When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
They're just under 5in wide each so I think they should fit side by side above the radio. I'm thinking I can run one set of 4 gauge power and ground wires from the battery and put a distribution block in the fairing. I wouldn't need RCA cables, I can just make a small harness to split the old speaker output from the head unit into both high input connectors. Does this sound reasonable?
Any reason not to go with 2 of the SD 400.4? They seem to be the same power but significantly cheaper.
Originally Posted by travelingypsye
If you run both in bridge mode then yea they will make about the same power but keep in mind that you need to run 2 of everything (wire harness, rca spliters). but I like the idea and that is thinking out of the box. I just wonder if 2 of those will fit on a standard amp tray. $650-700 for a 1200.4 vs $450-500 for 2 400.4's hell yea.
That's exactly what my friend and I both did recently, me in my RGS, his in his SGS. I'm not sure how different things are under the old fairing that you're dealing with, but here is a pic of his setup. We're also both running 2 pairs of the same GZ coax with the DSR1 and they sound great to me. I can finally here my music over the wind noise at any speed. We both bought all of our equipment from Carlos at NVS. He's a good dude and knows his stuff. Also, I'm actually gonna brag a bit here: When I called him, I suggested running 2 400.4 EVOXs because the output would be higher than the 800.4 or the 1200.4, and it would be cheaper. He was impressed and said he hadn't thought of that.
Trying to follow this logic as I myself am in the middle of my next build. Here are the SD Spec (based on the 14.4v numbers simply for comparison):
400.4 EVOX (Seems they only have a 4 Ohm version) Bridge Power @ 14.4V @ 4Ω: 2 X 223 WRMS
So you have 223w each for the Fairing And, the other Amp runs the lowers or rear at 223w each as well.
1200.4 EVOX 2-Ohm
Bridge Power @ 14.4V @ 2Ω: 2 X 669 WRMS
So running in parallel, you will have 334w each for the Fairing and the 3&4 at 334w each for the Lowers or Rears.
I'm not following how the comments that the output between the two options are the same? I think the problem with this theory is, the 400.4 EVOX only comes in 4 Ohm.
I actually went through this same thinking, but with considering two of the 800.4 EVOX. But there again, when I found they don't make a 2-Ohm version, that angle went down in flames.
So with my 4 GZ's in the Fairing and Lowers, I went with a 1200.4 EVOX 2-Ohm to run in parallel expecting to get a solid 300w each, which I plan to tame down to approx 250-275 to all 4 speakers, leaving some decent headroom. Based on the above discussion, the pair of 400.4 4-Ohms, wouldn't get more than real world around 200w each, right? Where am I getting tripped up?
Please confirm my old math still works, before I start rolling up my sleeves!
Trying to follow this logic as I myself am in the middle of my next build. Here are the SD Spec (based on the 14.4v numbers simply for comparison):
400.4 EVOX (Seems they only have a 4 Ohm version) Bridge Power @ 14.4V @ 4Ω: 2 X 223 WRMS
So you have 223w each for the Fairing And, the other Amp runs the lowers or rear at 223w each as well.
1200.4 EVOX 2-Ohm
Bridge Power @ 14.4V @ 2Ω: 2 X 669 WRMS
So running in parallel, you will have 334w each for the Fairing and the 3&4 at 334w each for the Lowers or Rears.
I'm not following how the comments that the output between the two options are the same? I think the problem with this theory is, the 400.4 EVOX only comes in 4 Ohm.
I actually went through this same thinking, but with considering two of the 800.4 EVOX. But there again, when I found they don't make a 2-Ohm version, that angle went down in flames.
So with my 4 GZ's in the Fairing and Lowers, I went with a 1200.4 EVOX 2-Ohm to run in parallel expecting to get a solid 300w each, which I plan to tame down to approx 250-275 to all 4 speakers, leaving some decent headroom. Based on the above discussion, the pair of 400.4 4-Ohms, wouldn't get more than real world around 200w each, right? Where am I getting tripped up?
Please confirm my old math still works, before I start rolling up my sleeves!
Your math is absolutely correct. I would choose the 2 400's over the 800 simply for cost reasons but I wouldn't choose them over the 1200 2ohm for this application.
Trying to follow this logic as I myself am in the middle of my next build. Here are the SD Spec (based on the 14.4v numbers simply for comparison):
400.4 EVOX (Seems they only have a 4 Ohm version) Bridge Power @ 14.4V @ 4Ω: 2 X 223 WRMS
So you have 223w each for the Fairing And, the other Amp runs the lowers or rear at 223w each as well.
1200.4 EVOX 2-Ohm
Bridge Power @ 14.4V @ 2Ω: 2 X 669 WRMS
So running in parallel, you will have 334w each for the Fairing and the 3&4 at 334w each for the Lowers or Rears.
I'm not following how the comments that the output between the two options are the same? I think the problem with this theory is, the 400.4 EVOX only comes in 4 Ohm.
I actually went through this same thinking, but with considering two of the 800.4 EVOX. But there again, when I found they don't make a 2-Ohm version, that angle went down in flames.
So with my 4 GZ's in the Fairing and Lowers, I went with a 1200.4 EVOX 2-Ohm to run in parallel expecting to get a solid 300w each, which I plan to tame down to approx 250-275 to all 4 speakers, leaving some decent headroom. Based on the above discussion, the pair of 400.4 4-Ohms, wouldn't get more than real world around 200w each, right? Where am I getting tripped up?
Please confirm my old math still works, before I start rolling up my sleeves!
Yeah I had a slight memory lapse. When building mine, I decided on 2 400.4s instead of 1 800.4 because of the lack of a 2 ohm version of the 800.4. I decided against the 1200.4 because of the price, and the inability to run it in L/R stereo. I couldve done F/R stereo instead, and honestly running it in mono wouldnt have been the end of the world. It was more the price difference.
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Slideshow: The bar-and-shield logo shows up on far more than motorcycles, some of the company's most unexpected products have nothing to do with riding.
Slideshow: From the troubled AMF years to modern misfires, these bikes earned reputations for reliability issues, questionable engineering, or disappointing performance.
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Slideshow: The Swiss custom shop has taken a Harley Softail and stretched it into something so long and low that it looks closer to a rolling sculpture than a conventional motorcycle.
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Slideshow: A standard cruiser becomes an intricate metal canvas in the hands of a Swiss custom house known for pushing Harley-Davidson platforms far beyond their factory brief.
Slideshow: Harley-Davidson's challenges aren't abstract; they show up in dropping shipments, shrinking dealer traffic, and strategic decisions that aren't yet translating into growth.