Triumphrat

Msullivan · 01-21-2006

The Nark w/ the two KN filters or the Single KN filter w/ Norman Hyde Bellmouth. Im tring to decide which one to get and if I can save a little money to boot that would be great also.

Thanks

Mike

CYNCRZR · 01-21-2006

I'm willing to bet the NARK will give more top end than the gutted airbox & Bellmouth. The question is: How much ?

I did the NARK to my Thruxton & the difference is phenomenal. The Bike pulls so hard all the way to red line, where b'fore it was a bit "Timid" above 6,000 rpm.

FatRatt went with the Bellmouth & he's pretty happy with it, so I imagine it's a matter of what appeals to you and what suits your riding style.

Nothin we do is gonna make these Motor's into tire shredding monsters.

[ This message was edited by: CYNCRZR on 2006-01-21 10:07 ]

dazco · 01-21-2006

I drilled the bottom so theres 2 openings instead of 1, added a uni filter and no snorkel and rejetted. The bike had a hard time getting to the limited but now gets there easily. I don't think a freak (same as nark but for cruisers) would do a lot more on my bike at least. Tho the cams on mine are said to inhibit how much intake it can make use of. But never the less it make a considerable difference. So i can only give you my take on my bike. If i had to guess i'd say it wouldn't make a lot of difference. Many people go straight to the nark and rave about the difference. But those who do what i did usually do it a step at a time so they get increasing increments of power gain and therefore since they don't get it all at once it's not as obvious. That may account for why nark users feel a big difference. But i guess the only way to know is if someone chimes in who did the max amount of airbox mods and rejetting then went to the nark after that. maybe someone like that will chime in.

RedBird · 01-21-2006

I believe GaryD said it best some time ago. He said something like this: Without the NARK, you are playing in the minor leagues! :-D

I have said before: Why does divorce cost so much? Because it's worth it. Why does the NARK cost so much? Because it's worth it. :-D

UNBELIEVEABLE DIFFERENCE! Especially on the 790 motors with the "better" cam and timing! :-D :-D

Larry

DickBender · 01-21-2006

"The first time a rida the NARK shesa like phaaark"
Valentino Rossi Well he would have said it because the difference above 3500 rpm is incredible.
I was a "wonderer" and hesitated for a long time. Now I am converted.
Repeat after me........

The way of the NARK is the one true way. The way to release the potential is the NARK.

The way of the NARK is the one true way. The way to release the potential is the NARK.

The way of the NARK is the one true way. The way to release the potential is the NARK.

Closely followed by a Jojje rev limiter mod.

darcy

dazco · 01-22-2006

i still wanna hear someone say "i pulled the snorkel ,added a uni/K&n,drilled the airbox then rejetted, then i removed all that and installed a nark/freak and rejetted and that was a far bigger improvment than all those airbox mods.

i'm not saying it isn't, but the question isn't whether the nark makes for a huge improvement, it's whether it makes a huge improvement OVER the maximum airbox mods you can do. i'm really not questioning it with a raised eyebrow in the least......i actually want to know. but the point is has anyone done both and found that the nark/freak is indeed a much better improvment?

thats what he was asking and what i too would like to know. just saying the box removal kit is a huge improvement over the stock bike tells nothing. how it compares to airbox mods at thier max tells all. thats the question. i got what i'd consider huge improvement with the mods i did, but how do i know the nark/freak would be a big improvement over that unless someone has done both and can comment on the difference between those 2 instead of only giving the difference over the stock bike? Anyone?

Shakey · 01-22-2006

The Freak is the only way to go. It's a clean set up and produces usable power when the carbs are jetted right. My TBA carbs were tuned with the assist of a dynamometer. Eliminates a ton of guess work thereby saving money.

dardoonk · 01-22-2006

The comparison Msullivan is asking for is a Belmouth & K&N or a Nark. A modded airbox would probably fall somewhere in the middle of all this. From everything I have ever read on this forum, the Nark will offer maximum airflow short of not running any filter at all. Nothing else will do that.

Is a Nark worth $300, or are you better off to spend $120 on a Belmouth & $55 on the K&N filter? So is going Nark worth the difference in money? I thought it would be, but I also took into account the "coolness" factor of having it, as well as how much easier is is to pull the carbs when I have to.

Did I see a huge improvement over the stock airbox withouth the snorkel? ABSOLUTELY!!!

What did it cost me, compared to going with the Belmouth & K&N's? $125, or a couple of chrome items, however you want to look at it.

Would I buy a Nark (Freak for me) again? NO!! I would spend $29 on two K&N pod filters, $35 for a support brace from Bella Corse, and fabricate the brackets to hold the side covers myself.

dazco · 01-22-2006

Quote:

Did I see a huge improvement over the stock airbox withouth the snorkel? ABSOLUTELY!!!

Did I see a difference between no snorkel and no snorkel plus drilled box and UNI? ABSOLUTLY!!!

I think the question here is not just belmouth+filter vs nark. I think it's gotta be nark vs WHATEVER airbox mods allow the max airflow. Mine has an opening at the bottom which is the same as the snorkel opening. So my intake area is doubled over a snorkel-less airbox, plus the UNI flows much better than stock. I'm not sure that my engine is capable of using as much air intake as could be supplied with even no filters at all. So i'm not sure a freak would be any better than my current setup. Of course again, the 05' speedy's cams are said to inhibit any extra mixture past a certain point.

FattRat · 01-22-2006

I have have the air box sans snorkel & divider. Added to that is a K&N air filter and Bellmouth. I only know what the bike's performance felt like prior to modifications, and of course after.... but I would be VERY interested in seeing what a 790 would feel like with pods and D&D's.

I'm speculating here, nothing more than the ramblings of an old man:
There are some fanatics who believe that the K&N air filter, let alone individual K&N pods, allow too much particulate to pass into the guts of the engine ("That's why they allow more air to pass.... and in addition, their design allows dirt to get sucked past the filters too!"). They claim that the life of the engine would be cut short, so they refuse to run 'em.
- whatever -

I'm guessing that when pods & the appropriate needles are married, they may result in a smooth delivery of power, albeit with "peaky" characteristics the likes of Thruxton riders enjoy for racing around on. I'm guessing gas mileage, combined with the wrist action & bigger needles, will result in less 'economy' too.

I believe that by retaining an air box, the resulting power delivery will be more linear (smoother) throughout the power band. One won't have to go so radical a needle for jetting, and fuel economy will be maintained. I am speculating that the rider who rarely visits the upper range of the tach' has nothing to gain by tossing the air box. I'll even go so far as to say that the factory set up will be the smoothest delivery of (compromised) power that the casual cruiser will likely appreciate more.

Right now, I'm only curious about the pods. But my 790 with it's cam geared more for mid-range, a set of free flowing (LOUD/'attitude') pipes, and a gutted air box with it's K&N and Bellmouth..... is fine for my different styles of riding under a variety of conditions.

Now if I had a peaky Thruxton........
All bets would be off, I'd go P&P:
Pods & Predators babieeee!

(Does Uni market pods for the Bonnie'?)

[ This message was edited by: FattRat on 2006-01-22 11:01 ]