|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> Yet another K&M cone filter question... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1435954749 Message started by Boogie_with_Stu on 07/03/15 at 13:19:09 |
|
Title: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Boogie_with_Stu on 07/03/15 at 13:19:09 I'm considering switching out the airbox/folded paper filter for a chromed K&M cone filter (57mm). I'd like to keep the current battery box assembly just as it is, but remove the current plastic airbox. Instead of having the filter point rearward up under the seat, I was hoping to use a 90 degree elbow of some kind to have it point out to the right. I found this on sleaze-bay. It can be cut of course, but I am wondering if anyone knows if A) it will fir with the battery box in, and B) if it will restrict air...or provide better air flow since the filter will be more exposed to moving air. Thanks in advance :) |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by verslagen1 on 07/03/15 at 13:38:54 if that's from ryca, then they would be the best people to ask. |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Boogie_with_Stu on 07/03/15 at 13:44:34 It is a RYCA part, and soft silly-cone as opposed to a PVC pipe or radiator hose. Ryca sells these and the cone filter. They swear by them. I wanted an OBJECTIVE opinion as to whether or not the right-angle mount is worse than the straight mount in terms of air flow. My gut tells me the 90 degree mount will "force" more air into the carb due to the filter being directly in the airflow. The elbow may cause some loss, making both this setup and the straight setup about equal. Of course...that's just my opinion from eyeballing it ;) |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by verslagen1 on 07/03/15 at 14:03:33 in general, I'm not a cone fan. people usually mount it right on the carb and have nothing but problems. when you're mounting a gage to the air duct, you need 7 diameters between the gage and any turbulence to get accurate readings. The carb is kind of a gage. I recommend that a length of tubing between and filter and the carb at least the length of the stock rubber ducky. I think you'll be ok with the elbow in that regard. And I think "being in the airflow" will make 1 bit of difference. |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Serowbot on 07/03/15 at 14:20:57 Air flow back there is turbulent... it's already hit the front wheel, engine, and your legs... at that point, it's as likely to draw as blow... There's a reason air filters have boxes... :-?... I'm not saying it's anything bad... but, just don't count on better flow by having it stick out... I'd just do what's purdiest... 8-)... |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by chzeckmate on 07/03/15 at 19:54:07 I don't think it will fit but the filter can be put behind the battery box. 88pagan did it and posted a pic in this thread here... http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1225910518/0#13 |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Boogie_with_Stu on 07/03/15 at 20:02:37 After reading litterally DOZENS of pages of information about the cone filter adaptation...I fully realize this is NOT a performance upgrade. I simply would rather not have a deep performance DOWNgrade. The airbox is huge, takes up a lot of space and makes it difficult to work on that area of the bike. I also like the look of the cone, so yeah...it's pretty much a vanity item. Thanks for the input guys....airbox and standard filter will stay put for the immediate future. I got enough on my plate as it is ;D |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by chzeckmate on 07/03/15 at 20:13:13 I wouldn't call adding a pod filter a "performance downgrade". All my experience says you will achieve a performance boost, provided that you rejet and adjust properly. There's definitely a corresponding horsepower increase going from the stock asthmatic set up to a high flow situation. |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by dustystranger on 07/03/15 at 20:20:46 Do not mean to sound sarcastic but....What makes you think that you are smarter than all those engineers working for Suzuki? |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by chzeckmate on 07/03/15 at 20:42:47 29383E39343E393F2C232A283F4D0 wrote:
I don't have the same environmental restrictions they do. It's important to remember that they have to sell their bikes to many locations all over the world with varying degrees of tightassery...I'm not selling bikes, I'm riding them. |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Dave on 07/04/15 at 02:58:01 I just don't know the power outcome of a cone filter. They are on a lot of bikes that run really well. Some of them are race bikes and a lot of older Ducati bikes came from the factory that way. They are the easiest and most convenient way to install a filter.....back in my day it was the oil foam "sock" that got put on the enduro bikes that were stripped down and made into flat track bikes. My big problem with the cone filters is that they are not weatherproof. When you wash the bike you have to be careful not to spray water on them - and if you get caught in the rain or your bike sits outside....the water can get into the carb. |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Sonny on 07/04/15 at 08:23:46 I just yesterday found a lot of discussion about removing the accordion fold paper element and replacing with Hobby Lobby polyester padding sprayed with Pam, and leaving the airbox cover off. Did that turn out to be an improvement for the folks that did it? |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Serowbot on 07/04/15 at 08:30:32 Lightly oiled foam breathes better than a paper element... Heavily oiled foam breathes like,.. ...heavily oiled foam... :-?... You can buy "filter foam"... pretty cheap... Why use a Hobby Lobby seat cushion stuffing?... :-/... |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by verslagen1 on 07/04/15 at 08:40:48 0F3036312C2B03450 wrote:
there you go. airbox allows for a wider set of operation... 1 set up fits all. A race set up requires constant adjustment for the daily conditions, maybe even hourly. |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Art Webb on 07/04/15 at 10:05:48 I've read many a thread on many a site where someone went 'cone' and never got it to work right (including a LOT of sportbikes lol) I've read a smaller number that went 'cone' and claim a power increase I've never seen any dyno results posted by either side I've never seen timed acceleration runs to support either side I have seen dyno results that utterly destroy the 'higher performance with drag pipes' idea, and I sort of suspect that has some relevance, as intake and exhaust flow both work in pulses rather than a steady flow the good ol 'butt dyno' is notoriously susceptible to 'placebo effect' |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/04/15 at 10:38:02 People seem so able to grasp the concept of exhaust gas pulses exiting the pipe and creating a slight low pressure zone at the head for the next time the exhaust valve opens. That's a tuned header. It works best in a Calculable RPM range. Knowing the engines torque/RPM likes and dislikes, the exhaust system can be designed to optimize that. Airflow is airflow, an intake manifold that has a moving slug of air just waiting to run thru the carb ,,,, I've gone hunting online for intake design theory. Cute isn't the best. I modified my airbox. If you look, it's got a wall inside. I created a greater volume between filter and carb. In short, volume between filter and carb should be at least the volume of the cylinder. And remember, the fewer square inches of filter, the harder it works to inhale. Think skinny straw in a malt. |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by chzeckmate on 07/04/15 at 10:53:22 33203736292422202B74450 wrote:
there you go. airbox allows for a wider set of operation... 1 set up fits all. A race set up requires constant adjustment for the daily conditions, maybe even hourly.[/quote] Yes, that really sums it up nicely. From an engineering standpoint, it's a balancing act. They have to design a bike that will meet EPA standards, run properly in almost any environmental condition, and deliver it with a price point that consumers will deem a worthy value over competing manufacturers. To do this, there is absolutely no way to provide a product that delivers the maximum of its potential performance without passing the cost to the consumer and risking problems with the EPA. That's why people pay so much for Ducati, Aprilia, and the like. As individuals we can modify our bikes as much or little as we would like to achieve the goals we're after (better mileage, more hp, taller gearing, or whatever) and determine our own budget and timeline for our projects and we don't have the EPA knocking on our garage doors. We can improve the performance of our bikes, and high flow intake/exhaust/fuel will do that. That shouldn't even be a question. The question, as you so succinctly pointed out is, do we want to do it and are the benefits of it worth the effort and maintenance involved? I think it's probably not, but not everyone is trying to achieve maximum performance potential. I don't think most people are comparing dyno results before and after modding. I think a lot of us do it for the enjoyment of customizing and working on our machines. I will say that I have done high flow mods to some of my bikes in the past and the dyno results showed dramatic improvements, but those bikes were not big singles. I might also mention that even though my Aprilia showed huge improvements I couldn't feel the difference on the AF1 track. I think you might have to be riding at the professional level to really know how to make use of those kind of numbers. |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Art Webb on 07/04/15 at 11:48:28 Well at least you did due diligence by testing so many folks will say they just slapped on a pod and drags and got huge power increases (nope, not that easy) others do the work to actually tune their setup and test it I always did acceleration runs, on my old muscle cars, tweaking and tuning before and after any change of hard parts the results were sometimes surprising: example: I got better acceleration out of a single 3" exhaust on a mild 350 than I did with duals (note that my dual setup was true duals, no crossover) this is where thing get interesting |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by chzeckmate on 07/04/15 at 19:49:49 4F5C5A594B4C4C2E0 wrote:
Yeah, it can certainly get very interesting. You know, the people who think they can just clamp on a pod and a straight through and then challenge their stock performance numbers are really naive. Fluid dynamics can be very tricky and just because it's louder doesn't mean it has more power, although, it might feel like that (placebo effect)...As Versy alluded to, you have to have the right pod, pipe, jets, and adjustments for the climate. In many cases you still won't see the real fruits of the labor until you do more afterwork like porting and polishing the carb/intake/exhaust. If you're going to do that you might as well upgrade the carburetor, header, cam, etc. The rule of thumb is that if you can't achieve a minimum of 10% hp increase it's not worth doing unless you just want to. On this bike achieving a 10% increase is highly unlikely with just a pod, straight through, and jets, but it sure sounds good 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Art Webb on 07/04/15 at 22:07:50 I've heard one with a straight through, I don't agree it sounded good ;D the Emgo was OK, the Dyna sounds just right to me, that higher dollar one that was mentioned I haven't heard I'm too lazy to do all that tuning these days, if I want a faster bike I'll buy a faster bike :o it is fun when you have the patience for it though |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by chzeckmate on 07/05/15 at 00:35:41 26353330222525470 wrote:
Mine is straight through. Here's a little 10 second clip of how it sounds. This video was intended to show off my rear running lights and the mount I made, so there's no revving but you'll get the idea. I think it sounds just fine. I'm interested to know what you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VR87qsmD24 |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by Art Webb on 07/05/15 at 07:18:17 I like the Dyna muff better. To me the straight through is too loud and the tone is too staccato. The Dyna is louder than stock, but not a lot louder, and has a nice deep tone I've actually heard both up close and personal, (the straight through was a Super trap with the baffling system removed) and youtube vids don't convey the full effect of either the Dyna gives a nice deep throaty tone, where the open sounds to me not deep toned enough for the volume it puts out Of course opinions are like armpits, we all have them, and most of them stink ;D if it makes you happy, go with it, I'll stick with the stocker or a Dyna |
|
Title: Re: Yet another K&M cone filter question... Post by chzeckmate on 07/05/15 at 07:47:02 I'll admit that I think it's a little loud too. I've been thinking of adding a crumb cup. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |