|
|
 hi flow filter v pods
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 50
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 50 |
This has probably passed through this site on several occasions? Can I get an honest opinion without diversing from the subject? what I would like to know is there any advantage over a hi flow air filter (K&N) in the filter box with snorkel removed over a set of pods (K&N)????????? 
|
|
|
Re: hi flow filter v pods
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 50
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 50 |
Sorry about posting this twice. But the more I post the quicker I will loose the tag of "GREENHORN" (LOL).
|
|
|
Re: hi flow filter v pods
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,227 Likes: 62
Fe Butt
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 23,227 Likes: 62 |
I have never done any real tasting on this but a pop will allow more air to flow and more easily. I don't think the demand really warrants the pods. I like all the space under the seat to mount other stuff though.
I learned all I need to know about life by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Eat right ,Exercise ,Stay fit, Die Anyway!
|
|
|
Re: hi flow filter v pods
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,063 Likes: 8
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,063 Likes: 8 |
Typically with the pods (and high flow exhaust) your main jets will be at least 145 to 160 (give or take). Without the pods but with snorkels removed and a Uni or K&N filter installed, you would use a 125 to 135 main jet. The larger the main jet, the more power you have if you maintain proper air/fuel ratios so Pods do allow for more power than the airbox low restriction filter and give you some room under your seat as Ian stated for tools/storage.
12 Rocket Roadster
03 Bonneville America
69 BSA Firebird Scrambler
73 Yamaha TX 750
|
|
|
Re: hi flow filter v pods
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,671 Likes: 15
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,671 Likes: 15 |
Quote:
...The larger the main jet, the more power you have if you maintain proper air/fuel ratios...
Well, not necessarily so in terms of power output, especially when it comes to CV carbs. As a general rule, less intake restriction causes lower vacuum demand, which requires a larger main in order to maintain the same AFR, all other things equal.
With a stock head & displacement motor I don't think it really matters all that much regarding the difference between pods v. tuned airbox, at least in terms of RWHP output.
That said, IMO there are advantages of pods that go beyond power output, even though as a general rule pods hold a slight power edge at upper RPMs, even on a relatively stock motor.
|
|
|
Re: hi flow filter v pods
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,068 Likes: 1
Saddle Sore
|
|
Saddle Sore
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 5,068 Likes: 1 |
Well, to address your question specifically, CFM's (airflow) is a function of filter media, surface area and proximity to the vacuum source. The pods on the manifold will flow more than a filter tucked back in the airbox, but to concur with the above statements performance has a lot to do with jetting.
With the right jetting, there's not much "seat of the pants" difference between either filter. You may have some high RPM gains with pods and low to midrange with the box filter.
Now that box is a Helmhotz Resonator, but that's another story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
