SF 750 Cone Filters
- Thread starter Dave12
- Start date
Tippie
Hero member
- Location
- Dr?bak, Norway
Which model SF, 36mm carb or the smaller square slides? The standard filter is large and non restrictive. It is also well tucked away and has the rubber tubes that effectively increase inlet length which is good for the motor. If you replace it with pod filters make sure they are as big as you can fit. I have had bikes that needed jetting down when replacing original filter systems with pod filters.
36mm carbs
TeddyG
Hero member
- Location
- Portland Oregon
I own a 74 750 and have gotten varying opinions on pods versus stock. DNA makes a pod that fits using the rubber inlets to tilt the filter away from the frame. Machined alloy intakes supposedly work well but allow dirt into the slides. I'm going to try the stock setup and see how that works.
piranha-bro2
Hero member
- Location
- Melbourne
I combined pods, rubbers and airbox (modified). Very large pods inserted into the rubbers inside the airbox using a sleeve. But it involves cutting out the back section of the airbox. Advantage of the airbox is to retain the rubber intake tracts, mate with the front of the sidecovers and also offer a handy space for big filters that can easily be removed for access in front of the battery.
TeddyG
Hero member
- Location
- Portland Oregon
Pirhana- what brand and part number of pods did you use? I bought DNA# XVR-4910-6 and mounted them to the OEM rubber snorkels so they would clear the frame. Did you extend the snorkel with a sleeve so that the pod would fit inside the airbox?
So far, I've previously run the bike with and without the air pods and have seen no difference, but will try the OEM airbox and filter once I get the engine back together and running again. There's always velocity stacks but I want to keep the new $$ carb slides smooth-
So far, I've previously run the bike with and without the air pods and have seen no difference, but will try the OEM airbox and filter once I get the engine back together and running again. There's always velocity stacks but I want to keep the new $$ carb slides smooth-
arancia
Senior member
- Location
- Arizona, USA
IMHO the original air filter setup as supplied OEM by the factory was quite adequate for road use with stock tuning level - modify at your own risk!
Max horsepower is a different story, but how often in road use with speed limits and neighbours who don't love our hobby etc. do you really need more than the stock power versus loss of flexibility or the risk of dirt intake?
The later 750 models intake and exhaust systems were constrained to meet the noise restrictions of the era - I enjoy the relatively subdued noise on a long run even with earplugs. There are options for replacement of the original large high-flow filter element without losing the appearance and effectiveness of that original filter - I bet you can find an element that fits the original airbox!
piranha-bro2
Hero member
- Location
- Melbourne
Ted, the SFQ is so far beyond standard there's no point comparing.
But on my original SF1 I retained the airbox but cut the inside rear section away so I could fit a large pod filter on each rubber intake from the rear of the airbox, (joined with a suitable section of steel/alu tube). I liked the ease of removal, which gave much better access, and the large choice of replacements. Definitely wasn't about seeking extra performance. I really like the airbox as it fits with the sidecovers and also retains a remote source of air for the motor.
Did something similar with the SFQ, as in a cover to create a remote airspace - was quite tricky to adapt some flex to join the filters under the seat to the heavily angled FCR intakes. Dyno showed a drop from 74 to 71 RWHP by fitting two very large DNA pods. It's only measurable at about 7500rpm and TBH I simply can't feel the diff - but I do feel a whole lot happier knowing the motor is breathing nice clean air. I have a thing about pods straight onto carbies - probably unfounded ....
But on my original SF1 I retained the airbox but cut the inside rear section away so I could fit a large pod filter on each rubber intake from the rear of the airbox, (joined with a suitable section of steel/alu tube). I liked the ease of removal, which gave much better access, and the large choice of replacements. Definitely wasn't about seeking extra performance. I really like the airbox as it fits with the sidecovers and also retains a remote source of air for the motor.
Did something similar with the SFQ, as in a cover to create a remote airspace - was quite tricky to adapt some flex to join the filters under the seat to the heavily angled FCR intakes. Dyno showed a drop from 74 to 71 RWHP by fitting two very large DNA pods. It's only measurable at about 7500rpm and TBH I simply can't feel the diff - but I do feel a whole lot happier knowing the motor is breathing nice clean air. I have a thing about pods straight onto carbies - probably unfounded ....