Ham can v.s. K&N

Status
Not open for further replies.
maylar

maylar

VIP MEMBER
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
4,213
Country flag
To anyone who has switched from the pleated paper ham can air cleaner to the K&N oiled type, have you noticed any difference in air flow? Made any changes to jetting?

I made the change to accommodate a CnW e-start install, and noticed that I need less choke on a cold start which would suggest that it's actually more restrictive than stock. Just wondering if anybody else has an opinion on this.
 
Some are...
Ham can v.s. K&N
Ham can v.s. K&N
Ham can v.s. K&N
 
comnoz said:
The regular single K&N for twin Amals is more restrictive than the ham can.

I have flow tested them both.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's what I suspected. My plugs still look ok, and the bike runs great, so I don't think I'll modify my jetting.
 
Got the same filter TT which is almost like the one that came on the bike 40-ish years ago.... never have used the chokes even in the upper 30's, and plugs look as good as any pair of Amals leaves them.
 
I've often wondered about the Ham Can and Plenum intakes.
Eric Buell designed a huge plenum box for the Buells that had a ton of engineering in it.
Most guys ripped them off, (because it was unsightly) and put a K&N on and decreased their performance.
I can absolutely confirm that 3 pods on a Kawasaki H1 deceases air flow vs the stock plenum.
Then I reflect back on the Norton Ham can from the 60's, (When Triumph, BSA etc had pods) and ask, was Norton ahead of the Game?

I also think the Stacks in the Ham Can is Brilliant.....
 
I’ve used a K&N that’s the same size shape as the original paper filter and fits perfectly inside the ham can. Seems to have worked very well since I started using it in 1998. No jetting changes needed. It’s the last air filter I will need to buy.
 
I just actually paid attention to the filter shown in the original post. Looks to me like the filter itself would make a pretty good "choke." Heck, if the filter area was any smaller I'd call that filter a "container." :)
 
For years I used a K&N dual air filter and then went to the ham can. I can confirm that with a clean paper filter it makes a huge difference to pick up from low speeds. I cannot remember a difference at high end because I do not use that many rpm in the crowded roads of Sussex. The filter you show looks like it would restrict air flow at all rpm.
 
The one I'm using is the same as TT''s in post #7. Overall the performance is quite satisfactory, but I miss the pretty ham can.
 
When I look at the paper filter for the ham can, when rounded, it’s like many CAR engine filters of yester-(carburetted) year. 2-3 times the displacement)
That is a GOOD thing.
Paper filters fine particulate better than any other media. Large area = little restriction.
Aside from it barely fitting in there, and not a stiff plate to seal, they got it RIGHT.
 
Well... I've no complaint on performance with the K&N. It does the job and doesn't hinder the bike, and also it is easy to remove/install giving it an overall big + for me.... If perchance my horsepower were hampered a tad I'm not after that little bit because I don't use it anyway these days. Am satisfied with good running and no puking/stall/miss/blubber/etc..... She's as quick as ever anyway so I'd be pleased with empty beer can/toilet paper construction.
 
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.

Glen
 
Last edited:
The pancake filter on a single carb will strangle the bike, a mate had his bike dynoed and there was an instant 5hp gain on removing the pancake filter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Narrow k&N air filter NOT ham can style
Replies
5
Views
938
maylar
maylar
Back
Top