Ham can v.s. K&N

Status
Not open for further replies.
worntorn said:
A buddy rode 800 miles on gravel in South America, oiled K&N pods fitted.
His total trip was about 17,000 miles so he pulled the engine down for inspection afterward.
The bores were still perfect. K&Ns work.
Just make sure the surface area is big enough to avoid restriction. That ring filter in the first post looks restrictive.

Flen
Click to expand...
hard to wear out those iron cylinders , but check your pistons and piston ring grooves!
 
He did that with the leakdown test, it passed with flying colours.
That South America trip was in the nineties and the bike is still running on all the same engine parts, not sure of the mileage today.

Glen
 
An old, bold racer looked at my K & N "replacement-for-the-near-round" stock filter when we were doing some jetting changes and said, "take that off, I want to show you something". After I did, he turned the twist grip open and said "stick your finger in the carb until you touch the needle and tell me what you see". My finger came out with a fine sheen of oily dust where it had touched the carb bore. He just looked at and asked "do you want to put that filter back on your bike?" I've never had another on any of my Nortons since then.
YMMV, and that's fine. No K & Ns for me.

B. Henderson, NC USA
 
A dual air cleaner as shown below will have plenty of flow (the single aircleaners are more restrictive). The K&Ns are reusable and they work pretty good when oiled. It really comes down to what carbs you want to use. If you want better carbs than Amals then you might have to ditch the ham can.

Then again I know of someone who adapted the original ham can to a set of Keihin CRS smoothbores.

A freshly oiled k&N will suck some oil mist into the carb and dust will temporarily stick to the oily carb. A dry paper aircleaner won't suck any oil into the carb and the dust will just disappear into the engine. Neither one is perfect but the original ham can and the dual K&N both work well.

Ham can v.s. K&N
 
Last edited:
Not even KN claims that their products filter air as well as a paper filter. They do mention that they filter "better" once they get dirty which pretty much tells you that they don't filter very well. Since they filter better when dirty, they would also be more "restrictive" than when clean which may totally obviate any advantage they might have had over a stock paper filter.. But, of course, they ARE much better than no air filter!

There are a lot of allegedly "objective" dyno tests with KN filters on the web and the results are extremely variable - from less HP compared to stock to considerably more. I saw a stock Camaro dyno test that gained 24 HP with just a drop-in KN filter compared to the OEM paper filter. Another test (different car) showed no difference between OEM and KN. So it seems the only way to find out if a KN is a performance improvement on a particular vehicle is to buy/install one on your vehicle and dyno or track-test it. It is definitely NOT a filtering improvement. ;)
 
All the K&N filter photos are of the small or thin type. I’m using NO-0100 part number. It’s the same size as the original paper filter and fits into the ham can. After 21 years it seems to work fine and how many paper filters would you need in 21 years at 35,000 miles?
 
comnoz said:
So JS sent air filters for testing. Here is the test setup. 34mm

Ham can v.s. K&N


Here are the air filters I tested at JS request. All were tested dry except the K&N"s which were pre oiled.

Ham can v.s. K&N


From left to right.
First -Open carb- no air filter --------------------------------------- 206.5 CFM
#1 dry unifilter -half taped up to simulate a short filter --------181.6 CFM
#2 dry unifilter - full length--------------------------------------------181.9 CFM
#3 Taiwan K&N copy -dry #150154-----------------------------------181.2 CFM
#4 Emgo K&N copy - dry #150035-------------------------------------178.3 CFM
#5 XS K&N copy -dry----------------------------------------------------195.2 CFM
#6 K&N dual filter -one side taped up-oiled------------------------163.7 CFM
#7 same as above with no tape---------------------------------------195.2 CFM
#8 stock paper filter -non baffled backplate------------------------204.5 CFM
Click to expand...

comnoz said:
Here are some flow rates I tested previously for comparison.

FCR 35 with velocity stack-------------------------------228.3 CFM
FCR 35 with small CNW K&N -oiled----------------------206.6 CFM
Mikuni vm34 -open or velocity stack, no change----194.5 CFM
Mikuni vm32 -open or velocity stack, no change----190.8 CFM
Amal 30mm concentric w/offset velocity stack------175.9 CFM
Amal 32mm concentric w/offset velocity stack------188.8 CFM

The Amals loose 15% of flow without the velocity stack. Jim
Click to expand...
 
One thing that needs to be considered when selecting carbs/filters is the WOT max flow capability of the particular engine. IOW, if an engine needs, say 650 CFM of airflow to produce maximum power, having a filter (and/or carburetor) that can flow 750 CFM is NOT an upgrade and it could be a noticeable downgrade performance-wise. I don't know what the airflow max of a Norton Commando stock motor might be but, again, if a pair of Concentrics can provide it, there is no power advantage to a larger carb. Same is true of filters. Obviously, once again, the dyno, or better yet, track testing is the best way to make a decision.

Can't wait 'till electric vehicles have enough range to make IC engines a footnote in the cosmic memoir! :)
 
Hmmm...

FCR 35 with velocity stack-------------------------------228.3 CFM
FCR 35 with small CNW K&N -oiled----------------------206.6 CFM

I’d put money on the fact that not many Cdo’s need 228.3 CFM.

I dyno’d my 850 with FCR 35s and the difference between K&Ns and stacks was less than 2bhp.

Seems to me that if your set up allows you to run the Ham Can, then do so.

If not, run K&Ns cos back here in the real world, they will work just fine.

If you really need that last 2bhp, run stacks !
 
"I’d put money on the fact that not many Cdo’s need 228.3 CFM."

I'd agree with that considering a 650CFM carb/single plane manifold can supply all the air a warmed-over 350 Chevy motor can use - 7X the displacement (more than 7X the power) with 3x the carb size. ;)
 
Ive heard the K&N needs to pressure pulsing from the non continuous air flow produced by the engine to generate a vibration in the filter fibers to achieve its full filtering potential. Any bench testing needs to replicate that to be fair. The vibrations create variable air passages and help get dirt into contact with more of the oil.

Paper elements when fresh flow good. Its once they get loaded that they degrade more than oiled or foam types.
 
Where's the K&N dual without tape and tested dry? Thats the one I want to see compared to the ham can. Personally I never oil the K&Ns but I do oil the unifilters (and leave them long).

Ham can v.s. K&N


Only the K&N was tested oiled.

From left to right.
First -Open carb- no air filter --------------------------------------- 206.5 CFM
#1 dry unifilter -half taped up to simulate a short filter --------181.6 CFM
#2 dry unifilter - full length--------------------------------------------181.9 CFM
#3 Taiwan K&N copy -dry #150154-----------------------------------181.2 CFM
#4 Emgo K&N copy - dry #150035-------------------------------------178.3 CFM
#5 XS K&N copy -dry----------------------------------------------------195.2 CFM
#6 K&N dual filter -one side taped up-oiled------------------------163.7 CFM
#7 same as above with no tape---------------------------------------195.2 CFM
#8 stock paper filter -non baffled backplate------------------------204.5 CFM
 
The 650ss has one of those dual K&Ns as TT posted.
I don't know about airflow but the silly thing revs so hard and high in top that I actually chickened out at 120 mph indicated on a high speed run. I suspect the speedo is generous, but probably not all that far out.
That bike loves to rev, even in top.

One day I'll put the GPS on to verify. On the aforementioned run, the scenery was melting and it just didn't feel right!

Glen
 
Blewdy Yaink said:
An old, bold racer looked at my K & N "replacement-for-the-near-round" stock filter when we were doing some jetting changes and said, "take that off, I want to show you something". After I did, he turned the twist grip open and said "stick your finger in the carb until you touch the needle and tell me what you see". My finger came out with a fine sheen of oily dust where it had touched the carb bore. He just looked at and asked "do you want to put that filter back on your bike?" I've never had another on any of my Nortons since then.
YMMV, and that's fine. No K & Ns for me.

B. Henderson, NC USA
Click to expand...


EGGFRICKINZACKLY.

I observed the same “clean side” grit on my 1980 XS1100. BINNED the K & N’s forever.
 
jseng1 said:
Where's the K&N dual without tape and tested dry? Thats the one I want to see compared to the ham can. Personally I never oil the K&Ns but I do oil the unifilters (and leave them long).

Ham can v.s. K&N


Only the K&N was tested oiled.

From left to right.
First -Open carb- no air filter --------------------------------------- 206.5 CFM
#1 dry unifilter -half taped up to simulate a short filter --------181.6 CFM
#2 dry unifilter - full length--------------------------------------------181.9 CFM
#3 Taiwan K&N copy -dry #150154-----------------------------------181.2 CFM
#4 Emgo K&N copy - dry #150035-------------------------------------178.3 CFM
#5 XS K&N copy -dry----------------------------------------------------195.2 CFM
#6 K&N dual filter -one side taped up-oiled------------------------163.7 CFM
#7 same as above with no tape---------------------------------------195.2 CFM
#8 stock paper filter -non baffled backplate------------------------204.5 CFM
Click to expand...


Ok Jim, I’ll bite.

Tell us WHY you don’t oil K & N’s, even though the maker says it must be oiled?
 
Well... my question would be: If you are using Amal Concentrics, based on Jim's air filter flow tests, why use anything but the Ham can?
 
I had a pair of foam sock type filters on the 850 once upon a time long ago, and I must admit she ran the best ever during that short window prior to going into storage.... They crumbled within a year and would have done so if I'd been riding. My 77 XLCR had an outer foam pre-filter which crumbled within a year or so leaving me mistrusting foam near intakes.
However they caught dust aplenty & gave good airflow.... Check your lawnmower or weedeater and I'll wager if you find foam on there that it is used as a pre-filter and not the primary.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bonzo
Ham can filter front cover. Painted or chrome?
Replies
13
Views
788
batrider
batrider
CanukNortonNut
Getting a cNw starter kit and wonder if this ham can would fit?
Replies
14
Views
921
CanukNortonNut
CanukNortonNut
Derek Wilson
  • Locked
No Ham Can? No Ignition Switch Bracket? No Problem!!
Replies
2
Views
873
Derek Wilson
Derek Wilson
CanukNortonNut
Baffled front plate for the ham can air filter
Replies
17
Views
1,423
Tornado
Tornado
S
  • Locked
Narrow k&N air filter NOT ham can style
Replies
5
Views
931
maylar
maylar
Back
Top