FMF Gnarly=bottom end?

[derekb_55]

I crave more bottom end and was wondering if anyone has experience with the FMF Gnarly pipe. Is it effective in accomplishing this task?

 

[scrambler220]

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.

 

[MTRHEAD]

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.

 

[WR250Z]

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.

 

[gawoodsrider]

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.

 

[WR250Z]

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

 

[gawoodsrider]

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]

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.

 

[WR250Z]

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

 

[KXKen]

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.

 

[MTRHEAD]

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]

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:

 

[WR250Z]

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.

 

[MTRHEAD]

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.

 

[scrambler220]

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.

 

[KXKen]

Originally posted by MTRHEAD
[, 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. [/B]

This is what I have Gnarly and Shorty. I'll have to disagree. I don't have the bottom end that my friends stock 00 CR250 has. I think it has much more to do with comp. ratios and porting than pipe types.

Just my .02 cents.

 

[MTRHEAD]

scrambler220- You might go over and see what they have to say about the pipes on the "Just KDX" site. There use to be a lot of good info and even some dyno runs of the pipes.

KXKen- Can you expand on that a little? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you have a KX or a '00 CR?

On the YZ, back in '99, there was a huge boost in bottom end with the Gnarly. When coupled with the shorty it was boosted even more.

Whatever bike you have, have you ever tried the stock silencer with the gnarly and then switched to the shorty and run the same coarse agian? How about the stock pipe with the shorty and then back to the stock silencer all in the same day?

What do you think the most common thing done to a 250 cylinder is, when it's sent to someone for porting and are told they want way more bottom ?

 

[WR250Z]

I know with the stock pipe and silencer, my '00 cr250 is a little more responsive. I have to run the SA, so with that, it tones down the hit....not a bad thing for offroad.
The '01 yz250 seems not to need a pipe really but maybe reeds or the Vforce...if anything, the quality of power can be played with. Now I hear the '02 yz250 has even more lowend.

 

[KXKen]

Originally posted by MTRHEAD
KXKen- Can you expand on that a little? I'm not sure what you mean. Do you have a KX or a '00 CR?

I have a 99KX250. I bought a gnarley and a shorty and I didn't think that I had any more low end than I had with the stock setup. I may not be a good judge of this (I'm not very good) but I'm just telling you what I think. My friend is the one with the 00CR250 and his bike clearly has more low end than mine does and he has a stock setup.

 

[MTRHEAD]

WR250Z- I agree. The SA will make you bike less response. But, if you have to have it........

I also agree that the YZ has more bottom than the CR. With the reed spacer, added flywheel weight, pre-loaded PV spring and shorter silencer, the '02 is going to be even more so.

KXKEN- I really don't know what to say about your KX. I haven't done anything with the KX's for years.But, I'm still surprised that you didn't pick up anything with the Gnarly / shorty. You should still consider swapping the pipes and silencers around to see what you come up with, if you haven't.

 

[WR250Z]

Are your kidding? I thought the kx's had good lowend...well actually that's from what the mags say. For an mx'r, I guess the cr is ok but for eastern woods, it can be ridden but it's really short on lowend compared to my old Yamaha wr250. I miss the motor but not the frame.

Originally posted by KXKen
>>Snip
My friend is the one with the 00CR250 and his bike clearly has more low end than mine does and he has a stock setup. [/B]

 

[KXKen]

Originally posted by WR250Z
Are your kidding? I thought the kx's had good lowend...

Yes most KXs have good great low end. The 98 had explosive low end. I rode a 96 and that one had more low end also. In 99 they tried to make the powerband a little more user friendly. It's very smooth and runs strong into the higher RPMs but doesn't have the "hit" that some of the earlier KXs had. Don't get me wrong I love this bike and if I did the some of the mods to get more low end I'd probably sacrifice the great power band it has right now. I still say that comp. ratios and porting mods (for low end) are more effective than pipes are.

 

[dog]

I recently tested the Pro-circuit, FMF Fatty, stock, and FMF gnarly on my 95 WR250 Yamaha. There was a big difference between the Fatty and the Gnarly. I think the Gnarly for the YZ/WR is based on the old FMF Torque pipe and makes a lot more power in the bottom end. It is controllable and with good traction. The Fatty had a broad power band in the mid-range. The PC had a narrow power band with big hit in the upper mid range. The stock pipe was similar to the fatty, but with a little less power. For off-road riding/ racing that I do in mostly technical areas, the Gnarly works by far the best. I think the performance depends on the model of bike/pipe combo. I would use the fatty for outdoor MX or desert. The PC is more of a pro-motocross pipe.