KDXRIDER.NET

Well....where to begin...do you think there will be any places left for us or anyone else, to ride in the next century...with you and a few other *dimwits* out there spoiling it?

I have no intention of just forgetting about it.

Have you noticed the shortage of folks on your side of the "opinion"??

Have you noticed the respectful and thoughtful answers you have been PRIVILEGED to receive? Do you think that will continue?

Have you considered....hope I'm not giving you too much credit here.... the importance of not making enemies while on the trail?

I'm really biting my lip here. PLEASE tell me you're only 12-14, cause I need to have some hope......

I'll try to get this back on topic (to suit my needs, of course) --

Quoting Jeb:

I have an FMF "rev" pipe installed on my 220 and it made a tremendous difference for the bike. I feel power gains throughout - I didn't notice a loss of low end - but of particular notice is the change on the high revs: there's more now!!

I'm sure you saw an improvement with the rev pipe over the stock pipe. My question, as always, is what performance a modded 220 would see if the PC PlatII torque pipe was replaced with a rev pipe? I've never gotten an answer to that. Time to re-email Prociruit and put their number in my cell phone.

Rick

And dadgum we aint talkin no weirder then all ya'll Yankee boys, wez just a bit more Hillbillyish is all.

That there don't sound like a yankee at'allllll. They talk like youn's up north.

Well... Rick

Not your common pipe switch so you may have to bite the bullet and let US know.

Most buy FMF... I had a PC pipe on my 92 and it worked great... but never compared the 2. The only reason I went for the PC is because it was cheaper.

Re: '..its the FMF Gnarly Rev'

By popular vote, general consensus and yeah verily those that have..

Yes.

Spark arresters are, by the same vote, considered to 'take' more power than silencers..but I doubt you would know or could tell the difference.

The TCII (FmF) is touted to NOT stuff things up like those 'other' arresters. Having run both a PC and FmF arrester, there isn't any difference 'tween the two..noise or performance wise.

I prefer the FmF tip..but PC changed to the same style tip some time back.

one thing about the FMF pipes is the Gnarley is supposed to be thicker sheet metal than their other pipes, I'm wondering how the PC pipes compare in that regard.

I have an FMF Gnarley woods, been impressed with the durability (but I have a massive guard on it), but not so favorably impressed with the fit. I need to try the tips I've seen on "forming" the MoFo, cuz right now I dread having to R&R the thing. I usually end up running through my whole list of bad words, and needing transfusion, and a trip to the liqour store.

Not your common pipe switch (torque to rev on the 220) so you may have to bite the bullet and let US know.

Yeah, QuailChaser went with the "wrong" pipe when he upgraded, at least as the common wisdom goes. But if I get a goodly boost of bottom with the torque pipe vs the rev pipe, I won't be too unhappy. Pro Circuit may have an opinion.

Maybe in a year or so, I'll buy a rev pipe and have it dynoed for ya. Anyone know of a free dyno in the Phoenix area?

Rick

AZRickD wrote:

Not your common pipe switch (torque to rev on the 220) so you may have to bite the bullet and let US know.

Yeah, QuailChaser went with the "wrong" pipe when he upgraded, at least as the common wisdom goes. But if I get a goodly boost of bottom with the torque pipe vs the rev pipe, I won't be too unhappy. Pro Circuit may have an opinion.

Maybe in a year or so, I'll buy a rev pipe and have it dynoed for ya. Anyone know of a free dyno in the Phoenix area?

Rick

"Wrong" pipe for who and where? Come on out to the MM's with me an AP when you get that pretty new FMF rev. pipe and we'll see how much you use that top end.

I would have liked to have both pipes. One for the Gnarly stuff, and one for the open stuff. Everything is a compromise when the terrain changes as much as the ST does here. I don't really care about what something should do based on "what it looks like on paper" or the "dyno". Seat of the pants is my guage...that's why I moved to the KX. The downside is that the KDX was so forgiving. You can ride hard one day and easy with the kids the next and it'll love both.

Back to the discussion...the PC II pipe is a torque pipe. No matter how you slice it, it's design enhances the low and mids. If someone is looking for a screamer...the "rev" is the way to go.

CM, the PC plat II is also 18 guage, like the Gnarly. The PC plat is 19 guage, same as FMF's Fatty.

Come on out to the MM's with me an AP

Like I'd volunteer for *that* disemboweling?


Rick

Re: 'Not your common pipe switch so you may have to bite the bullet and let US know'

I'm unclear matches with:

'Not your common pipe switch (torque to rev on the 220) so you may have to bite the bullet and let US know'

..especially talking about Platinum and Platinum IIs. (Speaking of which, I pretty much invited someone to point me to a fit list that shows those pipes for the KDX. Did I miss it? Anyone?)

'"Wrong" pipe for who and where?'

And there 'ya go. It is indeed all about who and where.

I DID go the 'both pipes' route (speaking FmF and the two pipe profiles), because I wanted to pick the RIGHT pipe..and wasn't going to let a lot of worthless drivel (I think I just insulted mahseff) on some forum tell me which one was the RIGHT pipe for me...here.

A whole lot of switching around, timing changes, modifications, jetting swaps and lots of fuel later, I know what suits me...here. I also know that without all that 'stuff' in the preceeding sentence I would NEVER have chosen the -30 at first, second and quite a few further blushes.

Try the other pipe! You may be surprised how much you like it!

If you're surprised at how much you hate it, sell the dang thing!!

I'm looking forward to the ride report!!

The gnarly rev takes no bottom to Mid right? if thats the case, then would putting the PCII on a 220 turn my beloved bike into a tractor?

I cant remember wWHERE or if i even saw this, but i beleive someone said the TCII (FMF) and the PCII have the same decibal level? or atleast are just as loud.... Yeah i know i sound like an idiot, i just need someone to confrim it or tell me otherwise...thanx y'all

And GS, ive never been disrespectful to ANYONE else man,only stated my opinion so...

...tractor...?

That's the question I've been trying to answer.

Rick

Considering:
'PC is a rev profile , PCII is a torque profile pipe.'

then, yes. The PCII torque profile pipe would be the choice for 'tractor'.


The satement:
' rev takes no bottom to Mid'


..is the consensus, general perception of most...and 'as advertised'. Compared to stock.

A rev profile pipe absolutely 'takes bottom to mid' away from a torque profile piped bike.

Another 'general consensus' idea is that the 220 doesn't need any help on the bottom to mid, but IS anemic on the top. The 'general consensus' point of view in that case is to choose the rev profile for the 220. Not everyone agrees with that.

EACH pipe will indeed be the wrong pipe for some people in some places.

It's not a black and white thing.

canyncarvr wrote:
. . . A rev profile pipe absolutely 'takes bottom to mid' away from a torque profile piped bike . . .

??

Why would this be the case?

It's because JEb, a rev pipe focuses on mid-top, wile a torque focuses on well... torque. It would not take torque or mid range if you looked at c'daves dyno testing. the rev makes more of both

Sorry. I am missing something obvious. I don't understand the question, let alone what answer it is you're looking for.

In such cases I tend toward the pedantic and therefore maybe miss the larger sense of what is...well.... missing.

'Why would this be the case?':hmm:

Because the rev profile accentuates, improves, focuses on the upper rpm band, the torque does the same for the lower.

Having a rev profile pipe on by nature means you don't have a torque pipe on (unless we're talking about a Banshee or some other twin cylinder engine)!

Being limited to one type of pipe at a time, if you are using a rev you benefit from where it works best but you DON'T benefit from where the torque works the best...because you don't have the torque pipe on!

So, using the rev pipe you lose the bottom to mid that the torque pipe will give you if you DID have the torque pipe on.

For the more deeply thinking and to intercept the sure to come next question....using the torque pipe means you will lose the top end that the rev pipe will give you because you don't have the rev pipe on!


'Can you get me 1000hp out of a liter engine?'

Yes!

'Can I run it on 89 octane fuel and use it to pull a 5 bottom plow?'

No.

'Why?'


THAT answer will be left for another chapter.

canyncarvr wrote:

. . . So, using the rev pipe you lose the bottom to mid that the torque pipe will give you if you DID have the torque pipe on.

For the more deeply thinking and to intercept the sure to come next question....using the torque pipe means you will lose the top end that the rev pipe will give you because you don't have the rev pipe on!

So you "lose" what you WOULD have had, had you chosen the other pipe!

HEAVY!!!

*** EDIT ***

Sheesh, I'm dull. And I'm wasting everybody time. I re-read CCs statement and it suddenly hit me . . . torque profile piped bike = bike with a torque pipe. I was thinking of it in terms of the bike vs. the pipe, i.e. my question was why would someone HAVE to sacrifice the low end by replacing a STOCK pipe with a rev pipe

I makes total sense that you'd lose some low end if you replace a torque pipe with the rev . . .

Sorry CC! I need one of those W-H-A-C-Ks

canyncarvr wrote: THAT answer will be left for another chapter.

I just got off the phone with ProCircuit. He said I would lose "some" low-end if I swapped out the torque pipe for a rev pipe. He also reminded me that ProCircuit only makes the PC PlatII torque pipe now for that era (97-06) bike since there was less demand for the Works pipe (for either 200 or 220). This might reflect the higher numbers of 200s, however. He also suggested that I drop my gearing from 13/50 to something shorter... but although I usually find 1st gear to be nearly an afterthought, when I need that low 1st gear, I *really* need it (and I don't have to clutch).

CC-Ryder:

So, using the rev pipe you lose the bottom to mid that the torque pipe will give you if you DID have the torque pipe on.

To review. The rev pipe will give you more upper end than both the stock pipe and a torque pipe. For we KDX people, this is especially useful on the 220 which is rev-hampered while not so useful on the 200 which is naturally more rev-happy. Many 220 owners sing the praises of a rev pipe. Do 200 owners ever put a rev pipe on and feel it helps out (compared to stock)?

The torque pipe will give you more low-end than either the stock pipe or the rev pipe. This particularly helpful on the 200 while (according to KDXperts around the world) not particularly useful on the 220.

But since I have a torque pipe on my 220, and appear to need every bit of torque I can get while using the high-end where I ride is not all that important, I have to figure out if I should just keep my pipe.

Jeb:

So you "lose" what you WOULD have had, had you chosen the other pipe!

HEAVY!!!

But the question we (I) drifted to was not comparing rev or torque pipes to stock, but comparing rev or torque pipes to each other.

I suppose that if I were to be doing more open-desert-style riding (which I'm not), a solution for me would to be to have a 14-tooth sprocket matched up to a rev pipe for quick changes.

As usual, I'm in no hurry to change.

Rick

AZRickD wrote:
Jeb:

So you "lose" what you WOULD have had, had you chosen the other pipe!

HEAVY!!!

But the question we (I) drifted to was not comparing rev or torque pipes to stock, but comparing rev or torque pipes to each other.

Rick

Yeah, I figured that out.

My initial comment made extoling the value of the rev pipe was made for the originator of the thread which, from what I can tell, has a stock pipe!