Really good discussions, I'm very impressed with the amount of work that has gone into some of your performance mods.
To address the question, sure you can remove the air box to fit a smaller footprint solution, but what price are you willing to pay in performance and cost? The box is a PITA and I too would like nothing better then to remove it, but I'm not willing to give up sound and low end to do it, unless mid-range torque can be improved. The comments on this thread are second to none, but they all give up something for another. The one factor you can't get away from is you can't get something for nothing. You will always give up something for another, flatout performance for MPG, size, sound, you name and you will be trading up or down as the case may be.
Granted, there are performance cases where you can have your cake and eat it too, but the give up there is money...
K1300R would be a better solution for performance increases. Not sue about the air box accessibility though...
John
Any alternative to that @#$% airbox?
Moderator: Moderators
- AirForceDirt
- Basic User
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:30 pm
- Location: Afghanistan
Re: Any alternative to that @#$% airbox?
Cheap, Reliable, Fast. You can have any two, but never all three.

Re: Any alternative to that @#$% airbox?
That's all very interesting, including the articles that were linked.
Learn something every day.
Thanks for all the enlightening discussion.
But allow me to still hate fighting with that airbox! :-)
Learn something every day.
Thanks for all the enlightening discussion.
But allow me to still hate fighting with that airbox! :-)
Re: Any alternative to that @#$% airbox?
Excuse my ignorance but what does "FPR" stand for?
And secondly let me mention that different dynos can yield very different results. Especially if one diagram says on top "high comp pistons" and another says nothing of that kind. It is a fact that removing the airbox and replacing the latter with coned filters you'll loose power and torque ... That is a proven fact and tested on many bikes. And this has nothing to do with removing (or moving) the sensors.
But anyway the initial issue was something else and I can only repeat, yes the airbox can be removed and replaced with coned filters.
I personally would not do so for the simple reason that a) I rarely need to dismantle my bike where the airbox is a disturbing factor and b) I prefer power and torque improvements over accessibility of the rear frame ...
Do as you wish ...
Best regards
Oliver
And secondly let me mention that different dynos can yield very different results. Especially if one diagram says on top "high comp pistons" and another says nothing of that kind. It is a fact that removing the airbox and replacing the latter with coned filters you'll loose power and torque ... That is a proven fact and tested on many bikes. And this has nothing to do with removing (or moving) the sensors.
But anyway the initial issue was something else and I can only repeat, yes the airbox can be removed and replaced with coned filters.
I personally would not do so for the simple reason that a) I rarely need to dismantle my bike where the airbox is a disturbing factor and b) I prefer power and torque improvements over accessibility of the rear frame ...
Do as you wish ...
Best regards
Oliver
- AirForceDirt
- Basic User
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:30 pm
- Location: Afghanistan
Re: Any alternative to that @#$% airbox?
Not 100% true. Sure, the way the boxermania had his set up was less than ideal, mainly due to the air desires of a fuel injected engine. If one were to, for instance, leave the downpipes from the airbox to the throttlebodies, you'd have a much happier EFI than having the throttlebody suck in it's own air from the surrounding environment. Has something to do with air turbulence in the intake of combustion engines. Fuel injected engines (car or bike) do not want turbulent air swirling around in the throttlebody and tossed into the chamber, it runs much better with smooth, cool air.omg1010 wrote: It is a fact that removing the airbox and replacing the latter with coned filters you'll loose power and torque ... That is a proven fact and tested on many bikes. And this has nothing to do with removing (or moving) the sensors.
In fact, removing the airbox will have the effect, as already mentioned, of leaning out the A/F mixture. This in turn increases horsepower and torque, but too much air, and the bike won't run properly. Adding more fuel to the combustion process cools down the engine more, and will improve throttle response, but overall lowers power and torque output. the problem is finding a balance between extra power and throttle response to be able to use said power.

-
boxermania
- Quadruple Lifer
- Posts: 3644
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:37 pm
- Location: Baton Rouge, LA.....aproaching retirement
Re: Any alternative to that @#$% airbox?
Oliver
FPR is short for Fuel Pressure Regulator
The GS dyno run posted asked to look at the Red traces representative of the stock dyno run, the blue traces were superimposed with the listed mods. I was only interested in showing stock runs of both the GS and the R for torque comparison.
I have never aluded to any performance gain by moving the sensor and the test plug, you do have to relocate them as they are part of the airbox cover which is no longer there.
FPR is short for Fuel Pressure Regulator
I had already made reference to that in the earlier post.And secondly let me mention that different dynos can yield very different results
The GS dyno run posted asked to look at the Red traces representative of the stock dyno run, the blue traces were superimposed with the listed mods. I was only interested in showing stock runs of both the GS and the R for torque comparison.
I have never aluded to any performance gain by moving the sensor and the test plug, you do have to relocate them as they are part of the airbox cover which is no longer there.
Member #312
06 Suzuki Burgman 650 "state of flux"
79 CBX
06 Suzuki Burgman 650 "state of flux"
79 CBX