KDX Snorkel VS No Snorkel

  #1  
Old 09-19-2012, 09:36 AM
Member
1st Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Maui
Posts: 32
Default KDX Snorkel VS No Snorkel

Hey guys.
I recently removed the snorkel from my airbox and contrary to what people have said, I feel the bike has a little more pull without the kdx hi flow snorkel. Many others have said running the kdx snorkel is the same as running with no snorkel powerwise with having noticebly less intake noise and vibration.

What have you guys experienced with running kdx snorkel and no snorkel? Maybe a placebo affect when running no snorkel? Also, will you have to rejet when switching between the two? (many have said they essencially suck in the same amount of air)

I look forward to hearing about your experiences. Thanks all.
 
  #2  
Old 09-19-2012, 11:10 AM
wildcard's Avatar
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,414
Default

I doubt there is any difference. I keep the kdx snorkel in because it quites down the intake slightly. I never felt any increase in without the snorkel.
 
  #3  
Old 09-19-2012, 11:12 AM
EMS_0525's Avatar
Da dirty moderator
1st Gear Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 12,584
Default

To me, it felt like it ran better with out it also. Im betting it flows more with out it. My jetting was a tad rich so when i took it out i think the air/fuel ratio was more on.

If people think the air intake noise is bad on the KLX with out snorkel or even with out the lid. Take a Husaberg for a spin. The intake noise is 10 times what the klx is without the lid.
 
  #4  
Old 09-19-2012, 01:18 PM
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 389
Default

It just sounded better with the kdx snorkel in .
 
  #5  
Old 09-19-2012, 01:20 PM
FM_Thumper's Avatar
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 910
Default

It's all a matter of your jetting I believe. With the jetting I have listed below, and without the airbox lld, the bike had a lean breakup at full throttle at the upper 1/3 of RPM to redline. I put the lid back on and the KDX snorkel and the breakup went away. I suppose I could mess around with the main and go up a little to see how it runs with an open airbox but since the bike is running so well right now, I'm just going to leave it the way it is.
 
  #6  
Old 09-19-2012, 02:41 PM
Brieninsac's Avatar
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,353
Default

I tried running without the snorkel for a day. I didn't like the vibration and increased sound. I don't think you gain anything significant enough to warrant the shortcomings.
 
  #7  
Old 09-19-2012, 03:02 PM
rgoers's Avatar
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northern Utah
Posts: 854
Default

I agree with Brien. I think the additional noise adds "perceived" power, rather than real power. Vroom, vroom...

I didn't like sitting on a vibrating seat either, but female riders may have a different view of that...
 
  #8  
Old 09-19-2012, 03:10 PM
Websurfing101's Avatar
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 177
Default

Originally Posted by wildcard View Post
I doubt there is any difference. I keep the kdx snorkel in because it quites down the intake slightly. I never felt any increase in without the snorkel.
I agree with wildcard's comment.
 
  #9  
Old 09-19-2012, 03:21 PM
TNC's Avatar
TNC
TNC is offline
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Abilene, TX
Posts: 4,830
Default

Without a true "flow bench" test of the cylinder head, carb, and airbox, this will probably never be fully answered. But just thinking out loud here...if the jetting seems to change or need to be manipulated between having the snorkel vs. airbox lid off, doesn't that indicate an increase in flow with the lid off? An increase in flow at the airbox usually yields more power with proper jetting. The original question was about "power" with the snorkel vs. without, but in reality why would you leave the airbox as is with that smaller hole? At that point either just pull the whole lid off or cut the hole bigger like I did with mine. I think cutting the hole bigger still gives some "spill over" protection from water crossings and such as opposed to just removing the lid entirely.

Some more noise?...yes. Some more power with jetting to match the increase in flow?...probably. Now that I've installed a TM36 pumper carb, I'm certainly going to try to maximize the air intake as much as possible...airbox hole much larger than stock and the backfire screen removed.
 
  #10  
Old 09-19-2012, 04:01 PM
IDRIDR's Avatar
Senior Member
1st Gear Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SW Idaho
Posts: 4,413
Default

My personal experience here over labor day. I had a nice, long inclining road where I could open the bike up for top speed. Airbox lid off reached 3 mph faster than with lid on and KDX snorkel. Running #124 DJ main on 351 BB. Could I have jetted down and got the same result with the KDX snorkel? Perhaps, but I didn't want to tear the carb apart there. Elevation was high at around 7K feet.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: KDX Snorkel VS No Snorkel


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.