Piper-cross vs. KN

Did the second round dyno with the only item changed was the air filter in trying to figure out this lack of what was suppose to be a decent HP gain. Well Nope, seems as though in the swap I netted 1.5 more Hp and 1.3lbs torque with the Pipercross. With the KN in it went down too 109. where with the piper we saw 111+, one 112hp run.. Go figure. All though there was a little room for fine tuning the fuel map, not really a lot of wiggle room for the trouble today. Ah, But, Mike was hoping to have had new upgraded software program loaded up and running by today, which didn't happen, so wants me to come back to try the new software on for size seeing what results we get. but as it stands now, Piper-cross wins the comparison. Still nothing close to the last dyno that was done last year.

 

Under what might be called lab conditions, will a run be made sans any filter?

 

Ya know, that's a great question. With out an answer yet?

 

You still thinking about trying the 98 header again?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

Actually, I have a clone on stand by, trick is in the scheduling. In that we can have another round of back to back. Just won't happen real soon, more like mid to late June.

 

Oh okay. Good to know the pipercross wasn't a complete flop though. All those air filter engineers had me convinced that I had no idea what I was talking about lol. Hopefully the header proves the same eventually. I really hope to see a Dyno comparison looking more like Mohawk's.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

I'm not surprised, the Piper Cross uses all of the air box, the K&N does not.

 

Well I'm not and am. tests have shown foam in it's self per same area when oiled wont flow as much air as pleated oiled gauze. In this case when there's more surface area vs. what KN has, yes I can agree, but nothing like seeing it for your self pan out. The interesting part wasn't so much the 1.5 hp difference but seeing where and how long on the curve from 4 to 10k it was the worse then only a little like .3 to none on the top end. It could have been the header there making up the difference as that is what it did before. still interesting stuff.

 

Well as far as flow rate, I could see the two filters being similar, but I just imagine the air flow through the Pipercross to be much more laminar, which could definitely help.

 

How does distance from the bottom of the filter to the velocity stacks effect performance? I have heard that to close causes problems.

 

I measured that with the Piper cross and actually there's a tad more room with the Piper vs. the KN, where its a filter media is an inch think and basically set in the middle so the KN set lower into the air box, where the piper is pretty much straight flat across. I have it where I still might, as I have a conversation at KN RD where they have replied showing interests in what is going on after showing them photos of the old vs. new and the piper. I have it in taking a KN filter for a 2000 Toyota 1.8 as it 2" longer same width replacing what the KN for the VFR is, that seem to perk some interests with them and said they'd get back to me.

 

Considering that each run has been made with a different configuration and there really hasn't been much care taken to approach it in a step by step manner, I'm not sure if any of the runs actually mean anything for the sake of comparison value. The 1.5 HP change could be related to the spark plugs and have nothing to do with the filter. At this point, IMO, it's just a hodge podge of dyno runs.

 

Picky Picky you are, but yea I get what you're saying and almost agree. Had he original plugs looked questionable which they didn't, doubt the plugs had much to do with it. then back to back with different filters. unless the temps outside changed that fast which I also doubt, na, pretty simple to figure what was what this time.

 

If you want to do a bunch of hard pulls on the dyno for little, to no, verifiable information gain, have at it. So far, I can't see any value from any of the information you have cobbled together. It is entertaining, so it's not a total loss.

 

It simply gets back to the point that Honda's engineers knew exactly what they were doing, and designed everything systemically for optimal function. Your original setup seemed bang-on in terms of max optimization for 92 octane fuel.

 

To reach a more solidly based conclusion all things being sort of equal, dyno runs with both aftermarket filters, no filter and a run with an OEM filter would be in order.

Moi ? If I wanted or needed more HP, out of a VFR, a mild cam (s) might do the trick. Noting like a cammy bike at bike nights.

 

BB you've hung around either to many Harleys or Big Blocks. ya know just for the sake of knowing, in the next round I just might do a run with no filter. curious mind wouldn't mine knowing, whats to hurt, right. On the cam thing I do have an email to Highside. will see.

 

Lol 92 octane? He had a factory ignition map.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

In all honesty, in terms of bang for the buck, degreeing the factory cams is hard to beat, but that's more of a sixth gen thing, where slotting the factory cams sprockets is possible. I don't know if there is an easy way to do this with gear driven cams. Custom ground cams would be awesome, but having four cams reground will be pricey.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

^ why I have an email to Highside. Even though Mohawk had some re ground to what I recall rc45 specs, but even that doesn't sound quite right, the rc45 was made to be in the top of the rpm range, even though thats cool and all, I'm thinking of a better range that suits street riding. Case in point, when looking at all the grinds available for say the small block chevy, My lord look at all those options. I know Honda did ok here for the masses in which the VFR was designed to fill. I'm one of those that wants a little more in the get up and go. but yea probably not going tocpan out price wise, but nothing looked into is here say.