Wrench Posted February 5, 2013 Share #1 Posted February 5, 2013 I just got finished with my air cleaner upgrade, I used Spectre filters from Advance Auto Parts. The total cost for both filters and the misc stuff for the adapters was less than $75.00. The Spectre's are similar to K&N's, but only cost $20 each. I got it out for a short ride this afternoon and the throttle response is great. It now runs and sounds like a Venture should. I posted a couple of pics of them in my album. Check them out and let me know what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingy Posted February 5, 2013 Share #2 Posted February 5, 2013 Those look nice. May go that route for the filters on the Hybrid I am building. Won't have the fairings on it to hide the massive ones on the stock RSV's. Pictures of it are in one of my albums. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE50 Posted February 5, 2013 Share #3 Posted February 5, 2013 I just got finished with my air cleaner upgrade, I used Spectre filters from Advance Auto Parts. The total cost for both filters and the misc stuff for the adapters was less than $75.00. The Spectre's are similar to K&N's, but only cost $20 each. I got it out for a short ride this afternoon and the throttle response is great. It now runs and sounds like a Venture should. I posted a couple of pics of them in my album. Check them out and let me know what you think. Those look realy nice but how about when it rains? Kinda unprotected in that sense. Seen other bikes put pods or exposed filters like that and hear a lot of complaints about rain or water intrusion. Performance on the other hand, let these bikes breath with correct jeting changes and . Opened the filter opening 50% more (k&n's with bub's) and changed out slow jets and WOW. Lovin it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djh3 Posted February 5, 2013 Share #4 Posted February 5, 2013 Got part #"s ??? If a fellow was to mount these up and had a set of HD mufflers, would you have to rejet the carbs etc and retune ?? I'm thinking about it, but I have found OEM replacment K&N sets for less than $70, so may just stay with the factory set up. I had a Barrons big air kit on my 900 Kawasaki and I had the rain question also as the air cleaner stuck out into the air stream. I was told the rain cover had taken care of anyone I talked to that had one. The rain cover is simply a slip on cover that is essentually knee high nylons that slip over your air cleaner. I guess the material does something for the air flow. At any rate I never had any problems with rain on my 900 with the rain cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrench Posted February 5, 2013 Author Share #5 Posted February 5, 2013 djh3, the part # is 8162, and they come in red, black, & gray, $19.99ea, I went with the red to make them a little more noticeable. They are with the K&N displays at Advance Auto and Autozone. ACCE50, they are an oiled filter like K&N's. My son ran that exact filter on his KIA Sportage for about 60k miles and never had a water issue, and he even did some creek-splashing with it last summer. I'll probably get a couple of pre-filter "socks" to keep in the trunk just in case of a deluge. I updated the pics with the finished look to show how well they are tucked in. I talked with an old hotrodder and he advised me to not go any bigger than stock with the intake openings to start with so it would'nt get too much air. I measured the area of the openings in the air boxes and welded a tapered "plate" into the adapters to restrict the air. Right now it's comparable to the stock boxes with K&N's, but I think it looks WAY better. For the adapters I used a 2 1/2" X 3" exhaust reducer cut down to approx. 1" on each end, then welded brackets on to bolt to the stock location. The way they are tucked in you really can't see the adapters. I'll try to scratch together a drawing and put it in my album. Thanks for the comments and the interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedcyclesales Posted February 6, 2013 Share #6 Posted February 6, 2013 I just had the tank off my bike and in my opinion the air flow set up on the venture is the poorest I've ever seen. First it's blocked by the lower fairing then it takes a major turn UP , then down at an angle into a REALLY LARGE open essentially box shaped area then has to go down into the carbs, I'm no expert but it really isn't logical to me . I think they would have been better off with a design similar to the VMAX. I've got a 97 Tour classic and a 2005 Tour deluxe the 97 blows the 05 away as far as speed an handling, the 05 is better for the long haul and much softer ride. I guess that's what they call 6 of one half dozen of the other. BUT I DO LOVE THE WAY THEY LOOK NICE JOB!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingy Posted February 6, 2013 Share #7 Posted February 6, 2013 I just had the tank off my bike and in my opinion the air flow set up on the venture is the poorest I've ever seen. First it's blocked by the lower fairing then it takes a major turn UP , then down at an angle into a REALLY LARGE open essentially box shaped area then has to go down into the carbs, I'm no expert but it really isn't logical to me . I think they would have been better off with a design similar to the VMAX. I've got a 97 Tour classic and a 2005 Tour deluxe the 97 blows the 05 away as far as speed an handling, the 05 is better for the long haul and much softer ride. I guess that's what they call 6 of one half dozen of the other. BUT I DO LOVE THE WAY THEY LOOK NICE JOB!!!!!!!!!! There is no way a VMax style air housing would fit on an RSV or RSTD due to both having a 'standard' fuel tank position. The 1st gen & VMax's have the under the seat tanks, which opens up the area under the cover for the airbox. I even have an RSTD air box I got for the Hybrid because I didn't want that massive air filter setup. Issue with it is the front to back spacing doesn't match the 1st gen carb racks either, same as the RSV is to short.. But that may be fixable by grafting the bottom of a VMax or Venture filter onto the RSTD unit. I would like to come up with a way to get a front facing intake, so as to get a ram air effect as speed increases. Sort of a cheap turbo. Tweety has a stock VMax airbox, which required mounting battery on its side where the coils & TCI were. Coil over plugs are on bike, which eliminated stock coils and ignition wires. 1st picture is stock 1st gen air box, note heigth above frame, 2nd is of VMax box, its lower, but much longer from front to back to compensate for height. Some pictures of a stock RSV system, and also an RSTD box along side a carb box from an RSV. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freebird Posted February 6, 2013 Share #8 Posted February 6, 2013 I don't understand the statement that the '97 Royal Star is faster than the '05. If that is true, either the '97 has had a good many mods done or something is terribly wrong with the '05. There are no tests that tell a different story and having ridden both, the '97 is nowhere close. Heck...we are talking probably 30+ HP difference between the two in stock configuration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedcyclesales Posted February 6, 2013 Share #9 Posted February 6, 2013 I don't understand the statement that the '97 Royal Star is faster than the '05. If that is true, either the '97 has had a good many mods done or something is terribly wrong with the '05. There are no tests that tell a different story and having ridden both, the '97 is nowhere close. Heck...we are talking probably 30+ HP difference between the two in stock configuration. I understand what your saying, and maybe I should have said quicker, the 97 is much lighter, the 05 is stock the 97 has cobra exhaust and carbs rejetted that's it. And I swear this to you I've been trying to sell it and last Saturday a Guy who just test rode a 07 tour deluxe and then came and rode my 97 . First words out of his mouth was "it seems a bit faster than the 07. Ther's 100+ lb difference and the saddle bags are off. Even at that I'll stand by my statement 0-60 97 all the way after that I couldn't tell you , hard to tell any differnce but the better ride 05 has that hands down...... http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/yamaha_royal_star_tour_deluxe_2005.php http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/yamaha_xvz_1300_royal_star_tour_classic_1997.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedcyclesales Posted February 6, 2013 Share #10 Posted February 6, 2013 I don't understand the statement that the '97 Royal Star is faster than the '05. If that is true, either the '97 has had a good many mods done or something is terribly wrong with the '05. There are no tests that tell a different story and having ridden both, the '97 is nowhere close. Heck...we are talking probably 30+ HP difference between the two in stock configuration. One other thing where's the extra horse power come from? Same carbs, same bore and stroke. I really don't know, and can't find the difference other than they say in 1999 up the venture has 98HP and the older ones 74HP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingy Posted February 6, 2013 Share #11 Posted February 6, 2013 they say in 1999 up the venture has 98HP and the older ones 74HP That's Bullcrap, It ain't the forum punch line for nothing that a 1st gen will kick a 2nd gen's A$$ all the way to Oberlin & back. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djh3 Posted February 6, 2013 Share #12 Posted February 6, 2013 Man I look at that RSV air cleaner set up and it makes me think of the old toy they had back when I was a kid. You could put all these whacky pieces together that looked like old bathtub plumbing. It was called "bath tub brass" or something like that. Sort of like going to home depot and playing in the plumbing isle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freebird Posted February 6, 2013 Share #13 Posted February 6, 2013 (edited) Gary, We are not talking about the first gen Venture. We are talking about the first gen Royal Star. As to why they made so much less HP, it was because Yamaha was trying to design a bike that looked like a cruiser. In my opinion, they succeeded in that and it's a great looking bike. In doing so though, they went with a small air intake/filter and then due to the reduced air flow also used smaller carbs. Baron's offered what they called a "Big Air Kit" that solved the restricted air issue and then with the proper re-jetting, got the HP up a good bit. To really get the HP up though, some people have built special manifolds and installed larger carbs after increasing the air intake size. Also, they did not have the same size carbs. The early Royal Stars had 28mm and the later ones have 32mm. That is why some people change them after increasing the air flow. Edited February 6, 2013 by Freebird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildBill1 Posted February 6, 2013 Share #14 Posted February 6, 2013 aV or RSTD due to both having a 'standard' fuel tank . heigth above frame, 2nd is of VMax box, its lower, but much longer from front to back to compensate for height. Some pictures of a stock RSV system, and also an RSTD box along side a carb box from an RSV. Gary Why couldn"t You use the stock Venture air box and mount V Max ram intake on the side of the gas tank and flexible air duct to the air box....just a thought. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dingy Posted February 7, 2013 Share #15 Posted February 7, 2013 Why couldn"t You use the stock Venture air box and mount V Max ram intake on the side of the gas tank and flexible air duct to the air box....just a thought. Bill I am using an 97 Royal Star tank, which is wider, and sets lower over the carbs than a VMax configuration. Using this because I like the cluster that is mounted in the tank top. The VMax side covers don't have a chance of fitting. Attached are a side shot of a VMax & an Royal Star, note how far up under the RS carbs are, and how far down they are on the VMax. This was one of the early thoughts for the Hybrid, but it ain't gonna happen. For what its worth, on the 1st gen VMaxs the side scoops are nonfunctional, no connection to the carbs. The 2nd gen VMaxs are functional. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragtop69gs Posted February 7, 2013 Share #16 Posted February 7, 2013 Gary, Do you think the V Max cylinder covers would fit the stock RSV ? I have always loved the look of the VMax engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildBill1 Posted February 7, 2013 Share #17 Posted February 7, 2013 I am using an 97 Royal Star tank, which is wider, and sets lower over the carbs than a VMax configuration. Using this because I like the cluster that is mounted in the tank top. The VMax side covers don't have a chance of fitting. Attached are a side shot of a VMax & an Royal Star, note how far up under the RS carbs are, and how far down they are on the VMax. This was one of the early thoughts for the Hybrid, but it ain't gonna happen. For what its worth, on the 1st gen VMaxs the side scoops are nonfunctional, no connection to the carbs. The 2nd gen VMaxs are functional. Gary Yes, the tank does sit somewhat lower than even the stock Venture tank. LOL Dingy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeeze Posted February 7, 2013 Share #18 Posted February 7, 2013 Gary, Do you think the V Max cylinder covers would fit the stock RSV ? I have always loved the look of the VMax engine. There are only small rectangular Side Covers on the Cylinder Heads for the Water Drain Plugs, the Rest is just the Cylinder with casted "Fins". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now