Jump to content
bashlock

Airbox removal, install dual pod filters

Recommended Posts

bashlock

I removed the stock airbox completely and am running two cheap pod filters on the throttle body. After reading mixed reviews, I was worried the stock ecu setup wouldn’t take it well. 

 

HOWEVER, I am glad to say it runs great. Much more mid power and sounds beastly. 

 

 

04D888A0-974B-4B77-9967-A5EA8F6FCDF5.jpeg

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cyow5

Cool! The TBs have a MAP sensor installed, so I'd expect the ECU to be able to perfectly compensate for the extra airflow. I know many claim it doesn't, so it would be great to see evidence one way or the other. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
r1limited

I am curious as to the weight of the entire air box

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
c0al67

Even if performance was otherwise the same, and the weight loss of the stock box was negligible, I still think this looks awesome. It looks so clean with the space under the seat like that. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digitalsteve

It'd be interesting to know what, if any, performance benefit this gave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
r1limited

From a weight loss perspective even a 1/2 lb makes a difference, as the location is also a factor.  Performance wise, always good to let a motor breath, air is just one item on the list in a much larger picture

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sansnombre

I would love to see this on a dyno - consider it, as I'm sure we all would get some use out of the info.

 

My understanding is that the Hord box has stacks inside the filter, and the individual pods do not. When Hord was doing the testing of the bike, he commented about the extreme sensitivity of our bike to intake runner length, and you basically have none. Compared to Hord, I think you will be short on power everywhere. Compared to stock, I think you'll likely see a loss in most places with the possible exception of high-end. IMHO.

 

Many of us forget it's tuning the flow, not just opening it up. There is some potential gain to opening it up, but I've seen it many times that power is actually reduced because of this tuning requirement of intake/exhaust performance if it is not done carefully, or at least on an objective measure of result. Not to mention dialing in the components to an AFR with a dyno (or reflash to a known kit) - I think you'll be much happier with a Hord-based reflash than what you currently have.

 

My guess is it's not doing what you think it is, but could be much better with dyno tuning, but I applaud your effort.

 

Cheers

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cyow5

I disagree with your pessimism - tuning length is measured from the intake valve seat to, in this case, the base of the filter. That still gives a substantial length, so it is very likely the new powerband is still very usable. Also, he removed a number of restrictions that help as well. Lastly, the ECU should see playing with the intake like this in the form of increased MAP, and it will add fuel accordingly. A tune can still help, but even without one, one can see additionally fuel being added. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
r1limited

I think the probability of unincumbered air flatulance in direct corrolation of comparable matrix of solidification effect will decress the over all surface ratio of effectual circumfrance tilt

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cyow5
5 minutes ago, r1limited said:

I think the probability of unincumbered air flatulance in direct corrolation of comparable matrix of solidification effect will decress the over all surface ratio of effectual circumfrance tilt

Only on Tuesdays 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hordboy

I tested foam Uni pods first thing when I embarked on my airbox project.  They do give a gain, but it's all at the top.  And, you'll definitely have to re-map or flash for them, the stock ECU will not auto-compensate.  That only happens, basically, when you see the ECO mode on your dash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cyow5
34 minutes ago, hordboy said:

I tested foam Uni pods first thing when I embarked on my airbox project.  They do give a gain, but it's all at the top.  And, you'll definitely have to re-map or flash for them, the stock ECU will not auto-compensate.  That only happens, basically, when you see the ECO mode on your dash.

You've obviously got experience in this area, so I'd like to pick your brain. Why doesn't the MAP sensor increase fueling? I expect the O2 sensor to be open loop at WOT, but the MAP sensor should register a higher pressure when increasing the intake airflow potential, and therefore fueling should still compensate, even open loop. This doesn't apply to alpha/n controllers though, so does the FZ rely more heavily on the TPS than the MAP for WOT fueling? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norcal616

the O2 sensor is only used during

"EcoMode" range since its closed loop...anything outside EcoMode is all done by TPS and RPM and the preset fueling values which do not change unless modified via tuning of ECU...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cyow5
2 hours ago, norcal616 said:

the O2 sensor is only used during

"EcoMode" range since its closed loop...anything outside EcoMode is all done by TPS and RPM and the preset fueling values which do not change unless modified via tuning of ECU...

 

 

What you are describing is an alpha/n system. Those do not require a MAP sensor, but can use one optionally to augment the fueling. Since our bikes have a MAP sensor, it is possible but unlikely the MAP sensor is not being used. A speed/density system, which uses rpm and MAP as the main table, would automatically adjust to increased intake pressure due to intake tuning and/or removing a restriction unless the variation is huge or restricted for some reason in the code. Speed/density system also require a TPS for safety and for low load since the MAP sensor is going to be noisy there. 

 

This is all regardless of going closed-loop in "eco mode" which just uses whichever system as a pre-control and then applies some correction factors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bashlock
On 10/4/2017 at 7:46 PM, digitalsteve said:

It'd be interesting to know what, if any, performance benefit this gave.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.