Yeah, you can call them and have any size you want cut. I think the pieces I bought for my Z400 (I have one left I plan to use on the KLX) were like $7 each. I cut out a hole about an inch in on each side on my lid and made a clamp with a square of metal (welded from scrap, but you could make it from about anything. Then I just clamp it on with some small bolts and nylon lock washers. I plan to do this on the KLX over the winter. Another idea might be to cut the same hole and get a piece big enough to clamp under the lid, just not sure if the water would get between it and the lid. Or wrap it around the top of the lid with a hole in it and clamp the lid on.
Options, options !!!

I'm also considering the standard mods, maybe on the lean side, and using a dial-a-jet to keep it perfectly tuned in all weather and altitudes.

 

If you look at Chris' first post in this thread, you see that he did in fact turn his stock snorkel around (backwards) without any other changes and it really killed performance...
It's easy to see why too... The more corners and obstructions in the way, the less freely the air is going to flow into the engine.

 

That sounds like just what I need. I have to go with Iowaguy here people. I ran my dr250s with a screened in 4x4 hole cut in the top of the airbox and she ran great. Dont remember the intake noise being any problem either, Not like with the lid off the kls airbox.

Also Unless you know up front your going to be going thru water 2-3 feet deep a hole in the airbox top isnt a problem. Now if I know I will be going thru that deep a water I would probably stick with the snorkal but since I dont think I will ever be in that situation I'm going with the 4x4 hole in the top and I was just going to screen it in via fine wire mess screen.

That being said this outwear stuff sounds like just the ticket for using as a screening material instead of just regular screen. Also if your that worried about it why not just build up a lip around the screened in opening. Unless you like riding thru water the average rider doesnt go thru water that much where as the snorkal will affect the bikes breathing All the time. I for one will open my airbox to a 4x4 opening and take my chances on the water. My 2 cents.



LV

 

I agree, it's really tight up there toward the back of the seat, and I'm not surprised it could have changed performance by restricting the airflow even further. The point I was trying to make is it's not a 'ram air' thing......

 

Snorkel Report:
Sunday rode with KX200 faced forward (first time that direction). Got 65mpg(norm=55) on the back roads, approx 50-60 mph.
Monday got on the freeway and between 7-9k on the tack, it was surging. So I did some testing and noticed it had a faint surge @ 7-8k in 2nd and up.
Tuesday rode the freeway to my buds house again, which is 20 miles away, and had the surge. Turned the snorkel back to the rear direction, no surge on the way home.

Now, I think the bike is running lean as possible @ sea level, which is a plus in my mind. Stock needle w/two washers, 128 main jet, K&N, Muzzy quiet/spark.

 

Hmm, Tony. Very strange.

I have not ridden my bike since putting on the KDX200 snorkel, but my experience with the stock snorkel is exactly opposite of yours with your KDX200 snorkel. Mine ran great with the stock snorkel in the regular forward orientation. I played with it one day and ran with it facing backwards (the snorkel, not me ) and had sort of a hesitation. I don't know how to describe it, but some might call it surging I guess. It seemed that the bike was really struggling especially under load (going up a hill, for example). Maybe this is the opposite of surging. If so, then our experiences would jive, I think.

Right now I have installed my KDX200 snorkel facing forward. My plan is to ride that way and then add the stock snorkel facing backward like others that have done the double snorkel. I had hoped to rig it up to both face forward, but I now see that there is not near the vertical clearance under the seat to allow that.

Chris

 

Chris, it seems to me, if you have the kdx facing forward you are getting a 'ram-air' effect. Putting another snorkel any direction except facing forward, would alleviate the 'ram' effect. Thus only giving the flow of a bigger opening not forced air. That make any sense?

 

Tony,

I am sorry to be so dense, but I am not familiar with the "ram air" system that you and others refer to. I am pretty knew to all of this, so bear with me.

If I understand you correctly, the point is that a forward facing snorkel (in my case, my new KDX200 snorkel) will work as a forced air system. I guess that can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on whether you are setup to handle extra air or not. My experiment was done before I did any mods to my bike, so I think I needed as much air as the forward-facing snorkel could give me. When I turned it around backward, I was relying on the engine to suck whatever air it needed, so it was not getting enough. It therefore would have been running "rich" (am I using that word correctly? I get it backwards I think).

Now that I have done the mods, I need as much air as I can get. Enter the KDX200 snorkel that will basically work the same as my stock snorkel but with a bigger cross-section. The question is, what is the function and value, if any, of using the stock snorkel in a rear orientation.

Obviously, pointing it backward it will not be forcing any air into the box. It will provide additional cross-section, though, if the amount of forced air from the forward-facing KDX200 snorkel is not enough. The question still in my mind is will the engine need any more air than a forward-facing KDX200 snorkel provide? I doubt it, but I guess it can not hurt.

All of that said, though, still makes me wonder about your experience. It sounds like you are running just about right with all of your air being supplied by the engine "pulling" air from a large cross-section, rear-facing snorkel. In your case, the engine does not like all of that extra air because it leans you out too much. Am I following you correctly.

I guess it is going to come down to a little bit of trial-and-error. The first test will be to see how my bike runs with the forward facing KDX200. Regardless of how it runs, I am going to flip the KDX200 around and run a little with it backwards to see how it runs. It might be that what I think is "running good" is not as good as it could be. Depending on the results of that little test, if I think that forward-facing is better (i.e., more air = better), then I will probably install the 2nd snorkel facing backward since that is my only option.

I know the "open airbox" crowd is reading this and saying to themselves "you guys are making this too complicated, just using the Outerwear on an open box", but I don't want to go that route yet. Until proven otherwise, I still think that a properly configured snorkel will provide (1) semi-forced air injection and (2) water protection. I think you will get more air into the airbox with a fat snorkel than with a open or cutout Outerwear-covered airbox. I just think that a lot of the air will blow right over unless something directs it down instead of back.

 

Some people seem to be thinking that "ram-air" is somehow bad..
Engines are basically air pumps. The more air you can pump, the more power you get.
Yes, you need to keep a good balance in the air to fuel ratio, but more air = better no matter which way you look at it.
A rear facing snorkel is just robbing you of power in my opinion.

If the bike runs lean with a forward facing snorkel, then the solution is to richen the jetting, not to restrict the airflow.

 

My initial reason for the reversed snorkel is that it helps stop my carb icing issue. In the cold wet weather, I used to get serious icing. First was to water proof the filter, that helped some. When I turned the snorkel around, the problem almost disappeared. Also now if my filter gets dirty, and I'm getting 'rich', I can spin the snorkel around for temporary help. [sm=shades.gif]