Removing stuck carb Jets

[copeland3300]

You're right about the main. I didn't properly do my research. According to this

The mains are

115(1&4)
120(2&3)

Having said that, should I be going for something like a 120 for 1,4 and a 125 for 2,3?

[Bonz]

78-79 bikes had different carbs internally, therefore they run much larger mains than the 1980+ bikes. Net result is the same, but totally different jet sizes.

Yeah, looks like the info is for a 79. So, don't use my comparative analysis to my ZRX, as that would mess you up entirely!

I am sure there is some info on pods/jetting with an 80G or SG, have you been able to find anything? I have never looked, as I don't think I'm gonna make enough more power to mess with it all.

I would like to see somewhere that the pods/jets with stock exhaust was dyno tested, instead of the butt-dyno. Then I'd be a lot more inclined to consider it an option. With the good 'ol butt dyno, you can lose power off the bottom, making the "hit" seem stronger, thus claiming "it's a much stronger runner", when in reality you just lost your low end and gained nothing!

With my ZRX 1200, it does lose torque/hp below 3k rpm with pods/jets/full system, but by 3500 it's kicking the bee-gee's out of the stock bike according to the dyno by a huge margin in both counts. SO, that is what leads me to say if it isn't documented, take it with a grain of salt. It might FEEL stronger, but is it?

[copeland3300]

To be honest, I just want the thing to run, haha. I went with the air pods because I didn't want to screw around with the stock air box, plus I like their look.

[Bonz]

I'm gonna ask CaptonZap to chime in, he has a way to secure the stock airbox so it comes out easy as heck.

In my case, the mounting bracket is removed and the box held in place by the one bolt on each side. It comes out in a snap for easy carb access and fiddling.

The look is cool with pods, the intake noise will be noticeable when you wind on the throttle, not sure about how the XS responds overall to being tuned for pods.

Hope tuning them works out ok, can't say I have heard overwhelming reports one way or the other about their overall driveability or lack there of, which says mounting the airbox so it is easy to remove, is the ticket maybe?

Some report issues with strong winds, but on my ZRX it is the carb vents that need to be shielded. Pressure changes on the vents makes the bike wonky, not the filters themselves.

[motoman]

To be honest, I just want the thing to run, haha. I went with the air pods because I didn't want to screw around with the stock air box, plus I like their look.

I can drop a stock airbox off an XS quicker than you can remove pods.....yea, believe it. DROP is the key word. The bike WILL perform better WITH the stock airbox.....period. Most here go to pods cause when they find these bikes, alot of time they are missin the stock air cleaner and box. With that, they also have jetting issues and end up with a pile of jets before getting it close. I say 'close' cause not using the stock airbox you can tune them to run good low/mid range, or run good top-end, but not both, least nothing compared to using the stock airbox. These vacuum carbs, to work TOTALLY correct, all rpm ranges require the use of the stock airbox, period. BTW Howard, dyno's HAVE been performed with what you may have in question. Also, ones like Dan Hodges(member) have spent literally thousands on these motors, getting it down to almost a rocket science, to only have minimal gains in the 20hp range. You can be sure, if you do your homework studying the backround in these engines design, all- around, the engineers at Yammy have you trumped for expecting any real gains in power, no matter what you throw money at trying. They are what they are, and there is no magic head/combustin chamber, cams or otherwise that's gonna show much change.

[Bonz]

Motoman, you confirmed what I said a few posts back. I don't think with the XS 1100 motor I can improve on power enough to matter compared to stock, and maintain the same great driveability I have in my 80SG, and my soon to be running/rehab'd 80G.

Gain 5 hp and 1ft/lb of torque, but shoot the driveability in the foot on a 600 lb bike isn't where it's at.

Moto, can you point me to the dyno graphs and stuff?

[motoman]

Motoman, you confirmed what I said a few posts back. I don't think with the XS 1100 motor I can improve on power enough to matter compared to stock, and maintain the same great driveability I have in my 80SG, and my soon to be running/rehab'd 80G.

Gain 5 hp and 1ft/lb of torque, but shoot the driveability in the foot on a 600 lb bike isn't where it's at.

Moto, can you point me to the dyno graphs and stuff?

Howard, that was some five yrs.+ ago here on the site. Back when some individuals(one in land of ozz) was spendin' the bucks and comparing to stock actual rear wheel hp.) Remember there was several bucks spent JUST to get the RWHP up to a 100hp. Like I said, Dan Hodges has been the only one to REALLY show any gains, at an enourmes expense. IIRC, that XJ(BTW, Stock intake,exhaust) Sold for some $8500 and rest in a muesum in Holland, or one of the places across the pond. Trbig, BA80 and a couple others can remember better the specifics as to where it went, but do know it rest in a muesum over there where it was shipped. Anyways, point being, some EXTREMELY savvy 'gear head' folks on here have BTDT, to the extent of having special made cyl. for an extreme over-bore, Hodges being one. Having one intake valve definitely is gonna limit the wind it can suck, unless there's help from a turbo.

[crazy steve]

Moto, can you point me to the dyno graphs and stuff?

Those used to be posted in some of Dan's threads, but the links have gone dead. But if you read the threads, what Moto said is true; spend a lot of money for not much result. If you're willing to drop a grand into the motor, you can pick up about another 10-15 hp, but above that the per-hp cost goes through the roof and street driveability disappears.