SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> K&N pod vs "stock"
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1115819057

Message started by russ_g on 05/11/05 at 06:44:17

Title: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by russ_g on 05/11/05 at 06:44:17

Just looking for opinions on K&N filters. Obviously the pod type filter is going to be harder to install than the K&N filter that is a direct swap for the factory filter. Would one see much difference between the two? If using a pod type - is there a standard model everyone is using. If this has been discussed, just point me to the thread and i'll go away.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by JayB on 05/11/05 at 14:36:02

Hey there Russ. I can't help you but am pondering the same question. I think the pod type setup looks good but am wondering if riding in the rain has any effect on that open filter element.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by WD on 05/11/05 at 19:42:50

If the pod gets damp, the bike runs a bit richer. If the pod gets soaked, pull over, you don't need to be riding right then. Sucking in a little water won't hurt anything, but the bike will blow a LOT of carbon and rust flakes out of the tail pipe... Sucking in a LOT of water is a bad idea, too much water vapor can hydrolock the engine.
-WD

Above based on riding old Brit bikes with exposed aircleaners. Same idea, just a bit more primitive.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by Savage_Rob on 05/12/05 at 05:53:40

I've been really happy with the K&N direct swap for stock but it does mean I can't tear out the airbox and reclaim that space. However, it is better protected from the elements. I am considering pulling out the rubber intake boot to increase flow. Someone mentioned that in another post. I'm just not sure how much difference it could actually make - nor if I actually need it. Flow seems to be pretty good now.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by WD on 05/12/05 at 07:19:28

I plugged the top boot and removed the airbox door when I relocated the regulator to under the seat. It gets, honestly, too MUCH air for the stock jets/long (open) exhaust I run.
-WD

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by klx650sm2002 on 05/12/05 at 08:03:55

I have seen (Be_Savage I think) that a Raask pipe and a removed snorkel gives 32 bhp (didn't say if it was rejetted) compared to 24.6 std. This changed the 0-62 time from a quoted 8.1 to 5.94.

Not sure how reliable these numbers are.

Clive W :D

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by Savage_Rob on 05/12/05 at 09:20:40

Had to have been rejetted or it would've been way lean. Mine is actually running a tad lean with the MAC muffler, the K&N direct swap air filter (rubber boot still installed) and a 152.5 main jet. I'm going to try a 155 sometime soon.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by rkutzner on 05/12/05 at 18:01:16

When are you noticing the leanness? The main jet realistically only effects WOT (3/4 throttle and up). Most cruising (unless you're going 70+ on the highway!) is more effected by the needle. And 35-50 in 5th is effected some by the idle mixture screw along with the needle. Of course there is overlap on all the circuits and so many factors that the right jetting should be different between many of us depending on where we live and the altitude we ride.

Just some things to think about! You can use everyones more common jetting settings as a start, but be prepared to spend some time playing with the carb to find YOUR best setting. Try to do it spring or fall so that summer and winter won't be too far off, as it WILL change with the season and with altitude.

That's the big plus of the Supertrapp, you can 'adjust' your jetting throughout the seasons without getting into the carb. Just add or remove disks.....they also make similar items for airboxes, check out this link:

http://www.thunderproducts.com/tpi_valve.htm

could be a fun winter project to make something that does this.....

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by bobo383 on 05/12/05 at 18:07:04

Amen to the weather changing the jetting! I was just fine last summer (100 degrees) with my 155 main, but now I'm lean at WOT (70 degrees). Still OK on the pilot and needle, just lean at WOT.

I did not think weather would change it so much, but I was wrong.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by Savage_Rob on 05/12/05 at 20:01:03

Not sure who you were talking to Greg but if it was me, mine's a bit lean on the top end and seems to be year 'round. I have a 152.5 in it and was considering bumping it to a 155. It's easy enough to play with and I have several jets in a plastic box. Just not sure if I have the 155. I think I do. No rush. Gotta get her started first.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by Reelthing on 05/12/05 at 20:28:51

Interesting products for sure - like the slide door, and looks like some facts are there for the dial-a-jet, some of it strikes me as snake oil however - make it lean so the dial-a-jet can fix it, and no published facts on the UFO atomizer ....

Think I go to the garage and up the 152.5 to a 155 tonite - takes what 5 minutes to do -

later - when I open up the airbox seems like some 160+ jets should be around

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by rke on 05/13/05 at 04:24:58

klx650sm2002 wrote:

I've removed the rubber snorkel several years ago. The effect will be that you have lean running Savage (try riding without the side-cover of the filterbox, that has the same effect). After removal of this rubber snorkel I enlarged the mainjet to a 165. It ran great, great torke, great sound.
A few years later I drilled 4 holes in the exhaust of 6 mm each. And I enlarged the main jet again till 170. A year ago I had to take the cilinderhead off and I flowed the in-letport. Now I'm driving with a 172,5 mainjet but the carb needs to be rejetted by a professional. And I need a new exhaust (The one I've now is kind of rusty...) so when I've changed the exhaust I'm going to a tuner for a better jetting off the carb.

The top speed didn't increase much, but the torque is much better. The tuner will make a dynojet-run which I can post here.
But I'm still saving some euro's...

At this moment the bike is running very lean with a little throttle and probaly much to rich at full throttle. So I really have to get this bike rejetted by a prof although it is riding fine.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by Greg_650 on 05/13/05 at 10:36:49

Savage_Rob wrote:

I can't really tell on mine...the Raask seems to reduce some of the bottom end grunt, but improves the top end. I have a 155 in mine, and I'm thinking of adding a baffle to the Raask to improve back pressure and bottom end. If I do that I won't need a larger main jet anyway.

Your bike isn't running yet?

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by Savage_Rob on 05/17/05 at 07:26:53

Greg_650 wrote:

Haven't had a chance to troubleshoot the electrical issue yet. Life has gotten in the way. Hopefully I can play with it some tonight. I've had the battery out and on a tender for nearly a week and it seems okay. No notable breaks, abrasions, etc. No loose connections. Fuses are good. We'll see. Anyway, I definitely have a good increase in top-end power since the rejetting/muffler change/air filter change but plan to try the 155 main when I get a chance. Unfortunately, I can't add a baffle to the MAC - at least it's not designed for it. I wish it had more of the base thrum of a glaspack than the loud rumble it has now but I still like it a lot and the increase in power is good.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by WD on 05/17/05 at 08:15:09

I can get you a baffle, no problem. I'm thinking of adding the Supertrapp four stroke dirt bike muffler/spark arrestor kit to my glaspack fishtail pipe set-up. Just too "tinny" for my taste as it is now. I have them for 1.75 and 2 inch pipes. Kinda spendy though...$61.95 four stroke, $72.95 two stroke. Come to think of it, for that kind of scratch, I can get a real HD fishtail tipped 30 inch glaspack. Want me to set one aside for you? It's no problem, I'm the ONLY HD guy at work...the other guys have no idea what is in the take off pile.
-WD

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by Savage_Rob on 05/17/05 at 08:30:07

Thatnks for the offer but that's a little pricey to add to a $90 MAC muffler. Besides, I don't know yet what I may or may not have to spend cash on to get mine running again. I am considering going to a Sportster muffler at some time in the future anyway to quiet it down a bit. I love the loud on the freeway but I leave early in the morning and I actually like most of my neighbors, so I'm considering quieting it a bit. If I do that, I would have to reassess whether I need a baffle too. Again, thanks for the offer and I may come back to you about it later and hope it's available.

Title: Re: K&N pod vs "stock"
Post by vroom1776 on 05/23/05 at 13:14:03

Where are you guys putting the pods? Right onto the carb, in the airbox, what? What model number?

thanks,

ks