82 CSR 1000, removed air box for pod filters

thequam,

There are a bunch of threads on this topic on this site and probably most other motorcycle sites. Use the search function and you'll have enough reading and strong opinions to make you want to pluck your eyes out with a spoon.

otakar wrote:

How about a massive performance increase. Pods will add quite a bit of extra umph.

I have never seen any evidence of this. Please show me a dyno chart that compares a stock KZ engine with an airbox to a stock KZ engine with pods where the pods show an increase in power across the power band. If anything, there would be tradeoffs most likely with less grunt at lower RPMs. I notice your bike (and believe me, I think it’s a beauty!!) has pods, but I also see that your cam, pipe, displacement, etc. have been modified to boost power. In that case pods may, and probably do, contribute to the overall performance. But I doubt that a stock bike needs any more airflow than the stock airbox can provide and more than likely overall useable performance would be reduced with pods. I guess that’s about 3 cents worth. :lol: Ed

Well, I've had and have bikes with both, pods and airbox.

If I'm riding with a passenger, I like the airbox. It's friendlier at stop lights. On my daily driver, I had pods, but went back to the airbox for this reason.

However, having ridden the daily driver everyday for a week, I decided to change things up and take the pod runner. I don't know what a dyno would say, or a 1/4 mile timeslip would say, but my ass says the pod bike is a lot more of a blast to ride! :woohoo: Both motors are stock but they do run similar 4-into-1 exhausts.

If I only had one bike, I'd probably change back and forth every season, pods/airbox.

otakar wrote:

How about a massive performance increase. Pods will add quite a bit of extra umph.

Maybe over a specific rev band. I am a pragmatist and would ask: if there is power to be had so easily (and it doesn't screw up running at other ranges and conditions) why would the bike makers not be using them? They would love to sell you four ridiculously overpriced air filters instead of just one.

Well, even if it provides performance gains, I doubt the factory would adopt the pod setup because it is impractical for general consumption. It's higher maintenance than just dropping in a paper filter. Rain is also a major problem.

The UNI's and K&N's I've had definitely didn't last forever. As they deteriorate, they let in more dirt. I've tossed them in favor of disposable paper pods.

Another issue is that they really need to be jetted a tad on the rich side to run properly in all circumstances. This is because turbulence absolutely does affect the AFR with pods. I've confirmed this with an O2 sensor. I doubt the the EPA would ever allow the rich setting that pods seem to need.

This is all regarding older bikes like most of our KZ's. I believe new bikes have been shown to need the airbox to run their best. (Although, some still modify the airbox slightly to breathe more.)

Perhaps the pods show greater improvements on bikes like the gpz's where they originally used the same airbox as the non-gpz models even though their engines are designed to flow more. I haven't tried pods on a non-gpz 550.

My 2 cents. Put your stock box back on and enjoy your Kawasaki, mess with the exhaust all you want it's not a Honda after all.

There has always seemed to be a misunderstanding of the different effect pods have on Mechanical carbs verses CV carbs. These effects would be good, verses bad. chuckle

It doesn't matter what make of bike you ride, if it has a mechanical lift for the sliders and an accelerator pump it's air intake system is simply an air filtration unit. If you're any good with carbs you should be able to make the bike run pretty decent if you completely remove the air filtration and run open carbs sucking up dust and other fun stuff.

On CV carb systems, air filtration is a secondary function of the box. It's main function is to act as a vacuum control for the carbs, and technically a reserve vacuum. The reserve is created at start-up and is then easily increased or lowered by engine demand. That balance is easily upset by introducing air leaks. Constant velocity is Hard to reproduce with pods. Even harder yet to maintain on a daily basis with changes in the atmosphere.

The stock box on a Kawasaki CV carb setup simply can't be beat for performance. Yes I know, it isn't very PRETTY! It's plastic, prep it and paint some air brushed PODS on it for cool enhancement.. snicker

Kawasaki has much time and cash into the development of the factory air box you want to toss aside in the name of COOLNESS! You sure won't get any performance increase from pods on CV carbs, like you would on Mechanical carbs.

Pods look COOL though, and those carbs sucking away loudly sure make you feel like your going much faster than you actually are. roflmao. Well until the Heavens open up and it pours down.. heh (COUGH, FART, BOG BOG, VRUUOOMM, COUGH) rinse and repeat until dry.

I believe the actual technical spec reads to use the air box in states that have a helmet law, otherwise use pods.

(I'll stick to my pods)

650ed wrote:

otakar wrote:

How about a massive performance increase. Pods will add quite a bit of extra umph.

I have never seen any evidence of this. Please show me a dyno chart that compares a stock KZ engine with an airbox to a stock KZ engine with pods where the pods show an increase in power across the power band. If anything, there would be tradeoffs most likely with less grunt at lower RPMs. I notice your bike (and believe me, I think it’s a beauty!!) has pods, but I also see that your cam, pipe, displacement, etc. have been modified to boost power. In that case pods may, and probably do, contribute to the overall performance. But I doubt that a stock bike needs any more airflow than the stock airbox can provide and more than likely overall useable performance would be reduced with pods. I guess that’s about 3 cents worth. :lol: Ed

First of all that bike started out as a 1000CSR and I ran it quite long with pods on a stock motor with a significant performance increase (with obvious jet changes). The "J" motor was very restricted with the airbox. Second of all I want to see how long it would take you to mount a set of BS34 carbs on a stock airbox on that bike, with 30 year old boots. and keep a civil tong in your mouth. Third of all, the dyno tests are for all to see on the Dyna-Jet web sight. The stock air box has many uses, such as noise reduction, air flow equalization, and to be a collection point for all the pollution equipment. None of them is performance. Fourth of all, if a stock airbox was just as good as pods than the road race teams would all be riding them. Ive been doing this since I was 19 back in 1978 when I bought my first Z1R and my first KZ1300 in 1979. My "minibike" is my KZ900. I have a collective of over 200,000 miles, both on and off the track, between all of my bikes. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I can provide my experience and it is up to each and every individual to use it or discard, as they see fit. I am not selling anything just providing just providing 32 years of experience.

I've put pods on CV carbs and have had decent success. The slides are pretty much all the way up before 1/2 throttle. Beyond that, the carbs are pretty much entirely mechanical.

But yes, there are usually a lot more jets to tinker with on CVs so they do take a lot longer to dial in.

I'm no bike carb expert, actually I don't know chit about bike carbs LOL!!

But I put pods on my 03 ZRX1200. I had also replaced the exhaust with a complete TiForce setup. I bought a DynoJet Kit for it. Because I don't know chit I took the whole damned thing to CycleMax. To even get it to run before the jet kit I had to duct tape 90% of the pod area so I could ride it up

For the life of me I can't remember the guys name who did the job but when I arrived he kinda chuckled and asked me what I "expected" in the way of performance LOL!! I had already called and talked to him on the phone and he tried to disuade me from listening to the internet chatter on this topic but I ignored that advice....

Stock I think a ZRX1200 will put maybe 120 - 123 on the dyno. I told him I expected around 130... he politely chuckled again

So we left the bike and rode back on the wifes 919.

2 days later Jeff... (there we go a little of the cobwebs cleared) Bloor.. maybe.. anyways he calls and asks if I'm sitting down

I figure he blew my bike up on the dyno LOL!! He says "this thing is amazing, it pulls like jack the bear and lifts the front in the first 4 gears!!" I think there was a couple of "holy shits!! so much torque!" in there too. At that point I can't hardly get my gear on fast enough to head up..

131.5 RWHP torque out the ass and pulled smoothly from the bottom to the top

He did a free dyno run on the wifes bike when we got there, can't find her sheet but it was around 112 rwhp on the 919.

So pods?? worked for me YMMV

AlienTech wrote:

I'm no bike carb expert, actually I don't know chit about bike carbs LOL!!

....But I put pods on my 03 ZRX1200. I had also replaced the exhaust with a complete TiForce setup....

Again - replaced more than just pods. Thanks for the verification of my assertion.

otakar wrote:
[that’s about 3 cents worth. :lol: Ed[/quote]

" Third of all, the dyno tests are for all to see on the Dyna-Jet web sight."

I've been riding bikes every year for the past 45 years - Honda, BSA, Kawasaki, etc. but I'm sure your experience is different than mine. My BSA had a factory cometition flat track engine I bought from Gary Nixon, and yes, I used pods on it and it ran great; my KZ650C1 is stock and yes, I use the stock airbox and it runs great. I must admit, I fell for the bait and went to the "Dyna-Jet" web site )please see link below) as you suggested. Interesting, but did not show me how to wring every last drop of power out of my bike. :laugh: Peace, Ed

Dynajet.com