Also, if you didn't know. My engine is rebuilt with new rings, lapped valves, cb900 cams and free flowing exhaust. Prob a little too free flowing...
Cb750 Dual Carb Intake Design
- Thread starter ncologerojr
- Start date
surffly said:
Fair enough, thanks for answering.
I think that if there's a gain, the pricing is fair - there are lots of go-fast parts that price out the same as go-faster parts - and I'll admit that I'm running an atrocious 2-1 intake on my XV for convenience and the look rather than horsepower gain. Still better than the stock setup, though
that doesnt make much diff it is still a 750 a 185cc airpump per cylinderncologerojr said:
34's are crazy big
when we were racing a full on 1015cc national caliber superbike back in the day we only ran 31's and 33's smoothbores
like i already said 28's would be ideal for street and some good power.
xb33bsa said:that doesnt make much diff it is still a 750 a 185cc airpump per cylinder
34's are crazy big
when we were racing a full on 1015cc national caliber superbike back in the day we only ran 31's and 33's smoothbores
like i already said 28's would be ideal for street and some good power.
Sorry, that post wasn't directed towards your response. I think your spot on with the 28's.
I was directing that towards the "The flow thru the head is in the sohc..." reply, as I don't know where he was going with that...
surffly
Over 1,000 Posts
I'm doing a set if 33 smoothbores now for my 1100f.
Size isn't everything, the style of carb makes a difference too. (Flat vs round slide)
Had two 40mm webers on a sohc 750....but again different types of carbs.
My main issue with these twin VMs is I don't see it solving an problem.
You a member over at the cb1100f forum?
They have a few different carb set ups using racks off other newer bikes.
Some are crazy cheap and very interesting.
Size isn't everything, the style of carb makes a difference too. (Flat vs round slide)
Had two 40mm webers on a sohc 750....but again different types of carbs.
My main issue with these twin VMs is I don't see it solving an problem.
You a member over at the cb1100f forum?
They have a few different carb set ups using racks off other newer bikes.
Some are crazy cheap and very interesting.
surffly said:
I see what your saying now. I have a dohc cb750 which is what threw me off.
I am a member of the cb1100f forms and they have a lot of great stuff. I currently run gsxr carbs which I learned about on those forms.
There are also a lot of guys over there with video proof of stock dohc carbs running just fine with pods. It makes me consider throwing my stockers back on to play a bit. I never even tried tuning the stock carbs after reading on this form that it's virtually impossible.
the thing about the VM mikuni is it has a round hole which in not ideal
all of the oem 4 stroke slide valve carbs, mikuni and keihin alike all have a tall oval hole at the slide this really helps flow and smooth carburetion at part throttle openings
even many of the later cv carbs have the oval aperature
all of the oem 4 stroke slide valve carbs, mikuni and keihin alike all have a tall oval hole at the slide this really helps flow and smooth carburetion at part throttle openings
even many of the later cv carbs have the oval aperature
To go back to the original purpose of this post, I was considering making the dual carb manifolds and looking for input. After we all bickered at each other I've got some good input, and I honestly don't know if it's a route I want to go down.
I still think cxman makes a good product. A quick google search shows there is no shortage of satisfied customers. But, he has done years of r&d, and I'm not that devoted...
I still think cxman makes a good product. A quick google search shows there is no shortage of satisfied customers. But, he has done years of r&d, and I'm not that devoted...
surffly
Over 1,000 Posts
Cycle X set up is a closer copy of the original posa manifolds, and $100 cheaper.
Read all about people liking them, but that does little to impress me, seen to many people that wouldn't know a well running engine if it spit in their face talk about stuff.
It is just beating a dead horse at this point, I don't think speedy will ever actually speak to me directly anyway....shame.
If it is just to be billed as a fashion part then fine, not my thing. But if billed as performance part then it should come with some back up.
I'm critical in the same way of the guys at DCC selling pre jetted carbs 4 sizes to large to people, but that fad has passed.
Read all about people liking them, but that does little to impress me, seen to many people that wouldn't know a well running engine if it spit in their face talk about stuff.
It is just beating a dead horse at this point, I don't think speedy will ever actually speak to me directly anyway....shame.
If it is just to be billed as a fashion part then fine, not my thing. But if billed as performance part then it should come with some back up.
I'm critical in the same way of the guys at DCC selling pre jetted carbs 4 sizes to large to people, but that fad has passed.
I initially wanted to go the same route as you with either a 2 carb manifold or a one carb manifold, however due to time constraints and other issue going on right now, I opted to go the CR route.
