FMF Gnarly=bottom end?

Joined
Feb 8, 2001
Messages
121
Likes
0
#1
I crave more bottom end and was wondering if anyone has experience with the FMF Gnarly pipe. Is it effective in accomplishing this task?
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2000
Messages
92
Likes
0
#2
Someone may know more, but I believe the Gnarly designation only means the pipe is thicker, and theoretically more resistant to denting. If you want more bottom end, look for a torque pipe.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Messages
41
Likes
0
#3
YES, they do make more bottom end. At least on my YZ it did. My buddy has a '96 CR250 with on and it's got more bottom with it.

They are also thicker in the lower half of the pipe.

BTW- if you run a shorty silencer with the Gnarly, it makes even more bottom. But, it really steals from the top side.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 1999
Messages
52
Likes
0
#4
I have an '00 cr250 and while trying to get more lowend it was suggested I try the Fatty over the Gnarly. Some say the gnarly makes it harder to jet cleanly over the entire range and most of the jetting became a compromise. Some blubberiness somewhere in the power range. I have yet to install the Fatty and try but it's going on for this weekend.
 
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
7
Likes
0
#5
I put the Gnarly on my 00 CR250 and it really made a BIG diiference in the bottom to mid acceleration. So much so that for really mudfest races I'm going to run the stock pipe. Keep in mind that I ride Enduro and H/S but power is power and that pipe makes it. By the way, I didn't have to change any jetting specs and it runs super clean from bottom to top.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 1999
Messages
52
Likes
0
#6
Do you run a SA with it? If so, which one? What other mods have you done to the bike.....I'm trying to get some lowend in the thing for enduro work and although I've gotten some, not as much as I'd like.
Thanks
 
Joined
May 13, 2001
Messages
7
Likes
0
#7
I run an FMF S/A because it really makes good smooth power. I also have a Boyesen pv cover and FMF torque reeds. To keep everything in control I run a 12oz flywheel wieght and steel clutch plates.
 

JTT

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 25, 2000
Messages
1,407
Likes
0
#8
Originally posted by WR250Z
it was suggested I try the Fatty over the Gnarly. Some say the gnarly makes it harder to jet cleanly over the entire range and most of the jetting became a compromise.
WR, the Gnarly is the same design as the Fatty, just with heavier guage steel.

derekb_55, Try extra spacers in the exhaust (the metal o-rings between cylinder and pipe) You can run 3-4. They seem to help some, effectively lengthening pipe length. I have also heard good things about power valve cover spacer (or larger volume cover), although haven't tried them personally. But best bang for your buck will be a port job specific to low end power. Spend you pipe money on the porting, you won't regret it. I have used the Gnarly pipe and PC pipe, neither was as good as stock IMHO.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 1999
Messages
52
Likes
0
#9
I suspected the pipes to be the same but my dealer told me to try the FATTY. I have the pipe washers(3) and a pv cover spacer with the torque reeds and flywheel weight also and the bike is ok. I haven't tried it yet with the fatty. Porting is probably the next step.
Thanks
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2001
Messages
535
Likes
0
#10
I believe that these pipes have different effects on different bikes. I have a gnarly on my 99KX250. Looks great but performance? IMO waste of money.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Messages
41
Likes
0
#11
Where are you getting this info. that the Fatty and Gnarly are the same with just thicker material? :silly:

Now granted, I didn't test on a CR250. But, on my YZ250 I have tested the FMF Fatty, Gnarly and SST pipes, along with the PC unit. I conjuction with this I also tested the FMF Power core II, Shorty, stock, PC standard and shortened silencers with these pipes.

After testing all these pipes and silencers in different combos, I can tell you each one is much different than the other. I even ran three of the different length silencers back to back on the dyno with the same pipe. The silencers probable make as much or more difference in power as the pipes.

I have rode CR250's with both Fatty and Gnarly pipes, not back to back as with the YZ, but they are different.

As gawoodsrider suggested, I think the Gnarly makes too much bottom end. You put the Gnarly and Shorty together and you have more bottom than you can imagine.
 

JTT

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 25, 2000
Messages
1,407
Likes
0
#12
Originally posted by MTRHEAD
Where are you getting this info. that the Fatty and Gnarly are the same with just thicker material? :silly:
...from FMF. Maybe the material thickness has an effect on the operating temperature of the pipe and therefore it's performance? ...really reaching here :silly:
 
Joined
Sep 21, 1999
Messages
52
Likes
0
#13
If you're talking '01 yz250 then it's tough to compare the bottom end to the cr250's. I've ridden them back to back and the yz is better than the cr down there. Now I've tried a cr with the Gnarly and it's good but it still wasn't a match for the stock yz. I have yet to try the fatty on my cr but I still think I have to get it ported.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 1999
Messages
41
Likes
0
#14
My YZ is a '99 actually. On it the Gnarly and Fatty are totally different from each other.

You might try one of COMETIC's Hi-preformance gasket kits before you go for porting. Then thin base gaskets drop the cylinder about .010". It's pretty impressive for the price.
 
Joined
Mar 3, 2000
Messages
92
Likes
0
#15
When looking for bottom end, Rev vs. Torque is the issue rather than Gnarly vs. Fatty. I have a Gnarly Rev and a Fatty Rev for my KDX. Both pipes are the same (power, jetting, etc.) except for pipe wall thickness. FMF also offers the Gnarly Torque for KDX. Other bikes, like Gas Gas, have only a Gnarly (not Rev or Torque) pipe. It sounds like on some bikes, the Fatty is a Rev, and the Gnarly is a Torque.
 
Last edited: