Smooth power everywhere

[Dakota_imp]

I tell ya. I usually modify almost every vehicle I own. This bike does stuff so well and the little diff I would really get makes me really love the idea of leaving this one as is. She just seems to work well on her own. I even abandon the idea of a k&n which I've put in every bike I've owned and almost every car. I bought the filter the 1st week and just realized I'd be better off returning it than bothering. Plus it was expensive.

I do like this lil girl. As is. And for me that is extremely rare.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't like the way it fit, I didn't like the lack of gaskets on either end like the OEM has, and overall, the Honda part simply looks and feels like a better engineered part to me.

So what if the K 'n N flows more air, did I really buy the CB to wring every nit of power I can out of it? Once I really thought about it, I realized no, the CB is about something else all together. Besides, it'll cruise at 90 to 100 mph for hours on end without breathing hard, so WTF more do I need?

K 'n N for sale, cheap. You take my seminar!

So what if the K 'n N flows more air, did I really buy the CB to wring every nit of power I can out of it? Once I really thought about it, I realized no, the CB is about something else all together. Besides, it'll cruise at 90 to 100 mph for hours on end without breathing hard, so WTF more do I need?

K 'n N for sale, cheap. You take my seminar!
The more important question: is the OEM filter flow deficient; not whether or not the KnN flows more? Unless someone has tested the OEM, nobody really knows and these decisions are based fully on beliefs and hope. I doubt that Honda engineers would have designed in an air filter that doesn't meet flow requirements.

K&N always flows more than stock, as a baseline. Quite a lot more as the design is different and much less restrictive. It filters not by simply having pores that are smaller than the smallest destructive dust particle (direct filtration, so to speak), but instead by a process similar to absorption, where the particles are "trapped" after being attracted to the filter media. The actual passages through the K&N filter are quite large but have many twists and turns (on a microscopic level), and combined with the sticky oil, block and trap dust.

A K&N filter can make quite a difference if the fuel map is able to accommodate it. My understanding is that generally, an EFI motorcycle or car is able to easily cope with the new filter within the range of adjustability of its system.

K&N always flows more than stock, as a baseline. Quite a lot more as the design is different and much less restrictive. It filters not by simply having pores that are smaller than the smallest destructive dust particle (direct filtration, so to speak), but instead by a process similar to absorption, where the particles are "trapped" after being attracted to the filter media. The actual passages through the K&N filter are quite large but have many twists and turns (on a microscopic level), and combined with the sticky oil, block and trap dust.

A K&N filter can make quite a difference if the fuel map is able to accommodate it. My understanding is that generally, an EFI motorcycle or car is able to easily cope with the new filter within the range of adjustability of its system.
I think you are missing my point. Unless the OEM filter is restrictive (and this is easy to measure), a KnN won't make ANY difference.
Of course EFI can deal with a free flowing filter; it isn't ANY different than a stock, clean air filter.

I have a diesel pickup and a diesel truck; both have air filter restriction gauges that measure the difference in pressure between the intake and ambient air pressure. When the filter is dirty, the pressure drop increases and you know to replace the filter. I have been using the same filter in the truck for ten years (I don't drive it a whole lot but it is used on dusty roads and farm fields). I wasn't able to trigger the filterminder until I installed a larger turbo and then only at full throttle with the pump turned way up.

I ran the original air filter in my diesel pickup for seven years before the filterminder indicated a replacement was needed. Part of it was soaked in oil.

Modern air filters are not the restriction most believe them to be.

I tell ya. I usually modify almost every vehicle I own. This bike does stuff so well and the little diff I would really get makes me really love the idea of leaving this one as is. She just seems to work well on her own. I even abandon the idea of a k&n which I've put in every bike I've owned and almost every car. I bought the filter the 1st week and just realized I'd be better off returning it than bothering. Plus it was expensive.

I do like this lil girl. As is. And for me that is extremely rare.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't like the way it fit, I didn't like the lack of gaskets on either end like the OEM has, and overall, the Honda part simply looks and feels like a better engineered part to me.

So what if the K 'n N flows more air, did I really buy the CB to wring every nit of power I can out of it? Once I really thought about it, I realized no, the CB is about something else all together. Besides, it'll cruise at 90 to 100 mph for hours on end without breathing hard, so WTF more do I need?

K 'n N for sale, cheap. You take my seminar!

So what if the K 'n N flows more air, did I really buy the CB to wring every nit of power I can out of it? Once I really thought about it, I realized no, the CB is about something else all together. Besides, it'll cruise at 90 to 100 mph for hours on end without breathing hard, so WTF more do I need?

K 'n N for sale, cheap. You take my seminar!
The more important question: is the OEM filter flow deficient; not whether or not the KnN flows more? Unless someone has tested the OEM, nobody really knows and these decisions are based fully on beliefs and hope. I doubt that Honda engineers would have designed in an air filter that doesn't meet flow requirements.

K&N always flows more than stock, as a baseline. Quite a lot more as the design is different and much less restrictive. It filters not by simply having pores that are smaller than the smallest destructive dust particle (direct filtration, so to speak), but instead by a process similar to absorption, where the particles are "trapped" after being attracted to the filter media. The actual passages through the K&N filter are quite large but have many twists and turns (on a microscopic level), and combined with the sticky oil, block and trap dust.

A K&N filter can make quite a difference if the fuel map is able to accommodate it. My understanding is that generally, an EFI motorcycle or car is able to easily cope with the new filter within the range of adjustability of its system.

K&N always flows more than stock, as a baseline. Quite a lot more as the design is different and much less restrictive.
Check out these results which indicate that KnN is actually fairly close to the OEM: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest2.htm

[Red Mist_imp]

I'm pretty sure I am not missing the point. I agree, flow is very easy to measure. I gave an explanation of how very different the physics between the two types of filters are, and why that accounts for the greater flow of the K&N. This difference widens with engine rpm and HP output.

Here's a little image taken from a comprehensive test which clearly shows K&N having the least restriction to flow by a wide margin, compared to several others along with an OEM unit:



The K&N did pass more dust, but whether that would be significant with respect to any real difference in engine wear is not known, since K&N does in fact meet OEM specifications and warranty requirements.

A link to the entire test follows; the test is not favorable to replacing OEM with aftermarket and asserts, wrongly, that engines simply cannot take advantage of the extra airflow of the K&N/similar unless heavily modified. That's uninformed at best and really borders on the disingenuous. Certainly, a family car with a low-revving four-cylinder engine, such as a base-model Camry or Accord, will not get much out of a K&N, as it's not designed to make its power in the upper third of the tachometer. But our motorcycle is, and it can benefit from the increased flow, on both the intake and exhaust sides of the cylinder head.

http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

[Dakota_imp]

I'm pretty sure I am not missing the point. I agree, flow is very easy to measure. I gave an explanation of how very different the physics between the two types of filters are, and why that accounts for the greater flow of the K&N. This difference widens with engine rpm and HP output.

Here's a little image taken from a comprehensive test which clearly shows K&N having the least restriction to flow by a wide margin, compared to several others along with an OEM unit:



The K&N did pass more dust, but whether that would be significant with respect to any real difference in engine wear is not known, since K&N does in fact meet OEM specifications and warranty requirements.

A link to the entire test follows; the test is not favorable to replacing OEM with aftermarket and asserts, wrongly, that engines simply cannot take advantage of the extra airflow of the K&N/similar unless heavily modified. That's uninformed at best and really borders on the disingenuous. Certainly, a family car with a low-revving four-cylinder engine, such as a base-model Camry or Accord, will not get much out of a K&N, as it's not designed to make its power in the upper third of the tachometer. But our motorcycle is, and it can benefit from the increased flow, on both the intake and exhaust sides of the cylinder head.

http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

From Baldwin Filters: Most engine manufacturers suggest a maximum allowable restriction between 15 and 20 inches of water (3.75 – 5.00 Kpa) for gas and LP engines , and from 20 to 30 inches of water (5.00 – 7.50 Kpa) for diesels. Exceeding these maximums will affect engine performance.

So, you think that a fraction of an inch water column "clearly shows K&N having the least restriction to flow by a wide margin" ?????

Your assertion that "and asserts, wrongly, that engines simply cannot take advantage of the extra airflow of the K&N/similar unless heavily modified." is still incorrect. Unless the existing air filter is a restriction, it won't matter if you put ten additional filters in parallel (KnN or OEM), it WON'T make a bit of a difference. The engine will be limited by its own volumetric efficiency; not the air filter.

Many years ago, there was a note on the European Cummins website indicating that customers should NOT use the KnN filter due to excessive wear (yes, I saw the website with my own eyes). This was enough for me to never use this type of filter.

[Pterodactyl_imp]

I'm pretty sure I am not missing the point. I agree, flow is very easy to measure. I gave an explanation of how very different the physics between the two types of filters are, and why that accounts for the greater flow of the K&N. This difference widens with engine rpm and HP output.

Here's a little image taken from a comprehensive test which clearly shows K&N having the least restriction to flow by a wide margin, compared to several others along with an OEM unit:



The K&N did pass more dust, but whether that would be significant with respect to any real difference in engine wear is not known, since K&N does in fact meet OEM specifications and warranty requirements.

A link to the entire test follows; the test is not favorable to replacing OEM with aftermarket and asserts, wrongly, that engines simply cannot take advantage of the extra airflow of the K&N/similar unless heavily modified. That's uninformed at best and really borders on the disingenuous. Certainly, a family car with a low-revving four-cylinder engine, such as a base-model Camry or Accord, will not get much out of a K&N, as it's not designed to make its power in the upper third of the tachometer. But our motorcycle is, and it can benefit from the increased flow, on both the intake and exhaust sides of the cylinder head.

http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

From Baldwin Filters: Most engine manufacturers suggest a maximum allowable restriction between 15 and 20 inches of water (3.75 – 5.00 Kpa) for gas and LP engines , and from 20 to 30 inches of water (5.00 – 7.50 Kpa) for diesels. Exceeding these maximums will affect engine performance.

So, you think that a fraction of an inch water column "clearly shows K&N having the least restriction to flow by a wide margin" ?????

Your assertion that "and asserts, wrongly, that engines simply cannot take advantage of the extra airflow of the K&N/similar unless heavily modified." is still incorrect. Unless the existing air filter is a restriction, it won't matter if you put ten additional filters in parallel (KnN or OEM), it WON'T make a bit of a difference. The engine will be limited by its own volumetric efficiency; not the air filter.

Many years ago, there was a note on the European Cummins website indicating that customers should NOT use the KnN filter due to excessive wear (yes, I saw the website with my own eyes). This was enough for me to never use this type of filter.

From Baldwin Filters: Most engine manufacturers suggest a maximum allowable restriction between 15 and 20 inches of water (3.75 – 5.00 Kpa) for gas and LP engines , and from 20 to 30 inches of water (5.00 – 7.50 Kpa) for diesels. Exceeding these maximums will affect engine performance.

So, you think that a fraction of an inch water column "clearly shows K&N having the least restriction to flow by a wide margin" ?????

Your assertion that "and asserts, wrongly, that engines simply cannot take advantage of the extra airflow of the K&N/similar unless heavily modified." is still incorrect. Unless the existing air filter is a restriction, it won't matter if you put ten additional filters in parallel (KnN or OEM), it WON'T make a bit of a difference. The engine will be limited by its own volumetric efficiency; not the air filter.

Many years ago, there was a note on the European Cummins website indicating that customers should NOT use the KnN filter due to excessive wear (yes, I saw the website with my own eyes). This was enough for me to never use this type of filter.

Red Mist,

The introduction to this specific test program (http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html) states:

For decades, the aftermarket hot rod, racing and tuning communities have relied on oiled-media filters to free up that extra few horsepower. In fact, it’s often one of the FIRST modifications many automotive enthusiasts do to their car. K&N filters, to their credit, is generally known to be the top name in oiled filters, and they do a great job of building a quality product. However, it’s always important to evaluate the claims and see exactly what you’re getting for your money.

This report shows, with empirical data and sound reasoning, why OEM filters perform better in a variety of areas.

Special thanks to Arlen Spicer and all others involved in making this information available.

A note from the author:
The reason I started this crusade was that I was seeing people spend a lot of money on aftermarket filters based on the word of a salesperson or based on the misleading, incomplete or outright deceiving information printed on boxes and in sales literature. Gentlemen and Ladies, marketing and the lure of profit is VERY POWERFUL! It is amazing how many people believe that better airflow = more power! Unless you have modifications out the wazoo, a more porous filter will just dirty your oil! Some will say, I have used aftermarket brand X for XXX # years with no problems. The PROBLEM is you spent a chunk of change on a product that not only DID NOT increase your horsepower, but also let in a lot of dirt while doing it! Now how much is a lot? ANY MORE THAN NECESSARY is TOO MUCH!

Others are persuaded by the claims of aftermarket manufacturers that their filters filter dirt “better than any other filter on the market.” Sounds very enticing. To small timers like you and me, spending $1500 to test a filter sounds like a lot. But if you were a filter manufacturer and you believed your filter could filter dirt better than any other media on the market, wouldn’t you want to prove it? Guess what. Test your filter vs. the OE paper. It will cost you $3000 and for that price you will have the data that you can use in your advertisements. Your investment will be returned a thousand fold! EASIER than shooting fish in a barrel! So why don’t these manufacturers do this? Hmmm? Probably not because they would feel guilty about taking more market share.

Now I am not saying that ALL aftermarket filters are useless. A paper filter does not do well if directly wetted or muddy. It may collapse. This is why many off-road filters are foam. It is a compromise between filtering efficiency and protection from a collapsed filter. Now how many of our vehicles collapse their filters from mud and water?

However, if a filter is using “better airflow” as their marketing tool, remember this….Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably. BUT, our engines CAN’T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give. And this remains true until the filter is dirty enough to be recognizeable. At that point performance will decline somewhat. Replace the filter and get on with it.

Hopefully the results of this test will do 2 things. Shed some light on the misleading marketing claims of some aftermarket manufacturers and/or give us new insight on products already on the market that are superior to our OE filter.

----------------

I wouldn't, to say the least, call this, or the conclusions drawn from the testing an unqualified endorsement of after market filters. Would you? The test is titled: Debunking the K&N Myth – Why OEM is Better

Cheers

[Dakota_imp]

Look at this another way:

The data Red Mist linked to shows a marked difference between the KnN and the Delco; the KnN let in over 17.5x the amount of dirt and the Delco had 1.37x the initial restriction. The data that I linked to shows 1.09x the restriction (I am too tired to calculate percent differences). I would argue that there will be some variation in initial restriction between different vehicles due to the cross sectional area of the filters. Different vehicles have different needs and expected air filter change intervals.

So, IF we NEEDED to increase air flow, an OEM could take a few different routes here:

1) Use the KnN and accept the inferior filtering but gain a bit of extra air flow (we still don't have any numbers to support we have gained any HP or that we needed to!)
2) Use the Delco filtering media but make the filter area twice as large. Now, we have retained the effective filtering and have very low restriction. How do you know that this isn't what Honda has done?

We could double the Delco filter area again to further reduce restriction (competent engineers would match a filter to air flow needs) but nothing we can do to the KnN will improve it's filtering effectiveness.
Interesting video showing sunlight shining through a KnN filter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNQ6d3ox5Ok

[VicsCB1100_imp]

Look at this another way:

The data Red Mist linked to shows a marked difference between the KnN and the Delco; the KnN let in over 17.5x the amount of dirt and the Delco had 1.37x the initial restriction. The data that I linked to shows 1.09x the restriction (I am too tired to calculate percent differences). I would argue that there will be some variation in initial restriction between different vehicles due to the cross sectional area of the filters. Different vehicles have different needs and expected air filter change intervals.

So, IF we NEEDED to increase air flow, an OEM could take a few different routes here:

1) Use the KnN and accept the inferior filtering but gain a bit of extra air flow (we still don't have any numbers to support we have gained any HP or that we needed to!)
2) Use the Delco filtering media but make the filter area twice as large. Now, we have retained the effective filtering and have very low restriction. How do you know that this isn't what Honda has done?

We could double the Delco filter area again to further reduce restriction (competent engineers would match a filter to air flow needs) but nothing we can do to the KnN will improve it's filtering effectiveness.
Interesting video showing sunlight shining through a KnN filter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNQ6d3ox5Ok

I can support the statements made in this link regarding filtration, both air and oil.
in a past life I was the sales and marketing manager for an Japanese OEM car manufacturer.

We had a real problem selling genuine filters against cheap asian imports and the established aftermarket brands. This was all down to price and perceived qualty of the aftermarket.

We asked a reputable university to conduct tests similar to the ones noted here and also had them deconsruct the assemblies to physically compare filtration mediums.

in a nutshell the OEM filters out performed all others by a substantial margin in terms of filtration efficiency, blocking dust or gunk and simply lasting the service intervals specified. The Japanese OEM filters had more layers, more surface area, better sealing and othe attributes. Ie. Over specified vs the service standards to compensate for in field poor maintenance by owners or extreme service conditions.

To ignore any dust entry into your engine is fraught with potential disaster. Dust is like a grinding paste on cylinder walls and also can enter engine oil.
Whilst I no longer have access to the results after retiring I would never consider non genuine filtration in any of my toys. For the sake of a few dollars why risk damaging many thousands of dollars of engine.

[The Spaceman_imp]

Setting aside the "technical" arguments for a moment, consider what drives the design and engineering decisions of an OEM vs. an aftermarket part manufacturer.

The OEM is highly motivated to avoid warranty claims. A single claim can and frequently does take all the profit out of a unit's sale. They aren't going to compromise on components that protect their profits.

An aftermarket part maker had a completely different mindset. For K 'n N I believe that means creating a reputation for higher performance and long (virtually unlimited) product life.

[Red Mist_imp]

We aren't running a 500 HP diesel engine that we hope to have last hundreds of thousands of miles, under extreme conditions. We aren't discussing the suitability of a filter for long-term fleet use, and I wouldn't choose any filter other than the OEM if I were in the business of managing a fleet.

We're talking here about significant power gains at relatively low cost in a very small-displacement, high-performance, low-mileage motorcycle engine. Most riders will never even get close to putting 50,000 miles on a motorcycle. In that amount of mileage the possible additional dust contamination is never going to show up. We also have to look at our riding conditions: on-road, with clean air. We're not doing a tail-chase through the desert, sucking in massive amounts of particulate matter. And under those conditions, we want to change or service the filter more often, anyway, as both the OEM and K&N recommend.

Interestingly enough, most dirt riders use UNI and K&N-style filters and many dirtbikes come with an oiled-type filter from the manufacturer.

The image I posted simply shows that the K&N and similar filters flow more. That was the point. You've suggested that the amount is irrelevant, but it's not. It's not a fraction of an inch, it's 2" of water column, which is almost a 200% difference in pressure differential between OEM and K&N. When we are looking for performance, we'll take anything we can get. OEM is at 3" WC, the K&N is at 1". Big difference within the range of measurement expected.

High-flow type air filters make a measurable difference in performance. Racing engine builders and tuners use these filters routinely, if they use any filtration at all (in fact the OEM filter is the very first thing to go when modifying an engine for high-performance, followed by exhaust, fueling, and ignition time changes). This is a link to a before/after dyno chart showing the typical improvement associated with just an air filter kit. The Sonic 1.4L Turbo in the test picked up 7 HP, a big gain for minimal investment. The air filter and kit meet OEM specifications for filtration protection.

http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/69-4524_dyno.pdf

If we really are concerned about extracting high-mileage under more severe riding conditions, and we want to be conservative, choosing OEM is the way to go. However, going with a high-flow filter that meets OEM specs and nets a few more HP is unlikely to make any difference at all in the longevity of a motorcycle engine, given the vast majority of bikes will never see that kind of mileage and never be ridden in the kinds of conditions that would warrant an extreme level of filtration. A lot of motorcycle owners also use aftermarket oil filters to save a dollar or two, and the same can be said for being conservative there; OEM is best. But there's no power gain from using a different oil filter. We can show an immediate and measurable improvement from changing an air filter, but few riders are going to be discussing the condition of the valve train, cylinders, and pistons at 200,000 miles on their street motorcycles.

In any event, K&N and similar filters have been used in large numbers over the past few decades and the verdict's in; for on-road use of non-commercial vehicles, there just hasn't been any problem with them in this application.

Look at this another way:

The data Red Mist linked to shows a marked difference between the KnN and the Delco; the KnN let in over 17.5x the amount of dirt and the Delco had 1.37x the initial restriction. The data that I linked to shows 1.09x the restriction (I am too tired to calculate percent differences). I would argue that there will be some variation in initial restriction between different vehicles due to the cross sectional area of the filters. Different vehicles have different needs and expected air filter change intervals.

So, IF we NEEDED to increase air flow, an OEM could take a few different routes here:

1) Use the KnN and accept the inferior filtering but gain a bit of extra air flow (we still don't have any numbers to support we have gained any HP or that we needed to!)
2) Use the Delco filtering media but make the filter area twice as large. Now, we have retained the effective filtering and have very low restriction. How do you know that this isn't what Honda has done?

We could double the Delco filter area again to further reduce restriction (competent engineers would match a filter to air flow needs) but nothing we can do to the KnN will improve it's filtering effectiveness.
Interesting video showing sunlight shining through a KnN filter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNQ6d3ox5Ok

That, in fact, is precisely what the manufacturers have done. Compared to what we saw in bikes 20 years ago, both intake and exhaust systems are dramatically more efficient. The internal design and flow characteristics uncork a lot more power from engines of the same displacement. We're seeing ~200 crankshaft HP from some of the superbikes available today, from 1000cc. That's a huge increase what we were getting in 1994. It's both design and increasing the internal volume of the intake and exhaust systems.

But with a motorcycle we just don't have all the room in the world, so for any given application, increasing airflow is going to get you more power. The engine in this CB1100 is so detuned it's almost silly; we've got 1140cc of motor putting out 88 HP at the crankshaft. We could easily get another 20 HP with intake, exhaust, and ignition timing changes and I very much doubt the engine would suffer mechanically for it. The thing seems to be bulletproof and overbuilt.

We can think of the engine as a pump, and the more air it can pump, the more power it can make.

Let's just keep in mind that K&N filters meet or exceed all OEM requirements, and if we can breathe the same air our engine is inhaling (and our nose is a lousy filter compared to a K&N) then we're probably not going to have any issues.

[Red Mist_imp]

Setting aside the "technical" arguments for a moment, consider what drives the design and engineering decisions of an OEM vs. an aftermarket part manufacturer.

The OEM is highly motivated to avoid warranty claims. A single claim can and frequently does take all the profit out of a unit's sale. They aren't going to compromise on components that protect their profits.

An aftermarket part maker had a completely different mindset. For K 'n N I believe that means creating a reputation for higher performance and long (virtually unlimited) product life.

Yes. And a paper filter which is disposable is easy to maintain, just toss it and put in a new one. The K&N needs to be washed and re-oiled. Not difficult, but not as predictable as just installing a new filter. Over-oiling can really restrict the flow of air, and under-oiling can absolutely introduce too much dust.

Fortunately the K&N's come pre-oiled these days and will go 50,000 miles under normal conditions.

[Dakota_imp]

Red Mist,

You have provided ZERO proof that the OEM filter is deficient OR that the KnN will (in this application) provide measurable power increases. You are using one case and extrapolating that to the CB1100 assuming all applications have the same restriction and they DO NOT. Show me the numbers for the HONDA CB1100; otherwise it is personal preference.

Furthermore, where is your proof that KnN meets OEM filter standards? Are you basing this off of KnN literature? As I stated above, Cummins has specifically stated on their website NOT to use KnN filters. In addition, KnN has been specifically mentioned in Dodge TSBs as a cause of engine dusting. Still think that they meet OEM standards?

Dakota