SuzukiSavage.com - Cone filter comparison

skrapiron -FSO

Serious Thumper

Offline

Instant Human....
Just add coffee..

Posts: 1456
Pittsburgh, Pa
Gender: male

Cone filter comparison
10/08/07 at 05:40:01

Alot of people have been asking what cone filter will fit on our Savages and what kind of performance will they see from using them.

I now have an Emgo 60mm POD filter, a K&N RC-1250 cone filter.

The EMGO POD filter is 2.75" wide at the base, 2" wide at the top and 2.5" long. It has a total of 27, 1/4" pleats. Best guess is it provides a total of about 44 square inches of filter media.

The K&N cone filter is 3.5" wide at the base, 2" wide at the top and is 4" long. It has a total of 34, 1/4" pleats on the surface. Again, a best guess is it provides around 70 square inches of filter media.

In the bike, there is a noticible difference between the two. With a stock exhaust, 55 pilot and 152.5 main (1/2 spacer) the EMGO seems to have similar properties to the stock square filter element. No hesitation, little to no backfire and much easier starting.

With the K&N on the bike, it feels like it is leaned out again (much like the stock jet sizes and the stock element.) The bike will not cold-start without the choke and it tends to backfire on deceleration and shutdown.

I am going to stick with the EMGO for a while. The smaller profile makes it fit much more neatly into the side-mounted air filter that I have rigged up. Additionally, it is not as loud under throttle and the A/F ratio seems dead on. With the K&N, I either need the next smaller size filter (54mm range) or I need to boost my pilot jet to at least a 57.5.

Back to top

Everything I say is fully substantiated by my own opinion.

IP Logged

Trippah Serious Thumper Offline I ride, therefore I am. Posts: 2517 central Mass Gender:	Re: Cone filter comparison Reply #1 - 10/08/07 at 07:30:25 Thanks for the info; as often mentioned, there is the in and out of it, so the question is..have you modified your exhaust system at all?
Back to top	IP Logged

skrapiron -FSO Serious Thumper Offline Instant Human.... Just add coffee.. Posts: 1456 Pittsburgh, Pa Gender:	Re: Cone filter comparison Reply #2 - 10/08/07 at 08:36:57 No. The exhaust is still stock. I am not interested in a louder bike. Most exhaust mods that I do will result in that more than adding much by way of power.
Back to top	Everything I say is fully substantiated by my own opinion. IP Logged

Hell, Billy

Full Member

Offline

back in black, again

Posts: 176
a dirt road, somewhere in R I

Re: Cone filter comparison
Reply #3 - 10/09/07 at 09:09:27

Hey I`m w/you on the loudness thing. I`m not a fan of loud pipes. I`m looking at SuperTrapp aluminum cans...they can be fairly quiet & perform well, and I believe I can ditch that heavy x bracket in the process.

My plans are to lighten the bike up as much as possible and try to keep the center of gravity real low. I want to use the airbox for storage and mounting the rectifier. That way I can loose my fork bag [already removed the tool box], then I`ll mount a chuck of alloy fender off my fork brace. I`m probably gonna go w/a solo seat and mount another section of alloy for the rear fender right on the swing arm. I am hoping to get close to a 300lb, 30+hp bike out of all this fabrication. I am lucky enough to have machine capabilities and knowledge of titanium and aluminum working under my belt. I think the Savage/LS650 can be turned into a beautifully handling and quick little bobber.

I am certainly enjoying the mod/test/ride trip. It`s a nice platform to work with.

Can you tell me where you got the Emgo? And what about your crankcase breather?

Thanks,

B

Back to top

IP Logged

Savage_Rob Serious Thumper Alliance Member Offline Mechanically Inclined Amateur Posts: 6972 Texas (Dallas area) Gender:	Re: Cone filter comparison Reply #4 - 10/09/07 at 09:49:31 Not wanting hijack this thread but since the topic has been broached... That stock can is heavy. Most of the replacements folks use wind up dropping a pretty fair amount of weight from the bike.
Back to top	1998\|MAC muffler\|ceramic coated header\|K&N air filter\|Amal Mk2 carb\|Odyssey battery\|iridium plug\|NC windshield\|Dunlop 491s\|Superbrace\|EBC brake rotor\|12.5" Progressive shocks\|Kuryakyn ISO grips IP Logged

skrapiron -FSO Serious Thumper Offline Instant Human.... Just add coffee.. Posts: 1456 Pittsburgh, Pa Gender:	Re: Cone filter comparison Reply #5 - 10/09/07 at 10:59:37 I got the K&N from Fox performance, The EMGO came from speedmotoco.com and the breather element came from Autozone. There are times I would like a smaller (and lighter exhaust). The problem is, even the dyna glide pipes are loud. I'm just not into that..
Back to top	Everything I say is fully substantiated by my own opinion. IP Logged

Hell, Billy

Full Member

Offline

back in black, again

Posts: 176
a dirt road, somewhere in R I

Re: Cone filter comparison
Reply #6 - 10/09/07 at 14:00:04

Skrapy,

Check out the SuperTrapp universal aluminum racing cans in the Dennis Kirk catalog. They have a 1 3/4" model that would suit Suzi well-you`d need an adapter pipe and some clamps and you`d have to whip up a bracket, but I did call the good folks at SuperTrapp and they said the can weighs only a few pounds. It`s about $170 or so and DK has the best price & free shipping on it. The Trapps will be somewhat louder than stock, but not even close to the usual bark from other sources-plus they are tuneable. I`ve seen dyno charts bumping Suzi up to well over 32 horses w/ NO carb mods. I also think the look is different enough to be cool in a weird way. Looks come second to performance in my mind anyway, so I`m saving up my change for a redo this winter.

I am more interested in acceleration and handling than top speed myself, just my personal riding requirements. Lots of narrow winding roads, farm trucks, school buses around here and when you gotta get out of the way, it`s good to have the confidence.

All the Savages seem to be set way too lean, and an open pipe is just going to exascerbate the situation. I`m here in RI-mean altitude 200 feet, damp and cool, so getting the bike to run richer here is a chore.

My 2 cents,

B

Back to top

IP Logged

Rockin_John

Serious Thumper
Alliance Member

Offline

Posts: 1562
+36° 10' , -95° 48'
Gender: male

Re: Cone filter comparison
Reply #7 - 10/11/07 at 12:33:10

First, thanks for the exact dimensions for the two most common cone filters. I've been looking for the numbers on the Emgo for a while. The K&N numbers are easy to find. Having them, and a guesstimate of their sq/in of surface and flow is helpful.

On the exhaust: Not all Dyna mufflers are loud. I don't know the exact difference, because the one on my 87 I had TIG welded onto the header, and the 99 I've not seen but from one end. Bottom line: The 87 is almost as quiet as stock and probably 10-15 pounds lighter. Not much difference in loudness at all but a bit different tone. OTOH the 99 is a nice deep tone and medium loud. Neither are like the obnoxious LOUD after market pipes that lots of people run. You might be able to talk to someone really Harley savvy, and they might know which Dyna mufflers are the quiet ones. I really don't know that the quiet one on my 87 flows that much better than the big old stock muffler; but it looks good; sounds good, and weighs a heck of a lot less.

Back to top

IP Logged