Stage 2 Airbox cover XT 660 Tenere 2008
 

Hum, looks good ;-)
Somebody bought one ?

http://www.off-the-road.de/xt660_ten...arts.html?&L=1

Not yet would be interesting to see the results.:icon_razz:

There are in holidays�
Sure, I will tru soon :tongue1:

A lot of money for a rubber ring with a great big hole in the middle, don't you think?

That bloke is really really taking the proverbial. I don't like it when a retailer speculates on the consumer just because they have an exclusive product. That Thorsten, is not my mate for sure. :mumum:

I'm sure you could make something very similar by taking a Stanley knife to the snorkle section on your original one? (that's what everyone does with Honda XR400s... x)

xxx

Exactly. I was staring at the pic for a long time and wondering what the big deal it was. Besides, my experience tells me so far the additional air intake significantly increases the gas consumption, i.e. by a 100km give or take. Can it be that much?

You've got it in one Jenny, if you don't know Thorsten at O-T-R the best way to descrive him to you is to compare him to one of those annoying egyptians in Cairo with carpets rolled over their shoulders, pockets full of moody Rolex watches and Mont Blanc pens trying to flog them to you and following you for miles until you buy one just to get rid of them. :toothy10:

No rocket science here, all they has done is add a second intake & move the intake to the back of the air box. It is well known that the XT motor loves more air flow & the cooler air will make a difference.

I did this mod to the XTX/R's a few years ago by drilling 30mm holes in the air box pre-filtered chamber. Once I can get my hands on a XTZ I am sure we will see a few mods from me, I am sure I could come up with something for the air box at half that price.:Tennis_ABHMXO:

If you add more air, then the EFi will correspondingly add more fuel to keep the air/fuel ratio the same (I believe the optimum is around 14:1) for correct combustion and therefore yes, if you increase the airflow by a certain percentage, then you can expect the fuel consumption to go up by a certain amount too...

Kev - to clarify, the new OTR part simply replaces the original and fits over the same aperture in the top of the airbox, it's not a second intake - it just scavenges from under the seat area rather than from directly behind the cylinder...

xxx

[quote=JMo;75459]If you add more air, then the EFi will correspondingly add more fuel to keep the air/fuel ratio the same (I believe the optimum is around 14:1) for correct combustion and therefore yes, if you increase the airflow by a certain percentage, then you can expect the fuel consumption to go up by a certain amount too... The optimum A;F ratio for the XT in power & fuel economy is around 13:1, having a the XT motor running at 14:1 may be good for emission control but this does not mean it is the best air/fuel ratio.

Kev - to clarify, the new OTR part simply replaces the original and fits over the same aperture in the top of the airbox, it's not a second intake - it just scavenges from under the seat area rather than from directly behind the cylinder... I am a little confused, if you are removing the standard intake & replacing it with a new intake in the same postion how does it change the intake point from behind the cylinder to under the seat. Going by the picture from OTR I can't see how it will make any difference unless they are not showing all the parts to be fitted & saying it is a stage two is well off the point, a stage 2 intake would mean there would be two intakes one would think.

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. =)

Is it all worth it ??
 

Can anyone - probably KEV - advise me here.

I was considering a DNA filter and this "cut off the snorkel and sell it for a fortune" thing has got me a bit bemused.

Whilst I appreciate that getting air into the engine at as high a pressure as possible is advantageous, does the shape of the snorkel assist in other ways, like keeping water out for example (it is called a snorkel after all) and is it worth doing away with or is it only any good for road use for that reason ?
Most automotive manufacturers put things on vehicles for good reason.

I am not considering buying one, as JMo says, a stanley knife will do the same job.

Also, aside from the obvious longevity of a DNA filter, is it worth spending 47 euros on. i.e. is there any perceivable gain in power ?

OGR

I wish I had a XTZ to look at, then I could advise you guys.

Ray,

One reason for a 'snorkel' is to attenuate the inlet noise, you can hear the intake noise above the exhaust in my wee vid'. There's no way the bike would get through noise reg's with a racket like that. Another reason is to protect the standard paper filter element from rain, a particular problem with the Triumph filter located near the rear wheel. Most fit a foam Unifilter or a K&N when they chop the airbox.

This subject has been argued to death on the triumphrat site, partly why I had to go to the bother of dynoing the results of what I did to my airbox. The velocity of the air through the carb/injector body is accelerated by the venturi effect in the body itself. For best power the idea is to reduce resistance to airflow before it gets there as much as possible, but unless you're up the top end all the time, it's of debatable value.

I do agree with your statement for a multi cylinder bike but not on a single cylinder like the XT, on a single big bore it is after volume & has been proven by the Raptor boys & myself with over a 100 dyno runs on my XT.

By reducing the intake at the air box on the XT, induces higher low end torque but does not give you more HP. By opening up the intake at the intake side of the air box you move the torque up in the RPM range & increase the amount HP. I can direct you to all the dyno results as these test are all posted on this forum.

Kev,

I think we're saying the same thing in a different way. The part of my text you've highlighted is supposed to mean 'remove any obstruction to getting air at the carb intake', not the airbox intake. Ideally this would mean no airbox at all in most cases. Fours with presssurised boxes would be the opposite, you'd lose power.

I've seen various airbox intakes for sale to replace the snorkel, they mimic the venturi effect which the carb itself has. But although it speeds the intake velocity at the airbox inlet, it reduces the volume of air getting in. I've spent a lot of time and money on the dyno myself proving this.

Thanks for that, I did miss read your post. We are both saying the same thing.
:3some:

Kev.

Do I read this right ? . By keeping it as it is, it is probably better for off road plodding as opposed to motocross style screaming ?

I do not want a screamer (else I would have bought KTM - sorry for swearing in public) I need a "get you there" kind of bike with power as a secondary consideration.

OGR

What I found on my XTX's by keeping in the snorkel you will have more torque low down around the 1750 to 2500rpm.

By opening up the air box you will gain more torque from 2500 all the way up, but would have less torque below 2500rpm then if you had the snorkel in.

These motors love air volume, I have proven this on the dyno, by removing all the filters on a XTX you get big mid to top end HP & torque gains so even with a stage 1 & 2 filter there are still restrictions. Tests have shown by adding a +2mm throttle body there are even more mid to top end torque gains, by adding + 1mm or +2mm valves with a ported head there are more gains in Torque & HP. The only problem with each stage you are taking away the bottom end & moving the gains higher up the rpm scale.

In the end it is all about where you want the Torque & HP, up top or low down. I built my XT/Raptor motor to have hard hitting mid to top range torque 2500 to 6000 rpm & was not chasing high HP readings, big HP does not mean the bike is great to ride in everyday conditions

Thanks,
 

Kev.

Thanks for that I think you have answered my question I will leave it as it is. I have just ordered an DNA filter which I will fit regardless.

As for the air box, I will (when I get back home after Christmas) open it up and take some photos and measurements so you can see what is in the Tenere.

Regards OGR

That would be great Ray, thanks.

Where r the photos, surely you must be home now after xmas :eusa_dance: ?

http://www.xt660.com/showthread.php?t=8869


:039:

Sorry,

put them on a new thread:

http://www.xt660.com/showthread.php?t=8869

OGR