As I have more time and monies, I still wanted to pursue the idea further, while gathering more information on the topic. This has proved difficult due to the fact that nearly every post I come accross on this question is plagued by the same type of hostility, as seen here. In deed, the option has been done before, yet it is still fun to try to come up with something new.
The argument that the 'bike engineers designed it that way so why change it' is moot in my eyes. If that principal is set in stone, just go out and buy a brand new bike and call it a day. Why even build anything custom then? Why even try any thing new or interesting? In my eyes the point of a custom is to do it different, the goals set there is up to the individual. Building a race bike, then there are specific goals set there. Building a custom then a whole different set of goal may be set there. If you are building a bike to go from point A to point B, in a reliable fashion, safely, and with a little style, then it isn't really necessary to squeeze every available HP number out the engine block. Right? If you are going to get all caught up in the semantics of the term 'cafe racer', well then, just call it something else. Which is fine and dandy. I'd just say 'I'm building a custom', and do what you want, if you have the time, patients, and ability, go for it.
As I have more time and monies, I still wanted to pursue the idea further, while gathering more information on the topic. This has proved difficult due to the fact that nearly every post I come accross on this question is plagued by the same type of hostility, as seen here. In deed, the option has been done before, yet it is still fun to try to come up with something new.
The argument that the 'bike engineers designed it that way so why change it' is moot in my eyes. If that principal is set in stone, just go out and buy a brand new bike and call it a day. Why even build anything custom then? Why even try any thing new or interesting? In my eyes the point of a custom is to do it different, the goals set there is up to the individual. Building a race bike, then there are specific goals set there. Building a custom then a whole different set of goal may be set there. If you are building a bike to go from point A to point B, in a reliable fashion, safely, and with a little style, then it isn't really necessary to squeeze every available HP number out the engine block. Right? If you are going to get all caught up in the semantics of the term 'cafe racer', well then, just call it something else. Which is fine and dandy. I'd just say 'I'm building a custom', and do what you want, if you have the time, patients, and ability, go for it.
mydlyfkryzis
当有疑问时踢你的敌人在生殖器上，你可以道歉后
Heavies said:
Not hostility, just a different point of view.
The reason factory setup is quoted is that is the base line. Customization is wonderful, but it seems a weird thing to me to reduce performance from the baseline for looks. Performance, in my eyes, is not acceleration or top speed. I use performance to mean easy to start, good throttle response, reasonable fuel consumption, good driveability. It seems a little odd that you would sacrifice driveability, throttle response, easy starting, for a system that looks nicer to you. The other odd thing is you did other performance upgrades, like the cam, then want to add down grades for looks.
So not so much hostility, but questions about why someone would reduce capability of the bike, adding compromises in the name of looks. I love better looking bikes, but can't appreciate the crummy engineering into a modification that reduces the proper function or reduces the functionality.
However, these re my feelings. You are free to go and do whatever you want. However, not everybody is going to be "Ooooh, how wonderful". You posted this on a public forum, and you will get differing opinions.
mydlyfkryzis said:
The funny thing is, I never said that I didn't care about performance. Not once.
I said that looks matter to me, so I ditched the stock air box. I said multiple times that i wanted to try and build something that functioned. I said:
"I want a bike that rides the street well, and looks good doing it."
I didn't just slap pods onto my stock carbs, and I'm currently running gsxr carbs. I talked about the dual carbs looking good AND functioning better without the air box than the stocks. I talked about running duals IF they functioned multiple times. I simply said that I wasn't building a race bike. I openly admit that I'm not willing to completely sacrifice looks for total performance, because I don't need to with this bike. But, I'm defiantly not looking to make it perform worse. Why would I rebuild the top end and add cams?
Did I not start this thread saying that I was looking for design input? If I didn't care about performance at all why would I even ask? Why would I go through the trouble of searching options at all when I could have just made something that looked cool? I was looking for input, good or bad.
I've been searching for a compromise of looks and performance that won't break the bank. I was obviously curious if I could find better than my gsxr carbs. If I was just after looks I'd be done.
This style vs. function argument is huge, and people are passionate about it. The problem is that it spilled into this thread.
I just read thru my posts again. Can someone show me where I said that I wanted to downgrade the performance? Or where I said that performance doesn't matter? Was my initial post not about the performance of my idea?
mydlyfkryzis
当有疑问时踢你的敌人在生殖器上，你可以道歉后
You didn't say you wanted to downgrade performance. You ask for design help for a design that downgrades performance.
One can only deduce that you don't mind a performance downgrade for looks.
Sent from planet Earth using mysterious electronic devices and Tapatalk
One can only deduce that you don't mind a performance downgrade for looks.
Sent from planet Earth using mysterious electronic devices and Tapatalk
