Someone talk me out of this... KZ440B Airbox Mod

Of course it will.

Not sure if this will work for the 440 or not but you may be able to modify the idea to fit your bike.

www.kzrider.com/articles/technical-tips/...aking-power-with-air

tdubya84 wrote: Not sure if this will work for the 440 or not but you may be able to modify the idea to fit your bike.

www.kzrider.com/articles/technical-tips/...aking-power-with-air

I hate to burst a bunch of bubbles, but that article is bogus. The entire premise is wrong - more air does NOT make more power. There is no performance reason to increase airflow on a stock KZ engine. Think of it this way - if the stock air filter passes a sufficient volume of air to support wide open throttle at redline - it sure as hell has no problem passing enough air to support any throttle opening below full throttle at redline. So IF increasing the airflow was going to add power it would only happen at the highest rpm with wide open throttle. Think of a high performance drag bike; then think of the porting, carb mods, etc. that enable that drag bike to use more air &fuel to its advantage; then consider the fact that it only needs to run well at wide open throttle. Since stock bikes cannot efficiently ingest great gobs of air/fuel mixture, and since folks on the street rarely run at redline with wide open throttle, the small theoretical performance gain at that rpm/throttle opening is offset by the impact on performance at other rpm/throttle openings which are used most. Show me dyno sheets showing performance gains in a stock engine by adding pods or modifying the airbox. I don't think you'll find any, but if you do feel free to post them. Ed

650ed wrote: Show me dyno sheets showing performance gains in a stock engine by adding pods or modifying the airbox. I don't think you'll find any, but if you do feel free to post them. Ed

Yeah, considering how desperate bike makers are to squeeze out one more HP, you can bet they'd be doing it if there was any "low hanging fruit" to be scooped up by changing the airbox.

"So IF increasing the airflow was going to add power it would only happen at the highest rpm with wide open throttle."
This is a very False assumption regarding induction systems on a 4 stroke engine
Maybe you could provide dyno sheets that show a stock airbox makes the most power on a stock engine
Stock airbox design is a series of compromises including appearance, fit, packaging etc..Performance is not at the top of the list by any means.
Think of it this way if pods did nothing you wouldn't have to rejet..

Air boxes were designed to make the bike run sweetly over the range of RPM's the engine is capable of. It is to provide the carbs with a controlled supply of air. This control lends itself to a bike that is easily tunable, powerful across the range and not subject to inclement weather or side wind blasts from mother nature or passing vehicles. It's amazing how much wind turbulence a trailer truck produces when you pass them. I'm pretty sure performance WAS the top of the list. It's just what your idea of performance and the their idea of performance are quite different. Then there is the other side. Most people switch to pods after taking off a rack of carbs when their boots have turned to stone and they lose their little minds wrasslin' with those damn carbs. So they strip out the airbox and buy their pods. Most do nothing to support the back of the rack and end up elongating the engine connectors and get air leaks after all putting a brace makes it more complicated and if I wanted that I would have left the airbox in. Others find out that it takes some dialing in of those carbs with jets that can be long and arduous (quite a few just give up and go back to their airbox if they didn't destroy it or end up disappointed and sell the bike). I have seen data that shows it's a wash in tests and a couple that show a small increase in a narrow range of the rpm's. Keep in mind that is in a controlled environment where the best of the pods comes out. In real world and on the road it is different. I suggest if you want a great running bike with great performance get some new boots learn how to put them in and use the airbox and ride your awesome machine. I keep getting reminded that my life is too short to be wrenching on a bike I should be riding. Simple as that.

ezrider714 wrote: "So IF increasing the airflow was going to add power it would only happen at the highest rpm with wide open throttle."
This is a very False assumption regarding induction systems on a 4 stroke engine
Maybe you could provide dyno sheets that show a stock airbox makes the most power on a stock engine
Stock airbox design is a series of compromises including appearance, fit, packaging etc..Performance is not at the top of the list by any means.
Think of it this way if pods did nothing you wouldn't have to rejet..

No problem. Read and weep. Ed

kzrider.com/forum/3-carburetor/585949-po...-a-free-lunch#585949

I thought larger intake valves, porting, turbos,superchargers, larger carbs were all about getting more air in the motor along with more fuel of course. But more air does not increase performance?
Wayne

kzz1king wrote: I thought larger intake valves, porting, turbos,superchargers, larger carbs were all about getting more air in the motor along with more fuel of course. But more air does not increase performance?
Wayne

Yes, you are correct, those things enable a motor to ingest more air/fuel mixture and done properly that can increase the power a motor can make. However, that is much different than simply exposing a stock motor to more air. Ed

kzz1king wrote: I thought larger intake valves, porting, turbos,superchargers, larger carbs were all about getting more air in the motor along with more fuel of course. But more air does not increase performance?
Wayne

Turbocharging and supercharging are actually about effectively "increasing atmospheric pressure" that the intake system sees. That way when the intake valve opens, it stuffs more air and fuel into the cylinder supplying more to be ignited which can increase power. But you have to keep the ratio of air to fuel correct.

Larger valves do not always equal more power, in some cases the opposite. The system flow has to be optimized which is actually pretty complicated.

Larger carbs could usually increase power on the cars we used to soup up back in the 60's, but mainly because the engines were pretty much starved for gas and poorly designed to begin with. Of course, I saw more than a few idiots putting 1050 CFM Holley double pumpers onto a 283 and overcarbureting the hell out of it. You could see the gas spraying out the tailpipe as it ran .... :laugh:

Your post reminded me of a carb mod for the Kawasaki Concours. It involves sealing the airbox (prone to cracking) and installing SMALLER mains. A piece of foam is used to block off part of the airbox. Works great and takes the low rpm bog known to that motor right out of it. So I stand corrected, more air doesn't automatcly increase performance.
Wayne

bountyhunter wrote:

kzz1king wrote: I thought larger intake valves, porting, turbos,superchargers, larger carbs were all about getting more air in the motor along with more fuel of course. But more air does not increase performance?
Wayne

Turbocharging and supercharging are actually about effectively "increasing atmospheric pressure" that the intake system sees. That way when the intake valve opens, it stuffs more air and fuel into the cylinder supplying more to be ignited which can increase power. But you have to keep the ratio of air to fuel correct.

Larger valves do not always equal more power, in some cases the opposite. The system flow has to be optimized which is actually pretty complicated.

Larger carbs could usually increase power on the cars we used to soup up back in the 60's, but mainly because the engines were pretty much starved for gas and poorly designed to begin with. Of course, I saw more than a few idiots putting 1050 CFM Holley double pumpers onto a 283 and overcarbureting the hell out of it. You could see the gas spraying out the tailpipe as it ran .... :laugh: