller

Title: Re: DIFFERENCES: K&N cone & K&N
Post by Savage_Rob on 07/03/07 at 14:46:55

Personally, I think the performance of the two is probably almost identical. For some, gaining the space occupied by the airbox is important, so the cone is optimal. For me, the drop-in replacement was simple, it didn't require that I add another filter for the breather tube and it didn't leave my air intake exposed to water/rain. With its location, I think the rain risk is minimal anyway though. Just my thoughts when I made the choice. If I were to do it over, I might choose the cone and use the airbox for tool storage.

Title: Re: DIFFERENCES: K&N cone & K&N
Post by vroom1776 on 07/03/07 at 14:59:26

I wouldn't be surprised if the perf. was identical, or nearly so, esp. after the desnorkel mod. One advantage of a well designed airbox is that it will resonate, which can force more air into the carb than it can normally pull. Is our's well designed? I doubt it.