Kev, the airbox lid from OTR just replaces the stock one, but without the snorkel that extends forward to behind the cylinder. It does look like a bit of a rip-off for the money, I'm tempted to do what J-mo says and get the stanley knife to it!

Thanks for clearing that up for me, not ever seeing the XTZ in Australia makes things a little hard for me.

I found out today we will only see the XTZ at the end of 2009 & the XTX may no longer be imported into Australia as I wanted to order a 2009 model for next year, looks like my XTX days are numbered.:Christo_pull_hair:

Hi Kev, picture this, look at the pic of the OTR, the four small holes are where the screws go, the stock sits on the exact same place but simply has a snorkel kind of extension from the OTR that curves and points towards the engine. The point of OTR's is that it doesn't have that snorkel that points near the engine; therefore, less heat. In other words, we are talking about around 4 inches difference, and the stock's opening faces towards the front while the OTR's points upwards. That is also why JMo's earlier comments refer to a cheaper solution of just sawing off that snorkel extension which is made in rubber, and you will have the same thing as the OTR's.

Thanks mate I now under stand.

In my eyes the OTR intake is still way to small. Take the surface area of your filter against the intake size of the throttle body against lets say 5000 RPM, the motor can suck around 170 cfm, one would need to flow bench the air box on the XTZ with it's filter in to see what size intake is needed. With my +2mm throttle body the motor can draw up to 195cfm. On the dyno if I remove my stage 1 & stage 2 filter with my stage 1 cam I get a 1.5hp gain, which shows me even with both my DNA stage 1 & 2 filters I still need more air & a bigger air filter.

Something Kenny wrote below & as you read you will see these motor love more air flow.

That leaves us to power output, which there are many weaknesses in factory form because of production compromises. Almost anything you do to this motor is worth power, and that part in return will add cumulative gains as the build gets more aggressive. For example, a good performance oriented valve job alone can be worth a stunning 30 CFM gain (@28"). Our CNC ported head is worth over 100 CFM of improvement. This will bring about the obvious question of port velocity. This is not your average motorcycle engine. This engine has a rod/stroke ratio of 1.6:1 and lack of velocity is not a problem, as a matter of fact, we need to add runner volume. I will go into my design theories at a later date. At the moment I need to get a cam and supporting hardware so I can design and start producing the parts for these......Then we can get a couple of different dyno proven packages together.:028:

Hi Kev - I see others have explained about the snorkle, but regarding your post above - the hole in the centre of the ring is about 4 inches across, so pretty decent - and is really limited by the size of the air filter itself. The Tenere uses a cylindrical (car type) paper filter in the centre of the airbox - the internal diameter of which corresponds to the hole in the top plate/snorkle. If it were any bigger, it wouldn't seal around the filter (which sucks air from the inside of the filter out into the airbox if you see what I mean)...

Hope that helps clarify?

xxx

With regards to how much the DNA airfilter increases gas consumption, I posted the question a while back asking if anyone has tried both stock and DNA filters and compared the gas consumption. I haven't heard anything but I am checking again.

I guess I am still unsettled by the amount of increase I've experienced. For me, it's great that increasing airflow makes the engine runs better and perhaps slightly more powerful, but if it is in the expense of significant drop in gas mileage which is a huge edge for the Tenere over any other bikes out there, touring or allroad types, then I will have to re-evaluate.

That's why I'm hesitating doing the airfilter&Powercommander hop-up. I like the good fuel consumption I now have and it'll likely change after the hop-up. And actually it runs fine right now and I don't need any more power: I'm more an easy rider&touring minded, so it'll do just fine. Greetz, Hans.

DNA filter
 

I just came back from doing copenhagen to Cameroun on an xt660Z with a DNA filter, my buddy on the trip rode his xt660z with the stock filter right next to me the whole way and there was never any big difference at the pumps. we have seen consumption figures from 17 km/l on the german Autobahn to 28 km/l when we keep it under 80 km/h but the difference between the bikes is never more that 0.5 liters and more often than not he uses more fuel than i do.

I do prefer the sound and i think the bike might be a bit more powerful with the DNA filter + it was a lot easier to clean after we crossed the sahara than the stock filter.

just my 2 cents.

oh and on a different note Torsten from OTR has been great in helping out and sending the stuff we needed for the trip.

Supervaca
www.bannedfromsudan.com

airbox tinkering
 

guys,

I did a great deal of it on my Triumph, which has a similar filter and snorkel as the Tenere. A surprising amount was gained, but only after re-jetting (I presume you'd need to re-program the Tenere's injection to compensate for the extra air) When I was done with it, the airbox mod's alone gave me at the back wheel what the standard motor made at the crank. My figures measured on a dyno', against Triumph's bhp (brochure horse power)

However, the difference in the airbox sound was the best benefit for me. I've resisted messing with the Tenere's airbox, for the same reasons as Hans, but I had a lot of fun working on the Triumph, here's how it sounded:

Hey supervaca, been following your adventures at bannedfromsudan. A lot of nice pictures and I would love to hear all your thoughts on the bike and the trip. Maybe drop a few lines in the McThor section?

And I can see why a DNA was a good idea. =)