Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,274
    +1
    81

    Are FA sock/outerwears a significant restriction?

    It had never occurred to me that the outerwears on my 1390 might be costing me some performance until I read a comment about that in a post. Is there any opinion or experiance defining a performance reduction with using them? I do have a custom made slash shield under the carbs.


  2. #2
    Moderator OsideBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,875
    +1
    30
    any time you restrict flow it reduce performance. keep in mind that everything is relative and adjustments have to made accrdingly to the adjusters. The socks will fatten up your mixture requiring you to lean the adjustment down a bit. removing them you will need to adjust accordingly.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hillsborough, North Carolina
    Posts
    141
    Don't the "Socks" prevent water from being ingested "Just In Case" it gets water inside the hull?

  4. #4
    PolarisNut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Lower Michigan
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by mrtinker View Post
    Don't the "Socks" prevent water from being ingested "Just In Case" it gets water inside the hull?
    No, they really don't do much in my experience, except restrict airflow. They were originally designed to stop snow ingestion on snowmobiles, for which they do work.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Texas City, Texas
    Posts
    1,249
    +1
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by LT1GMC View Post
    It had never occurred to me that the outerwears on my 1390 might be costing me some performance until I read a comment about that in a post. Is there any opinion or experiance defining a performance reduction with using them? I do have a custom made slash shield under the carbs.
    It seems the way you put this that you are concerned about not having enough air going into your engine. Think about you stock flame arrestor and about how restrictive it is compared to the aftermarket ones, yet they can get the job done.

    It is not so much about air being delivered. The aftermarket arrestors deliver with or without the socks very easily. What Oside Bill is talking about is the amount of FUEL that is being delivered with and without the socks. Fuel delivery changes as you change the vacume, and the socks effect vacume significantly enough to effect performance. In other words, you can get the same performance with or without the socks, but you have to adjust your carbs to get it.

    The implied difference between having the socks or not having them is that you have more protection with the socks. My attitude about this is that they may protect you from injesting dirt or sand that may be in the bottom of your hull that the flame arrestor could not filter out. I'm not buying the water protection thing at all.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Are there California restrictions put on the new Yamaha's?
    By Kirk1964 in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-21-2015, 02:33 PM
  2. What are your mod and results
    By Jrsrxp in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-17-2007, 08:20 PM
  3. How different are PWC's really?
    By rx4pain in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 02-08-2007, 10:43 PM
  4. What are you guys doing with stock parts off your ski?????
    By Jrsrxp in forum 4-Tec Performance
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-30-2005, 05:57 AM
  5. RXP's are great skis!
    By SuzanGPR in forum Sea Doo Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-07-2005, 11:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •