Paper or K&N filter ?

So I installed a 75 z1 air box on my 76 kz900.
Stock motor , 29mm smoothbores and 4 into 1 exhaust.
I prefer the k&n but at $55 ship is a lot when the paper is $12 ship.

The K&N filter does not filter particles as fine as does the stock filter. Ed

I've been running K&N's for 30 years. No issues.
Steve

Do an internet search for K&N air filter comparison test.
I've never seen anything that showed K&N was better than oem at doing the job it's supposed to do --- filter the air.
IMHO, K&N is really just a marketing company. Fram is another one.

Here's an independent air filter comparison:

www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

No eBay APP ID and/or Cert ID defined in Kunena configuration

650ed wrote: The K&N filter does not filter particles as fine as does the stock filter. Ed

In my case, would the Emgo paper air filter be considered a stock filter, or are you specifically suggesting a Genuine Kawasaki 11013-1037 filter?

I don't know how good or bad the Emgo filters are; I have always used Kawasaki air filters. Considering that an air filter lasts a very long time before needing to be replaced I don't consider the price to be a problem. Ed

I've run K&N for 20 years in bikes and cars and have never had issues. My main reason is that they are reusable. Forget the "power gain". It's negligible if at all. I just like cleaning and oiling them as opposed to buying a new one (or a set) every year or so.

650ed wrote: The K&N filter does not filter particles as fine as does the stock filter. Ed

Plus all the labor and chemicals... yuck. Once the K&N is fully oiled and sticky, it doesn't really flow any more air, so what's the point of doing all the extra work and laying out all the extra cash?

Daveo:
I've used Emgo replacements for stock filters for many years. It didn't seem to be any different from the factory filter in regards to filtering or flowing, but I didn't do any serious testing... just looked at the dirt accumulation and felt how it ran, which were the same, as far I could tell.

Well for $12 bucks....can't go wrong.
It's not like I'll drive 20k miles a year.

OK somebody needs to stand up here and say why K&Ns oiled filters are not worse than OEM filters. I'll give it a shot.

"They allow larger particles of dust into the engine".....These particles are so small that if by some miracle the particles got past the OIL-SOAKED air filter, the explosion of the engine's combustion chamber would turn it into a nuisance similar of a mosquito being sucked into a jumbo jet's engine. And by this logic, by not soaking up as many particles this allows the filter to last even longer. The only people who should be concerned with this is if you must drive through a sandstorm to get to work daily....and who doesn't want to do that?

"It's expensive"....I don't know about you, but I'd rather ride than work on a bike. These filters last longer than oem before you have to do anything with them, and then it costs you $10 to $20 for a recharge kit that pretty much will last you longer than any vehicle's life. So $15 every 1 or 2 years....or $75 for forever? Kinda evens itself out pretty easily. These oil filters last longer because they allow more air to pass through with less vacuum, and therefore it takes more time for them to get dirty enough to need servicing.

I agree on that hi-flow filters alone do not give you more horsepower. They give you more horsepower only when then engine has been modified to the point that it needs more air from the intake than the stock setup can provide.

SmokyOwl wrote: ........ These oil filters last longer because they allow more air to pass through with less vacuum, and therefore it takes more time for them to get dirty enough to need servicing.

Actually, that is not what the study found. It found "The AC Delco filter test ran for 60 minutes before exceeding the restriction limit while the AMSOIL and K&N tests each ran for 20 and 24 minutes respectively before reaching max restriction."
Ed