Mmm, that's true, then again they have a whole load of experience behind them.
Sam, seriously mate, I've always told you this, both about cars and about your bikes...(and you never seem to listen to, not just me, but many other people as well.. I sometimes think why do I/we bother mate..:shrug just buy whatever you can afford to purchase, run and insure, and leave it standard. Any money you spend will likely not improve the performance by even 0.5%, you'll be wasting money onto a car you're likely to run in to the ground and sell for £100 when you're done with it after 2 years..
My honest suggestion? Buy a good-ish condition Mini or something as small/cheap/unwanted with a few bits on it..alloys and the like..nothing out of the ordinary, just the sort of standard mods you'd have. AND LEAVE IT.
K&N air filters do nothing, the most you're likely to gain by "upgrading" an air filter is 2 or 3 bhp if (AND ONLY IF) you change the exhaust and rejet or reprogram the ECU (us bikers call it Power Commander don't know what the equivalent is for cars)
Or you know what? Buy a P plate Vauxhaul Astra 1.6 and leave it standard. It'll last forever and will be cheap to run. JUST ****ING LEAVE IT STANDARD DON'T ****ING MOD IT...
K&N filters will not add 2-3bhp, that is a huge increase, especially in a low power engine. There is no point in reprogramming the ECU when you change your air filter, it is already designed to accommodate and adapt for different grades of fuel and air flow. An ECU only has to be mapped after substantial changes to the engines internals. Putting bigger jets on to try and confuse the ECU into putting more fuel into the engine is just plain stupid and will only result in anything useful if the engine is highly modified, remapped and can't get sufficient fuel out of the standard system (very unusual).
Get a nice E30 over a cheap E36 Evo anyday. Having worked on a few road M3s there really is a huge difference between the well looked after cars and £2000 worth of M3. Finding a well looked after car is hard, most cars have either been abused, crashed or stripped for racing. I'd spend the money on getting a good condition non-M3 anyday.
Only if, as I said, you also change the exhaust system and rejet (in the case of carbed vehicles) or reprogram the ECU in the case of a fuel injected vehicle.
In many cases, at least on motorcycles, if you change the air filter and exhaust, if you don't remap or rejet you can actually lose power and the delivery will be poor. After a remap, exhaust and high performance filter change on a bike with 100bhp, 107 or 108bhp is common. As is the case with cars if you change the intake and exhaust you should remap accordingly to, at the very least, improve delivery.
Putting bigger jets on is not always necessary and putting the biggest jets available is very rarely helpful. Putting bigger injectors on is utterly pointless in 99% of cases. An air filter does not ever warrant a re-map or re-jetting, any gains possible could have been had without the filter. Exhausts are completely different, significant gains can be had through changing the exhaust (not just the back box) and intake.
Oh come on, what possible harm is going to come of a car parked in public view the only thing you might be able to do is show someone who knows a car where it has been at some point, with this in mind I've carefully decided to blur out anything that might cause trouble in these pictures of my cars...
Just in case you can't see them the registration numbers are L112 VVC and T485 TUM, as you can see they're clearly displayed on the cars for all to see...
I didn't say "putting a bigger jet". Or the biggest for that matter. I said a "rejet". Am I coming across completely wrong or are you just not reading?
A remap of fuel injected cars/bikes is nothing mechanical and is almost always electronic and uses a box which then can adjust the fuel/air ratio and increase fuel at certain RPM, and equally reduce it at others. But then again I guess you know this.
Can't speak for cars but in a motorcycle if you change the air filter to a BMC one (because K&N are shit) you should remap or rejet to maximize performance performance game without it possibly affecting delivery or causing backfires or unsmooth delivery...... You may not HAVE to but you should anyway to be safe. Then again, very few people upgrade the intake without changing the exhaust, unless you're a chav. You don't get chavs on motorcycles (scooters don't count! :hide
As I said in the case of, at least motorcycles, people tend to change the air filter when they change the exhaust to maximize performance and then they get their bikes dynojetted or power commandeered. The purpose of a dynojet or a power commander isn't specifically to improve horsepower. It's designed to smooth out delivery and get rid of flat spots, and in some cases increase economy and improve on poor factory settings. Power gains are generally a bi-product, such as is with ABS and reducing stopping distances.
_________
Jack, seriously if I wanted to take a licence plate down and stick it on my car, all I have to do is look out of the ****ing window. You can see more cars in my local Sainsburys in a 20ft radius then you will ever post online. Seriously..
And I know I have done it before, but then again I'm a twat. Sorry.
@ AJP, sorry, but how is putting bigger fuel injectors on a car "utterly pointless 99.9% of case" ? Providing the ECU has been mapped for them, and everything is in check, how can it not? Its sending a larger ammount of fuel into the cylinders. Sure, it may not affect completely standard engines (although it will make an increase of power of some sort, like i said, providing it has been mapped accordingly), but if you've had a rebuild with uprated parts, then sometimes, the standard injectors just would'nt be sufficient. So therefore, your engine would not be producing the power it has potential for.
Apologies I didn't really think properly, once a carb has been jetted correctly changing an air filter should not require a rejet, any benefit is likely to be largely down to other factors having changed (ie. adjusters slipping). Many mass produced cars had preset carbs, jettable carbs are only beneficial if a carb has to go onto different engines or a highly modified engine.
Putting bigger injectors (which is originally what I thought you were talking about) onto cars is something that certain types get conned into doing by the same cowboys that run most rolling roads. Putting bigger jets on carbs does have potential benefit but not if you go in blindly with the principle that bigger is better.
If it doesn't run fine with a different air filter something is dangerously wrong, improving flow is unlikely to cause stutter with a carb, restricted air flow can do. Any engine should be able to run quite happily with a reasonably clogged up standard air filter right up to no filter at all, if it can't there's an issue.
Valve timing and the air intake determine how much fuel is required to maintain the stoichiometric mixture, there is no good reason why an engine should intentionally run richer. Given that most people who put an injector kit on are running standard cams (complete with variable timing) and the standard intake (but with a million horsepower filter) there is no reason why they need bigger injectors. What's worse is they often seem to be sold/people have the idea that putting bigger injectors on without remapping will allow them to get more fuel in, this may be the case but only because the lambda will shit itself and the ECU will adjust as much as it can but even with the lowest fueling its permitted to use it can't get a high enough air:fuel ratio.
Putting big injectors on a standard/lightly modified road engine and mapping the ECU to suit will result in achieving nothing but burning money, the new injectors should inject just as much fuel as the old ones were able to.
All engines accommodate for air flow within reason, given that the difference in air flow of an air filter is going to be negligible in the real world it's not going to be outside the design limits of air flow so there will be no advantage in remapping or rejetting the engine directly related to the air filter, any gain that could be had could be done before a the air filter is changed.
Changing the air filter does NOT require a remap. Changing the air filter does not require the exhaust to be changed. Changing the exhaust does not require the air filter to be changed. Changing the exhaust WILL require a remap. Petrol Cars and bikes are the same - OTTO cycle engines. No differences whatsoever in the working principles.
BMC and K&N are probably almost identical in their final product specifications. You just think one brand is 'shit' because you read it in Ride.
Lots of chavs have motorbikes.
People change the air filter because they've been told to by the person they're giving the money to, not because they understand the needs of an engine on a road.
I refute the bi-product claim as nonsense.
In 99.9% of cases the engines haven't been modified. Putting bigger injectors just messes up the fuelling BADLY. If it were as simple as just remapping bigger injectors to suit, why don't ALL engines have one size of injector? Because other factors are important - to do with reaction times, atomisation and that sort of thing.
Increasing power on a standard engine via a remap will always be detrimental to fuel economy and emissions (and probably exhaust catalyst life). Trying to increase power by bolting on a set of 'bigger' injectors will probably reduce power, worsen economy, destroy emissions and make the cat move to an alley.
As said it does not NEED a remap but in some cases can be beneficial. How many motorcycles do you see with 20 inch rims on a 1.2 Corsa with Neons and a 4inch exhaust tip from Halfrauds?
I didn't say changing the exhaust also requires an air filter change. I said many people do them together so then they can dyno and rejet/reprogram their bikes for maximum gain. That's not what I said and is going on false logic.
Indeed most fuel injected motorcycles have places in the rev range where fuelling is cut to pass emissions regulations. Also it could just be poor fuelling which leads to poor delivery and a snatch response.
As a first people powercommander/dynojet their bikes to remove these flatspots, some of which can appear after changing an exhaust and SOMETIMES in CERTAIN BIKES an air filter. However normally after doing both. Mods for motorcycles tend to be spread much more by word of mouth than that of in a publication. For example the majority of people on the SV owners website have a BMC filter. Why? Because I hear it can give more performance gain if you take the race filter and you'll get a small performance gain but won't need to rejet if you take the road filter.. Us bikers tend to buy things online so none of the "the man at the shop told me to" stuff.
Talking of which I need to order a BMC filter... MMM.
Rarely is it beneficial on an air filter alone - more than likely it would have had the same benefit without changing the filter.
No, but you get bikes with tinted double bubble screens, or carbon huggers, or tyres chosen 99% because of the tread pattern, or rear sets on 250s, or single seat conversions or whatever. Bling. Rice. For chavs (mostly). Of course, just like with cars, all the parts they use have genuine uses, but the Bike Ricer only cares about looks.
But as there is no gain or need to be had from rejetting between airfilter brands (unless you go for a race filter that lets small rocks through it) there is no maximum gain in this regard. Within the example of air filters and exhausts, you either do remap for the exhaust, or you don't at all - the fitting or not of the air filter is neither here nor there...
No, the fuel isn't 'cut'. The fuel is brought to a level near stoich that is ideal for emissions rather than torque. Yes, you can remap around that, but it's more of a psychological change than one that'll make the bike quicker or easier to ride on the road.
You are quoting comments straight from another internet forum or a mass-media bike magazine - and it's obvious that the original user of the phrase "it could just be poor fuelling which leads to poor delivery and a snatch response" won't be getting a job tuning engines any time soon.
So it's the blind leading the blind? You like BMC filters because someone else says they're good. You can use the disclaimer that 'some' bikes 'some of the time' will get an improvement too - that is true - but it's far from the general truth, and says more about certain bikes having dirty or very very cheap filters to start with than anything else...
Ricing chav You're no better than sam93 (except you have two wheels, which I respect and am jealous of).
To be fair Tristan double bubble screens actually do help reduce windblast. Carbon fibre huggers keep dirt off your rear shock and undertray and look trick and weigh little. Rearsets give you more contact patch on the pegs, often bringing increased groundclearance for greater lean angle and control. Decent rearsets are around £350 and thus it's rare they're ever bought just for the sake of it. Single seat units tend to be no more than a cover that clips in where the seat would go and are just used to make the bike look tidier when a pillion is not being carried. Besides most girls just ruin the fun.
The tyres you speak of are chosen mainly because of positive recommendations from fellow owners or previous experiences, or just trying a new set.
The fact the Michelin Pilot Road 2ct has an attractive (in my opinion) tread pattern doesn't mean it's not a good tyre. It has excellent dry grip and has confidence inspiring wet grip. It also lasts for around 8k which is good considering the grip on offer. Again it's mainly recommendations, word of mouth. Generally from fellow owners (bikes are very picky to rubber.. IE a Diablo Corsa may be brilliant on a Ducati 1198 but on a Kawasaki Z1000 it may not work as well). IE I know that the choice of rubber for my bike is either Avon Storms, Continental Road Attack (what I have currently), Pilot Road 2ct or the Pilot Power. Many people have run these tyres and bring positive feedback. They all have fancy tread patterns. (Good news for me >_> :hide
Remember my old RS125? Around 6000 rpm the fueling was CUT to meet emissions regulations. In 6th gear it would not pull past 6000rpm because of this. Infact it was a right pain in the arse in any gear. It happens on my SV650 as well, at around 3500rpm, but being a 4T and having much more torque anyway it's not noticeable! On my Z around 4500rpm it would have a flatspot.
A Pipercross airfilter will add 3bhp to a KTM RC8 as it's an official factory option, just for example. It's recommended you also have the bike remapped to suit (or so I see from a post on their forum or something)
And mm, maybe I am a chav.. loud can.. check.. single seat unit.. check... tyres with a funky tread pattern (never mind they've lasted a bloody long time and grip well!) check
Only thing I need now are some Xenon headlights and a NOS sticker.
On some bikes with some riders
But do they NEED to be kept clean - they'd probably last just as long without one. So I think it comes down to looks and what they do on race bikes.
Straight out of a Rearsets catalogue methinks
Or are bought because they're expensive and therefore 'must be good'.
But it's still high up weight - the main reason they're done (just like Corsas with bodykits) is for looks. And I'm of the opinion no bike needs to be modified for looks, as they all look great standard!
But the tread pattern is a significant part of that. I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference between makes of tyre yourself, so as long as they're round, black, last long enough, are affordable and look good you'll have them over a set that do everything else as well but look less good even if they're a bit cheaper...
Straight out of a tyre catalogue...
So they say. I have my doubts really...
But could you tell the difference in a blind test (not blindfolded - that would be dangerous)?
2-stroke
But I doubt it cuts the fuel, it's just a small flatspot. You'd be lucky to measure the difference on the road deleting that would give.
Is that what they claim?!?!? I wonder if the gains have to get type approval, or if it's just marketting bullshit... Or maybe they make the standard filter extra restrictive so they can sell optional filters!
You have a loud exhaust as well? Blimey... Just an end can?
Shocks can corrode pretty easily on most bikes and performance will decrease. My standard shock is slightly rusty, however the ZX10r shock I have fitted (and set up, not just a bolt on trick bit :razz is clean as a whistle mainly thanks to my hugger
They genuinly do give an advantage.
As said most single seat units are simply a piece of colour plastic which clip on where the seat would go. Most weigh less than the equivalent normal seat
I think you're wrong, and that you're completely not understanding
I had Bridgestone BT014s on my old Z750. When they were warm they were good. When they were cold they were shit. When it was wet, they were shit. When the weather was cold, even after a quick run, the tyres were still not warm and offered poor feedback.
The Dunlop GPR-Alpha 10's I had on my RS were quick to warm up and gave me no troubles in the dry or the wet. The Dunlop Qualifier I replaced them with took a long time to warm up and I found offered little grip. You can tell ALOT more of a difference between bike tyres than you could a car, ever ever..
But they do.. Certain tyres tend to go better with certain bikes. Just down to the profile of the tyre and geometry of the suspension.
No, while you may not be able to say "Oh this is a <insert tyre name> you could certainly tell handling differences and you could say, in your opinion, which is a better tyre.
Meh Ning ning ning.
It wouldn't give a measurable distance but that's not so much the point. It's to remove the flatspots so they're not there!
To be fair at £45 it's hardly a big profit either way.
When I say factory option I believe they just stick one in for you rather than taking a chunk of the profit...
Yup just a slip-on. Sounds nice. Will be thinking about getting a Hi-level M4 full system shipped in from the states and spending some time on the dyno rejetting.
Dunno how long I'm going to keep the bike though so it's just plans.
Maybe car ones are just made properly, or bikers fall for stuff more easily...
Of course they do. The average biker wouldn't be able to get to the shops without them.
I understand completely.
Of course they did. You keep telling yourself that.
Of course you can. I'll humour you for the time being...
Or so you believe. Have you ever measured the difference, or are you just going on what people say (which is probably because they've heard it from someone else, etc)?
Or you just fall for it, and think it's better because someone told you it would be.
Do you even know what a flatspot is?
Probably a bigger profit per pound than on the bike itself!
They've got you properly conditioned haven't they... If they tell you that blue brake levers offer better braking stability you'd probably fit them and think they were better too...
Banging my head against an irrevocable brick wall Huh?
Yes, my BT014's were shit. It's a well documented fact. The fact I have pushed them right to their limits and I can tell they were poor. They also let go with NO warning as I found out when I wrote it off. I blame my riding. However the tyres DID NOT help.
The "average biker" doesn't have rearsets. As I said they cost and arm (and a foot!) so it's reserved for faster road riders and those that do alot of trackdays. Infact the most common mods are a rear hugger, a slip on and a scottoiler.
And what is the issue with surface rust on a shock absorber, it has absolutely no effect on the operation of the shock, so long as the shock is sealed, the piston is lubricated and any adjusters don't get damaged the shock should keep going indefinitely, it won't because it will either leak, the piston will seize due to lack of lubrication, the piston will get bent or the adjusters will get damaged, the chance of your shock lasting so long it leaks due to corrosion of the body is very low. If endurance rally cars can spend tens of thousands of miles through the most abrasive conditions without ever having to replace a shock absorber because it's corroded then what's the risk for you pottering down a clean tarmac road, and actively trying to avoid riding it in bad weather?
If you're concerned about aerodynamics (which you're not) using aviation tape to cover any gaps left by removing the seat would be a far better trade off with weight distribution (and a lot cheaper).
Whatever, I know on the tyres I've driven hard on I can only really tell the difference between cheap and overly worn tyres (scary wet or dry, weird unpredictable balance and low grip levels), premium road tyres (be they Continentals, Avons, Goodyears) to be honest I can't really tell the difference, the difference in grip level, noise, and behaviour is so close that you really can't tell the difference even driving them back to back, and semi-slicks, again only noticeable to due the huge change in grip level and the behaviour is slightly different on the limit. On the road the only sign in the dry is the road noise and level of grip before the limit, if you can feel the true limit of your tyres on the road you're driving far too fast.
Yeah sure it's as effective as pre-war race mechanics filling the flat spots out of needles, theoretically possible, and some probably could do it but I'm sure the vast majority of the time it was just bullshit, the kind of stuff you'd buy.
Cost of a standard air filter = 50p?
Cost of a performance filter = £5 maybe
~90% profit margin, rather large if you ask me...
Motorcycle shocks are worked far harder than car ones and have to put up with all the elements. They go weak and they DO lose their performance.
It has NOTHING to do with weight and NOTHING to do with areodynamics. I hope another motorcyclist can come into this thread.. all you car drivers seriously have no idea.
So every motorcyclist ever is wrong then? That's why almost every manufacturer spends MILLIONS trying to improve their tyres. To be fair having 4 contact patches means you don't notice AS MUCH, especially sat in a chair controlling them through several mechanical linkages.
Being sat ON the thing, feeling every single bump and ripple through your arse, hands and feeling every tiny slip and slide gives you a much greater feel. Put me on a set of Dunlop D220s (shit) and then onto a set of Avon Storms (not shit) and within 5 miles I could (as well as pretty much any motorcyclist) which was the Avons.
I didn't follow the whole thread, but i know for a fact there is very significant differences in different tires.
When i bought my first 944 turbo, it had worn out tires in the back, which i've replaced. The tires that were on the car weren't available anymore on the market, so i had different tires in the rear and front (both very good and not exactly cheap tires from the same brand (Pirelli P7000 in the front, P Zero in the back). The tires were both very good, but since they have different "geometry", you could notice very well that the rear of the car wasn't "balanced" with the front. And you didn't have to drive the car at its limits to notice it. This behaviour was completely gone after replacing the front tires aswell, with matching tires for the rear ones.
There is huge differences in different tires, even from the same brand.
just buy whatever you can afford to purchase, run and insure, and leave it standard. Any money you spend will likely not improve the performance by even 0.5%, you'll be wasting money onto a car you're likely to run in to the ground and sell for £100 when you're done with it after 2 years..
