• Can't post after logging to the forum for the first time... Try Again - If you can't post in the forum, sign out of both the membership site and the forum and log in again. Make sure your COG membership is active and your browser allow cookies. If you still can't post, contact the COG IT guy at IT@Concours.org.
  • IF YOU GET 404 ERROR: This may be due to using a link in a post from prior to the web migration. Content was brought over from the old forum as is, but the links may be in error. If the link contains "cog-online.org" it is an old link and will not work.

Converting back to stock from pods...............

Mercer

Mercer

Guest
Guest
Well now in the continuing saga of this retro conversion!

Seems stock airbox off ebay reguires placement forward of standard mounting tabs to get box side carb boots to mount up.
Any one encounter such before. Have another extra airbox and seems to be same problem.

Box shape seems fine and undistorted.
Boots are supple and placed in proper orientation.
I.E. the boots ending in part #'s 24 & 25 are in proper positions and all turned properly.
Same for engine side carb rubber. All marks are aligned.

If I place a 5/8 wood scrap between frame tubes pushing air box forward all fit is fine on both sides. All works that way save for crankcase vent tube gaps,

What gives?
 
Longshot, but maybe the previous owner cut down the length of the carb to engine tubes to better fit the pods on?
 
Stock tubes. No issues fitting pods. They require no cut down to fit as there is space a plenty for pods. Have two sets of carb to motor rubbers. Both same and stock length.

Suspecting airbox to carb boot shrinkage from age maybe. But all are supple and show no signs of such. Have two set there to chose from also. They measure same by respective part numbers.

Was there any difference in airboxes year to year in C10 history?
 
I've had the same problem when installing the carbs. I suspect boot shrinkage from heat/age.
What I found too, is I had pushed the carbs in slightly deeper than needed.

When I do an install, I pull the carbs out a bit, heat the boots with a hair dryer, and and mount the rear boots with the box unbolted.
Once springs are installed on the boots, I heat the boots again and move the box back just enough to get the bolts installed.
Only other option is new boots.

Ride safe, Ted
 
connie_rider said:
I've had the same problem when installing the carbs. I suspect boot shrinkage from heat/age.
What I found too, is I had pushed the carbs in slightly deeper than needed.

When I do an install, I pull the carbs out a bit, heat the boots with a hair dryer, and and mount the rear boots with the box unbolted.
Once springs are installed on the boots, I heat the boots again and move the box back just enough to get the bolts installed.
Only other option is new boots.

Ride safe, Ted
Click to expand...
Thanks Ted, glad someone has been there before.

In my case now believe the issue is two old. The air boxes are distorted more than boots but both probably. Yes heat and time! Also front carb to engine connectors have taken a "pod set" over time as there was no support of rear of carbs save that front connection. The carbs have been tilted down by this "set".

Have corrected all this morning. Used a bungee to cancel "pod set" noted above as temporary solution by pulling card rack upward. Made a extension for box at bottom. Now air box tabs will lock that in place with frame though forward by 5/8 inch. These changes will solve all issues for moment. Plan to replace bungee with a red shock absorber top bush and hook eye. This should keep carbs isolated in rubber while supporting rack weight permanently.

Frugal solution. Boots are in too good a shape to replace otherwise. Will post pictures when finished.

A shout out to the wise! I had started this when needing to replace throttle cable. Figured while there would get rid of pod conversion. I had a perfectly good ride but just got poor MPG at 33.

I would have been wiser to make this a winter project. Then be riding for the summer. Live and learn!
 
Wow never would of thought that those rubbers would have that much shrinkage, usually it's the other way around, lol.
Glad you got it figured out with Ted's confirmation.
 
Well after some consideration arrived at a permanent solution to all issues above.
To rectify age related deformations of airbox and rubber parts did the following.

1. Moved airbox forward with rubber bumpers to compensate for shortness in boots
reaching carbs for whatever combination of issues.
2. To compensate for "pod" downward set of front rubbers placed a rubber isolated
spring to support carb rack in proper position.

Yes frugal as I recycled supple old intake/carb rubber parts and some junk box stuff had on hand.
Pictures for anyone ever in a similar dilemma.
 

Attachments

  • note 8 07102021 010.jpg
    note 8 07102021 010.jpg
    101 KB · Views: 120
  • note 8 07102021 009.jpg
    note 8 07102021 009.jpg
    126.9 KB · Views: 121
  • note 8 07102021 006 - Copy.jpg
    note 8 07102021 006 - Copy.jpg
    59.9 KB · Views: 121
  • note 8 07102021 007 - Copy.jpg
    note 8 07102021 007 - Copy.jpg
    81.5 KB · Views: 128
  • note 8 07102021 008 - Copy.jpg
    note 8 07102021 008 - Copy.jpg
    86.7 KB · Views: 133
Last edited:
the rest:
 

Attachments

  • note 8 07102021 005 - Copy.jpg
    note 8 07102021 005 - Copy.jpg
    128.4 KB · Views: 114
  • note 8 07102021 012 - Copy.jpg
    note 8 07102021 012 - Copy.jpg
    102.2 KB · Views: 117
  • note 8 07102021 013 - Copy - Copy.jpg
    note 8 07102021 013 - Copy - Copy.jpg
    116 KB · Views: 115
  • note 8 07102021 008.jpg
    note 8 07102021 008.jpg
    86.7 KB · Views: 117
  • note 8 07102021 004.jpg
    note 8 07102021 004.jpg
    126.9 KB · Views: 112
Note: Spring tension was adjusted so as to be just enough to bring carb rack to proper angle to meet
air box boots. Then air box was then moved forward with spacers to allow for boots to be properly secured as stock.

