Airbox snorkel

[hobbs]

Doesn't matter, OEM filter is like 5 dollars less than the K&N and harder to find. Don't know the lifespan of the stock filters, but the K&N will probably last as long as you'd need with cleaning.

[thomascrown]

The k&n wont filter as well. I'd stick with oem.

[hobbs]

What's that basis of that statement?
 
 

The k&n wont filter as well. I'd stick with oem.

 

[thomascrown]

What's that basis of that statement? 
 

The k&n wont filter as well. I'd stick with oem.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest3.htm

[bmwpowere36m3]

When you hold one up to the light and see small pin holes..... Not really a fan. My dad has one on his Softail, it's okay. I am a fan of foam filters, like for dirt bikes. For the time to clean them and potential dirt ingestion, OEM is better. It's supposedly good for 24k miles per the manual.
 
Plus most intakes, filters rarely show much of an increase in HP, especially with more modern vehicles and properly designed airboxes/filters.

[gregjet]

OK some perspective here on the filters.
First. If you are riding in the dirt and water foam filters are best. They do not clean better in dry air BUT Oil foam will shed WATER nor not fall to pieces when it gets wet like a paper one when water gets into the airbox. Which it will off road.
The reason most people change filters is to improve flow not to improve air clean. This was NOT the purpose of the test attached to the link of Thomascrown's affair (Sorry I know you have probably said that before). The well designed cloth filters are repeatedly shown to improve airflow and maintain it if cleaned properly.
MOST important. The amount of dirt shown on the secondary filters is SOOOOOOO tiny for such a long test that it would have had no noticeable wear effects on any engine, let alone a car engine pumping huge amounts of air through it. Most would go in the engine and out again. Some may have even been tiny bits of oxidized particles from the filter in front of the test filter or the air box itself.
Remember that any reasonable filter will give clean enough air to have zero effects on wear. Engine "wear" is primarily CHEMICAL not mechanical, from the acids built up in the oil and carbon particles. If you want to reduce wear look to you oil, quality, change intervals and ensuring you oil gets hot enough to crack the acids.

[hobbs]

I'm of the opinion that a visual test of a filter is kind of like a visual test on a weld. It'll reveal gross and obvious defects, but is pretty inconclusive. You'd need some pricey equipment to get a true, scientifically valid conclusion unfortunately.
 
Paper or cotton doesn't filter much in and of itself though, it's the oil that grabs and traps the particulate matter. So keep your filters fresh, whatever you decide to use.

[AlbatrossCafe]

OK some perspective here on the filters. First. If you are riding in the dirt and water foam filters are best. They do not clean better in dry air BUT Oil foam will shed WATER nor not fall to pieces when it gets wet like a paper one when water gets into the airbox. Which it will off road.
The reason most people change filters is to improve flow not to improve air clean. This was NOT the purpose of the test attached to the link of Thomascrown's affair (Sorry I know you have probably said that before). The well designed cloth filters are repeatedly shown to improve airflow and maintain it if cleaned properly.
MOST important. The amount of dirt shown on the secondary filters is SOOOOOOO tiny for such a long test that it would have had no noticeable wear effects on any engine, let alone a car engine pumping huge amounts of air through it. Most would go in the engine and out again. Some may have even been tiny bits of oxidized particles from the filter in front of the test filter or the air box itself.
Remember that any reasonable filter will give clean enough air to have zero effects on wear. Engine "wear" is primarily CHEMICAL not mechanical, from the acids built up in the oil and carbon particles. If you want to reduce wear look to you oil, quality, change intervals and ensuring you oil gets hot enough to crack the acids.

Whew thanks for the info. I have put K&N's on all my bikes/cars that I have also thrown exhausts on, and that link was scaring me. To the average person, the amount of dirt in the tests in those pictures looks awful. Glad to be reassured that it is nothing to worry about it.
 

[bmwpowere36m3]

OK some perspective here on the filters. First. If you are riding in the dirt and water foam filters are best. They do not clean better in dry air BUT Oil foam will shed WATER nor not fall to pieces when it gets wet like a paper one when water gets into the airbox. Which it will off road.
The reason most people change filters is to improve flow not to improve air clean. This was NOT the purpose of the test attached to the link of Thomascrown's affair (Sorry I know you have probably said that before). The well designed cloth filters are repeatedly shown to improve airflow and maintain it if cleaned properly.
MOST important. The amount of dirt shown on the secondary filters is SOOOOOOO tiny for such a long test that it would have had no noticeable wear effects on any engine, let alone a car engine pumping huge amounts of air through it. Most would go in the engine and out again. Some may have even been tiny bits of oxidized particles from the filter in front of the test filter or the air box itself.
Remember that any reasonable filter will give clean enough air to have zero effects on wear. Engine "wear" is primarily CHEMICAL not mechanical, from the acids built up in the oil and carbon particles. If you want to reduce wear look to you oil, quality, change intervals and ensuring you oil gets hot enough to crack the acids.

 
 
I disagree. Tell the guys with receding valves (TI coated) that the wear is chemical. A K&N filters fine when loaded up, but then it's not flowing as much when it was clean.
 
I didn't read the "test", but have seen others. Personally I'd never use one. Second, rarely does it improve performance on a mildly-tuned engine.

[gregjet]

I was referring to the oil lubed parts of the motor. Valves is a whole other story as you point out. However part of the receding valve seats is indeed chemical ( oxidization ) and partially because Ti has a fun property of galling.
" I didn't read the "test", but have seen others. Personally I'd never use one. Second, rarely does it improve performance on a mildly-tuned engine.".... Totally agree that any performance, especially on a non-track bike, will be marginal to unnoticeable. I use them because I don't like chucking away filters. I can just clean em.
However, having dynoed quite a few race bikes I can say that in MOST cases DNA, K&N and BMC filters have all shown increases in HP at the rear wheel on stock paperones, although not huge. On a race bike anything is desireable. Some have a greater filter area besides less flow restriction. I do , however , keep my filters cleaner than most people bother to.
 
 
 

[AlbatrossCafe]

I do , however , keep my filters cleaner than most people bother to. 
 

How often are you cleaning your K&N's @gregjet ? 

[gregjet]

It doesn't get a lot of riding so cleaned every 1500km or so.

[magicmikey]

I thought the topic was about the airbox snorkel and not air filters. Has anyone did something with the vacuum thing in the EU version of the bike?

[Guest Ralph]

The flap is normally fully open and only closes at revs and speeds that the noise
test is done, I cant feel any flat spots on mine so never bothered to mess with it,
just pulling the pipe and blocking it would disable it in the open position.

[Guest ChicagoAJ]

Zombie thread revival. Is there any more reading on this subject anywhere else?
 
What's the verdict with removing the snorkel and plate? Or just the snorkel? Is it worth it? Does the air filter jump around in there with the plate removed?
 
I do plan to get the 2WDW flash and they said you get quite a bit more power with both removed. Anyone run into any issues with these items removed?
 
Also, does removing all these items and the air filter require the tank to be removed? Looks to me like there might be room to sneak everything out.
 
 
Thanks to anyone who chimes in!

[sorkyah]

 
 

Zombie thread revival. Is there any more reading on this subject anywhere else?  
What's the verdict with removing the snorkel and plate? Or just the snorkel? Is it worth it? Does the air filter jump around in there with the plate removed?
 
I do plan to get the 2WDW flash and they said you get quite a bit more power with both removed. Anyone run into any issues with these items removed?
 
Also, does removing all these items and the air filter require the tank to be removed? Looks to me like there might be room to sneak everything out.
 
 
Thanks to anyone who chimes in!

 
No.. the stock air filter is bolted to the airbox by a screw that is a bitch to remove
you will have to lift the tank, but not remove it, in order to remove the air filter (thnx to that aforementioned bolt)

[Guest ChicagoAJ]

Really? Even with a low profile screwdriver or flexible one? Seems like there would be quite a bit of room with the snorkel and top plate removed. Maybe a Phillips bit on a 1/4 inch ratchet with an extension? I have only seen the pictures in this thread so I assume the bolt/screw you're talking about is in the channel of the air filter at the bottom?

[sorkyah]

Really? Even with a low profile screwdriver or flexible one? Seems like there would be quite a bit of room with the snorkel and top plate removed. 

The screw is 2" long and buried at the bottom of the filter

[Guest ChicagoAJ]

Just watched a video. You are correct. 
 
Either way, I'm still curious if removing the snorkel and plate are worth it. 

[sorkyah]

Just watched a video. You are correct.  
Either way, I'm still curious if removing the snorkel and plate are worth it. 

it opens up the flow quite a bit more than having it on there. instead of a ~2" hole for the air to flow through, you're allowing it a ~6" hole. 
 
think of it like a water pipe, and the engine is a pump, larger diameter inlet allows for larger overall output.
engines work best when the smallest restriction of flow is the intake valve itself.
 

[Guest ChicagoAJ]

Just watched a video. You are correct.  
Either way, I'm still curious if removing the snorkel and plate are worth it. 

it opens up the flow quite a bit more than having it on there. instead of a ~2" hole for the air to flow through, you're allowing it a ~6" hole. 
 
think of it like a water pipe, and the engine is a pump, larger diameter inlet allows for larger overall output.
engines work best when the smallest restriction of flow is the intake valve itself.

But too much flow and/or turbulent flow fluctuations could actually make less power. I'll just take the snorkel out and see how things go. I think I saw a post where the bike actually made more power without the snorkel. 

[sorkyah]

it opens up the flow quite a bit more than having it on there. instead of a ~2" hole for the air to flow through, you're allowing it a ~6" hole. 
 
think of it like a water pipe, and the engine is a pump, larger diameter inlet allows for larger overall output.
engines work best when the smallest restriction of flow is the intake valve itself.

But too much flow and/or turbulent flow fluctuations could actually make less power. I'll just take the snorkel out and see how things go. I think I saw a post where the bike actually made more power without the snorkel. 

Turbulent flow could, eventually, but as this is not a diesel there shouldnt be too much worry about that.
but inside the airbox there are runner pipes leading to the throttle bodies that should shape the incoming air allowing for a somewhat smooth transition between filter and intake valve
 

[dony]

Back to the original question, I too was wondering what are the pro's/con's ? of removing the snorkel on a otherwise stock bike? Is it there just to suppress noise? Will the bike run leaner? Will it cause loss torque(I read that on another site). Will the ecu adapt with it gone? If someone who knows could answer it would be appreciated.... cheers.

[roxrny]

I took mine out and replaced it with the DNA cover and filter.  I did this at the same time as the exhaust and the Power Commander so I cant tell if its about the air intake but I can for sure feel the difference.
 

 

[sansnombre]

I've only seen one tuner look at the snorkel issue WHILE CONSIDERING THE EFFECTS OF THE BAFFLE AS WELL (the part of the snorkel assembly that goes inside the filter) - it is this part that is the problem as it significantly inhibits flow.
 
So when we remove the snorkel/baffle and are seeing better performance, we're really seeing the benefits of removing the baffle, not the exterior snorkel section. Consider that there is a better solution where one removes the baffle and leaves the external snorkel. I wish the other tuners would look at this aspect as well instead of simply stating to remove the entire snorkel.
 
I'm an engineer and have done quite a bit of design with flow, and shaping the flow is very important to overall flowrate, both in the intake and the exhaust side of any orifice. The exterior snorkel part shapes the flow better than the sharp-edge of the filter/cover, so you are actually getting better flow with it in but with the baffle removed.