Thanks, that is exactly what I wanted to know. BTW I'm not interested in having it LOUD, I just want it to perform to it's potential.
On Sep 25, 9:16 pm, Greg Holuban <gman...@msn.com> wrote: > I have a MAC exhaust. No glasspack at all. The inside piece (which can be > removed with 1 screw) is basically two pipes welded together staggered. I > have a jet kit and KN air filter. Mine revs smoothly. No flat spots or > hesitations. The sound? It won't sound like a crotch rochet. For that you'll > need an Eagle 1 exhaust. Most, people swear by V+H but mine runs great. > Probably worth the extra money for the quality and craftsmanship. > > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:48:13 -0400 > Subject: [Nighthawk Lovers] Hodge Mod vs. Vance & Hines/MACS > From: althomas...@gmail.com > To: nighthawk_lovers@googlegroups.com > > I did a search of the forum and before posting this so I think it is a new > topic, sorry if not. Anyway, I am the kind of guy who inspired Tim Taylor, I > modify everything I own. I have done a lot of street/strip racing with cars, > and can't resist the temptation to squeeze a few extra ponies out of my NH. > So I plan on putting in a proper zero loss exhaust, a free flowing intake > filter, and properly jetting and tuning the carbs. To this end I think that > if the stock exhaust is a resonator type as opposed to a glasspack, and if so > it can be modified it to eliminate almost all backpressure. Since I haven't > taken mine apart I don't know for sure. I have done a drawing of what I think > the design of the stock exhaust looks like before and after the Hodge mod. I > would appreciate it if anyone can verify if I'm correct on this. Thinking > about doing this leaves me wondering whether it would just be better to buy > the Vance&Hines or MACS setup. But I'm concerned that these systems are > glasspacks thus poorly tuned, or are just too loud. Once again insight from > someone who has these setups would be appreciated. According to my > calculations the ideal setup for zero loss and proper scavenging should be 1 > 1/8 primaries, into either 1 1/2 secondaries if a 4 - 2, or 2" if 4 - 1, the > secondaries should be roughtly17" long to optimize scavenging in the 4K-7K > range. I made a drawing of a resonator vs glasspack in case some may not know > the difference. The reason for my concern about glasspack mufflers are > because they act as an extension of the secondary, and the longer the > secondary is, the lower the ideal scavenging RPM range. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nighthawk Motorcycle Lovers!" group. To post to this group, send email to nighthawk_lovers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nighthawk_lovers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nighthawk_lovers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