Note also: In new forward position of air box the lower frame mounts were useless as they would not align box to frame.
I zip tied them to the frame rails. Might do something more permanent but probably not as zip solution is functional
and hidden by fairing covers.

Hope all this helps someone keep a old C10 in the game!
 
jim snyder said:
You could also make some new brackets out of some thin flat bar steel that are longer to make up the difference.
Click to expand...
Yes Jim. Looked at it for a while. Clearances and position was very very tight. It would require a spacer the width of the air box plastic tabs placed over frame tab. Then a flat bar/plate to bolt to top of this and then forward to air box tab to be bolted there. Problem is alignments of bolts as they are not in same plane as it were and any holes for spacer would be off center and ill placed. Zip tie was expedient and sans any fabricated hardware solution. Ideally a very thin plate bent backward just past frame tab and then parallel to back of airbox tab would do but the clearance for such is just too tight.

All that said however after seeing your fabrication skills on this site and the net I am wishing you were close by as am sure your insight would cut through the problem in short order. Attached is a few more pics for your review. Elegant it is not! But fairings cover a lot of sins.
 

Attachments

  • Note 8 07102021 a 006.jpg
    Note 8 07102021 a 006.jpg
    106.9 KB · Views: 113
  • Note 8 07102021 a 005.jpg
    Note 8 07102021 a 005.jpg
    85.5 KB · Views: 118
  • Note 8 07102021 a 002.jpg
    Note 8 07102021 a 002.jpg
    114.1 KB · Views: 121
Mercer said:
Yes Jim. Looked at it for a while. Clearances and position was very very tight. It would require a spacer the width of the air box plastic tabs placed over frame tab. Then a flat bar/plate to bolt to top of this and then forward to air box tab to be bolted there. Problem is alignments of bolts as they are not in same plane as it were and any holes for spacer would be off center and ill placed. Zip tie was expedient and sans any fabricated hardware solution. Ideally a very thin plate bent backward just past frame tab and then parallel to back of airbox tab would do but the clearance for such is just too tight.

All that said however after seeing your fabrication skills on this site and the net I am wishing you were close by as am sure your insight would cut through the problem in short order. Attached is a few more pics for your review. Elegant it is not! But fairings cover a lot of sins.
Click to expand...
Yes if we were closer I would gladly make you some new brackets.
 
jim snyder said:
Yes if we were closer I would gladly make you some new brackets.
Click to expand...
Well Jim ya got me ta think'n. Aside from poor looks. Became concerned about zip ties stretching with heat and boots sucking air at spring seal junction.

NASA made that mistake!

Got up and just did the engineering for it this morning. Had some allen heads that fit better than bolts or screws in space allowed. It is solid now!

"Takes a community to keep a C10 straight and true!" Was that Hillary or Mao that said that? Oh! It was our friend TED!

THANKS!
 

Attachments

  • note 8 07112021 001.jpg
    note 8 07112021 001.jpg
    111.7 KB · Views: 121
  • note 8 07112021 002.jpg
    note 8 07112021 002.jpg
    124.6 KB · Views: 117
No, it wasn't me that sed that.
Wish I had.

But, I did say; Hey Jim, why don't you tell Mercer about the Air Box Bracket.

Ride safe, Ted

PS: I never lie.. 😇
(But, I do "occasionally" enhance the truth a bit.) 🥴
 
Last edited:
No, I was talking about the brace/bracket {between the frame and the airbox} that Jim suggested, and Mercer built. (post #13)

Ride safe, Ted
 
Last edited:
I don't recall that Mercer has the Two Minute Jett Kit installed?
Without that, neither the foam (nor the sliding thingofamajig) would make much difference.

Ride safe, Ted
 
No not ready for 2min mod or a plate yet..... but thanks for offer.

Having too much fun with "new to me" stock jetting and air box after about 6k with pods.

I do have 120 mains in bike now though.

Plan to try slides with holes drilled over size later in season before winter as next experiment.

Then next riding season (2022) will do a 2 min mod and install my 4 degree exhaust cam sprocket that is sitting on shelf..

Do need to ride right now though. Lost to much of season jerking around with conversion backward to stock.

But let me say emphatically now that it is a done process was so absolutely worth it!

Torque is king!
 
Mercer said:
No not ready for 2min mod or a plate yet..... but thanks for offer.

Having too much fun with "new to me" stock jetting and air box after about 6k with pods.

I do have 120 mains in bike now though.

Plan to try slides with holes drilled over size later in season before winter as next experiment.

Then next riding season (2022) will do a 2 min mod and install my 4 degree exhaust cam sprocket that is sitting on shelf..

Do need to ride right now though. Lost to much of season jerking around with conversion backward to stock.

But let me say emphatically now that it is a done process was so absolutely worth it!

Torque is king!
Click to expand...
Don't waste your time, go straight to the 2mm kit and you won't be disappointed.
 
Jim sure you are absolutely right. But honestly just want to ride the season for now.

I spent a lot time last year on suspension experimentations. Would say tuning but did a
wide range of changes before settling in on a clear for me path to get an end result.
Did not ride much for pleasure as a result.

Then this year missed start of riding season because I was going to change a sticking throttle
cable and decided while there to get rid of pods and jet kit. Morphed into bike being down too long.

I love improving the old girl and toying with her possibilities. But now just want to ride her and enjoy her.
Come end of season will play tuner/tinkerer again. The 2min mod is on my list. Want as said to install
4 degree cam sprocket too. That when I do valve adjustments.

Keep thinking I want to paint her Porsche's version of Ford Racing Blue with a silver of some sort painted
underpinnings too. Keep a list of C10 things to do pipe dreams!

Thanks Jim for your assistance on this site. That to myself and others. So glad you encouraged me to get
rid of temporary airbox zip ties. I almost left them in my haste to get back on roadways!
 
Thanks for that Steve! Was going to check MPGs and do a plug read. You are ahead of me by decades.
I am so grateful of your continued shares.

This COG experience is something else. You guys are great!
 
Well MPG figures in! Always averaged 33 MPG with pods and jet kit. First tank with stock airbox and jets plus 120 mains
was 43 MPG over same terrain! Speeds were between 0-80 over 2-lane blacktop rolling hill roadways.

Reading old plugs showed good tan color with gray. Could no use these readings but for general summation as they were run with pods too.

Cleaned plugs to new surfaces and checked gap then reinstalled. Followed Steve's recommendation and added .020 shims to slide needles. Took a short 20 mile ride last night. Really surprised what .020 could do.

By seat of pants dyno noticed these findings with .020 shims:

1. At first take off noticed what I thought was a return to the no vibrations I luckily had with pods. But alas the vibration was now moved being more confined to 4-4.5 K RPM. That it it is more objectionable to left hand was noticed also. Frequency of vibration became tighter and narrower for lack of descriptors otherwise.

2. Seems .020 shims to have toned down torque in low rpms slightly and raised it above 4.5K. Despite this observation acceleration became more linear, smoother and tighter feeling.

3. Idle became more throaty sounding. Throttle became quicker in response. Passing or roll on happens quicker. All this change from .020 washer. DAMN!

Know this is all very subjective in observation but I am truly amazed at all these findings for such a small input and change. Thankful for Steve's call to do this.

Am still having #2 cylinder running somewhat cooler than the rest as read at exhaust header bends with a hand held thermo device at end of rides. Checked fuel level in bowls with clear tubing # 1,3,4 are all same and #2 is maybe .5mm higher but well within spec. Since those .020. shims made such a difference. Perhaps this #2's reading is significant. Significant in causing vibration perhaps. Long shot maybe. Might play with this by adjusting #2 float a bit closer spec to others some day.

Will post second tank's MPG after .020 shim addition as soon as I run it dry.

Would I go back to pods? Never!
 
#2 cylinder running cooler???

If you have the original vacuum operated fuel petcock I'd be making sure the diaphragm inside it that cylinder #2 vacuum is connected to isn't leaking.
 
brooke.benfield said:
#2 cylinder running cooler???

If you have the original vacuum operated fuel petcock I'd be making sure the diaphragm inside it that cylinder #2 vacuum is connected to isn't leaking.
Click to expand...
Thanks for thought. Ports on #s 2&3 are sealed with caps. 1&4 are T'd to work tap. Going to check # 2 cap however and introduce propane around carb rubber to make sure everything is airtight as should be. Will post results.
 
Introduced propane around all rubber fittings, caps, hoses, T's on #2 and then the rest including tap/vacuum junction. No vacuum leaks so did rule that out.

Thanks for suggestion. Had not considered that. But it was a valid diagnostic avenue to pursue.

Think I might separate T connecting #1 & 4 vacuum hoses just as an unrelated experiment too. Only used #4 before. Placed the two together in preparation for adding cruise control in winter.
 
Seems C10 likes one line to tap and not #s 1 & 4 T'd. Idle smooths out and exhaust quites down some. Timing chain is quieter. Harmonic resonance or some other mystery beyond my knowledge would suspect.
 
Just finished second tank, first since adding .020 to below slide needles.
Got 41 mpg out of this one.

Getting rid of pods and jet kit was so worth it.

Hot out there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top