Snorkel Removal /Fuel Range


22 replies to this topic
  • cubera

Posted January 07, 2014 - 08:55 AM

#1

Greetings, everyone! I've done a search and can't seem to find answers to a couple of questions I have. My bike is a 2013 WR450F.

 

The competition ECU has been installed as well as the accompanying shorter throttle stop screw and a GYTR muffler insert has replaced the stocker. Will I notice any difference with the snorkel removed? Is it worth it?

 

Second question is regarding fuel range. How far can I go reliably on a tank of gas at a medium trail pace? YMMV so "ballpark" it.

 

Appreciate any help you can provide.



  • mebgardner

Posted January 07, 2014 - 10:38 AM

#2

The answer to this seems to be a slippery slope.

 

On one side (too lean) causes problem with the exhaust header getting too hot, and the motor wanting to melt (just kidding).

 

The other side (too rich) appears to be popular with the tight, single track crowd, and some will live with the lower MPG mileage obtained (on order of 15-20 MPG, pretty low).

 

There's also consideration for valve / radiator cooling.  That is, adjusting from too lean to "more rich" allows the motor to run cooler, and has the benefit of allowing the radiator to not "boil over" under severe operating conditions for brief periods.

 

Finally, I'm getting the impression that the settings used by some are closely guarded secrets, with competetive advantages during racing (consider the trade-offs I just described to understand why this would be true).

 

Having written all that, I'm also in need of FI maps for the same equipment configuration (Comp ECU, new throttle stop, modified stock exhaust and / or FMF slip on Q4), and dont really know where to find reliable sources for them, for this same cycle (2013 WR450F).

 

I'm not competetive, so I dont care about the race settings being used by some.  I do climb hills in desert, so "no boil over" is important to me. I also find myself "out there", very far from gas. A 40-50 mile range on a tank is not acceptable. I'd be pushing it out of the desert (spare MSR bottle in the pack, for now).

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Bob



  • cubera

Posted January 07, 2014 - 08:54 PM

#3

Any performance improvement with the snorkel removed? Any after market tanks besides the IMS 3.0? As I understand it, the mapping on the comp ECU is 000 000 000 000 both fuel and timing.



  • woods-rider

Posted January 07, 2014 - 09:10 PM

#4

I have the 3.0 gal IMS tank and my fuel light comes on around 50 miles of singletrack or 70 miles or more open desert. According to IMS the bottom half of the tank is identical to the stock one (I'm not sure I believe them as it comes with a different mounting bracket for the rear portion under the seat which is obviously larger than stock in this area) so I should have 0.79 gal left when the light comes on.

 

With a stock tank I wouldn't plan more than a 35 mile ride without refueling or carrying extra gas.

 

I wish there was a 3.5 gal tank for this bike.



  • funt

Posted January 07, 2014 - 09:28 PM

#5

There's the safari http://justgastanks....roducts_id=3554

Doesn't look too cool though.  Not cheap either.



  • mebgardner

Posted January 08, 2014 - 06:57 AM

#6

I have the 3.0 gal IMS tank and my fuel light comes on around 50 miles of singletrack or 70 miles or more open desert. According to IMS the bottom half of the tank is identical to the stock one (I'm not sure I believe them as it comes with a different mounting bracket for the rear portion under the seat which is obviously larger than stock in this area) so I should have 0.79 gal left when the light comes on.

 

With a stock tank I wouldn't plan more than a 35 mile ride without refueling or carrying extra gas.

 

I wish there was a 3.5 gal tank for this bike.

 

Does anyone else find this MPG unacceptable?  It's simple horrible.  My buddy with his carburated Honda (CRF?)450 can get 100+ on a similar stock tank (slightly more than a couple gallons), doing similar stuff (canyon rock climbing), and having a similar configuration (performance mods, "uncorked" airflow at both ends, stock pipe).

 

I have an idea.  Let's forget about adding tank capacity when discussing on this thread, and focus on improving the cycle's efficiency.

 

Surely there's a "map for that" :)

 

Could we please begin a "sticky" thread, where we post our system configuration (performance changes: pipe, airbox, engine mods, etc), post our FI maps, post the "typical" riding conditions where we get the mileage obtained, and post our MPG obtained.

 

and maybe post the reasoning behind the given map settings, say 100 characters or less, like that.

 

Or, we can just start it on this thread. 

 

I would begin, but I'm actually a new member here, coming off of a DRZ400.  I have just received all of the mods, and bolted up the new Comp ECU last weekend. I dont have the programmer yet.  So, I could give MPG on my first tank (pretty good so far for a "break in" on a new motor), but no one will care about that data.

 

I guess I'm requesting some of our more senior members "chip in".

 

Please.



  • cubera

Posted January 08, 2014 - 07:43 AM

#7

All good info. Keep it coming! I'm looking to get a larger tank eventually and when I do I would like an 80 mile "safe" range...So maybe a combination of larger tank plus taller gearing and mapping tweaks can make that happen.



  • woods-rider

Posted January 08, 2014 - 08:11 AM

#8

My buddy with his carburated Honda (CRF?)450 can get 100+ on a similar stock tank (slightly more than a couple gallons), doing similar stuff (canyon rock climbing), and having a similar configuration (performance mods, "uncorked" airflow at both ends, stock pipe).

 

Are you sure about that? I have never heard of anyone getting even close to the 100 mi range on a stock MX tank. I could barely squeeze out 100 mi on my 3.3 gal tank on my old WR450 in fast dez conditions.



  • mebgardner

Posted January 08, 2014 - 09:48 AM

#9

Are you sure about that? I have never heard of anyone getting even close to the 100 mi range on a stock MX tank. I could barely squeeze out 100 mi on my 3.3 gal tank on my old WR450 in fast dez conditions.

 

OK, I'm not certain, and you're right to call me on it.

 

Here's what I know for sure: He allows me to ride the Honda 450, and he's on a Honda 250 when I do. (I did not yet pull the trigger on the WR450 I now have, most recent trip a couple weeks ago).

 

From a full stock tank, we're in at Florence AZ, out at Superior AZ, and back on the same tank, ~55 miles of very steep, rugged canyonlands.  I asked him if we need to fill in Superior and he said "Nope, we're good. I get concerned when we hit the 100 mile mark."

 

Now, he's ridden this cycle (the 450) for years, and knows it's range well. 

 

So, have I gone 100 miles on a tank, on his Honda 450? No. But, I know my friend, and if he says we're good for 100 mile range, I believe him (I also know the terrain, and neither him, you or I would want to be caught out without fuel in it).

 

The point is, I own 2 ea. DRZ400's in pretty much stock tune, and he owns this carb'ed 450 in a slight performance tune, and we're all doing in the 50-75 MPG range. (Yup, the DRZ's 400cc are regularly in the 60-70 MPG range).

 

So, is it too much to ask for a FI'ed 450 to get ~50 MPG? Surely there's a map with some grunt (more than stock / delivered 18HP, OK?), that does not cherry red the header, that does not boil over the rad, that does not fire burn the plastics off, that gets somewhere in the MPG range as everything else on the market.

 

This FI map does not have to be the perfect fit for everyone. But it should offer a reasonable compromise.

 

No other cycle that I know of has these issues.  What's up with this one?



  • flyandride

Posted January 08, 2014 - 12:01 PM

#10

This thread's getting depressing.  I have a WR250F and get 70 MPG with it.  And that's with a 269 kit.  The stock tank is 2.6 gallons so I have a range of 180 miles.  

 

I bought a WR450F in November, haven't ridden it since the day I bought it, dead of winter here.  To know it has only a 2.1 gallon tank and that I will only get around 30 MPG with it is bad.  I'll have to get a Clarke 3.3 gallon tank and put another half gallon in my back pack and still won't have the range of the 250.  Maybe I made a mistake.  



Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • woods-rider

Posted January 08, 2014 - 01:10 PM

#11

This thread's getting depressing. I have a WR250F and get 70 MPG with it. And that's with a 269 kit. The stock tank is 2.6 gallons so I have a range of 180 miles.


I assume that 70 MPG rating is for street? I have a hard time believing anyone is getting that on a real trail. Of all the people I ride with who have full size bikes (15-20 I ride with on a regular basis) I don't think anyone is getting more than 40 MPG. This is all "spirited" riding on true trails though, not putting on a fire road.

  • flyandride

Posted January 08, 2014 - 02:26 PM

#12

I assume that 70 MPG rating is for street? I have a hard time believing anyone is getting that on a real trail. Of all the people I ride with who have full size bikes (15-20 I ride with on a regular basis) I don't think anyone is getting more than 40 MPG. This is all "spirited" riding on true trails though, not putting on a fire road.

I clocked that on a mix of pavement, dirt roads and trail doing some spirited riding.  I've had a couple street bikes that only got in mid 30s, that kind of thing can get frustrating.  Especially when riding with others who are gettting 60. 



  • mebgardner

Posted January 09, 2014 - 07:05 AM

#13

Yes, it is depressing.

 

I still assert that cherry red glowing headers at idle or not, sub-40 MPG, spirited riding or not, is not / should not be typical for cycles in this class.

 

I own many FI cycles.  One is a 200 HP, 1400CC Ninja, in factory tune, no aftermarket performance mods (does not need it). It's headers do not glow red, it does not boil over, and I can get low 40's MPG when riding mildly, and mid 30's when flogging it.

 

I have two other FI cycles.  They do similar, and they dont glow red headers, or boil over.

 

OK, it's an apples to oranges comparo because these are all purpose built cycles, and they're different purposes, but you get my point.

 

 

I've decided to start measuring MPG when I've built out this cycle to a baseline of:

 

Comp ECU set to "all 0's", stock pipe with the peashooter removed, snorkle removed, and CO set to (8-10%? is that a typical, non-boil-over, non-header glo value?), and idle RPM set to ~1950.

 

If I can get "good" MPG (let's say, low 40's should be easily achieveable, with low to mid 50's as a goal) from "mixed" riding at that configuration, *then* I'll see about using these other FI maps.

 

Jeez, this is almost as bad as fiddling with a carb. I did not understand that I was going to have to cope with this sort of learning curve. I wanted to *get away* from it with the adoption of FI, and now it appears I cant.

 

If anyone has advice about machine settings that will achieve what I've described above, then, please, tell us.

 

Thanks,



  • mebgardner

Posted January 09, 2014 - 07:12 AM

#14

I assume that 70 MPG rating is for street? I have a hard time believing anyone is getting that on a real trail. Of all the people I ride with who have full size bikes (15-20 I ride with on a regular basis) I don't think anyone is getting more than 40 MPG. This is all "spirited" riding on true trails though, not putting on a fire road.

 

OK, yes, spirited riding on trails. 2nd or 3rd gear most of the time, sometime climbing hills perhaps, sometimes in the off-idle descents part of the FI map (needing the "special" factory tuner to change that part of the band settings, not the GYTR Power Tuner).

 

Yes, low to mid 40's MPG should be achieveable, without boil over, without cherry red headers, without plastics on fire, without drama in the powerband being used.

 

That low to mid 40's MPG would be acceptable for the riding style I've described.

 

Are you getting that much?  If not, why not?



  • 5270ADVRIDER

Posted January 09, 2014 - 06:26 PM

#15

Just sold my 2011 YZ250F to buy my WR. The best I ever went on my YZ was 46 miles. That was running tight single track this past fall. My tech owns an 2006 YZ250F and mileage is identical riding the same area. My hopes with the WR450F is to get at least 60 miles out of the stock Tank.



  • Geoffit

Posted January 09, 2014 - 06:42 PM

#16

For sure the wr250f can get 60-70 mpg mine has a 290 kit and at a pretty Agro pace in the rocks with road stretches I regularly get that kind of mileage the worst has been 50. To be fair here in Colorado we run leaner jetting and have less power but with less power one might use more throttle.. On the wr250 I did a test on the air box on a flow bench with and with out the rubber snorkel and with a 250 carb it made no difference just more noise.

Edited by Geoffit, January 09, 2014 - 06:45 PM.


  • Krannie McKranface

Posted January 09, 2014 - 07:17 PM

#17

You guys are comparing apples to oranges.

Everyone rides different, tire pressures, chain wear, dirt density, AIR density, etc etc.

You can't 'tune it for better mileage' and still have any kind of responsiveness, torque or fun for that matter.

You can only do so much to a 275lb 450cc motor to get mileage out of it, and that is to 'cork it up and lean it out'.

 

The bottom line is that 'real' four stroke dirt bikes (uncorked motors) get between 40 and 30 mpg depending on the bike and rider.

My fully ported and cammed '08 gets about 32 the way I ride it.

If I WANTED to, I could ride it in such a way where I would get 40. I don't want to.

My CRF450R gets 37, because it is lighter, and you use much less throttle.

The AS Racing D37 experts get 14.5 mpg on their 450 during a race!  

With me riding the exact same bike (because I am way slower) I would get about 35mpg.

 

 

That's it, there's not much more to it than that.

 

Every single dirt bike has this same issue, it's not a WR issue.

 

Go to the XR650R forum and see how they deal with 19 mpg! A 4.6 gallon tank!

 

 

If you wan't better mileage, cork up the intake and exhaust, and get a Yamaha programming tool and get it dyno'd for JUST ABOVE the Stoichiometric ratio.

That is the ONLY way you are going to get the precise tuning required to get full AF ratio control over the entire rpm. 

That's the ONLY way you are going to 'get your mileage back'.

You could also do it with a K&B Air/fuel meter, which requires a bung to be welded into the header.

 

Then the bike will run like a 1981 Honda XL250,  and be pretty much pointless.

 

 

Ideal-stoichiometry.jpg


Edited by TheKoolAidMadeMeSick, January 09, 2014 - 07:22 PM.


  • cubera

Posted January 11, 2014 - 11:19 AM

#18

I'm planning to plug in the "woods" map numbers tomorrow or Monday then do a mileage check. I know on my 450X I would be doing really pretty good to get 2 25 mile loops on 3.2 gallon tank before needing fuel. Of course, the terrain makes a huge difference. I could do 80 miles reliably on the same bike in Baja type riding in a group of riders faster than I am.

I'll look into getting the 3 gallon tank for the WR one of these days.

  • mebgardner

Posted January 11, 2014 - 01:23 PM

#19

OK, Thanks, KoolAid.

 

I get the chart.  I can get an idea of the percentage changes of the "Rich" to "Lean" (horizontal) axis from the changes to the AF ratios.

 

Do you have any idea of the percentage change from "Best Economy" to "Max Power" on the vertical axis?  ie:  Does the difference in the two point represent 50% difference?  10%?



  • cubera

Posted January 13, 2014 - 07:10 PM

#20

OK, Thanks, KoolAid.

 

I get the chart.  I can get an idea of the percentage changes of the "Rich" to "Lean" (horizontal) axis from the changes to the AF ratios.

 

Do you have any idea of the percentage change from "Best Economy" to "Max Power" on the vertical axis?  ie:  Does the difference in the two point represent 50% difference?  10%?

This is a really good question. I'm still wondering if decent economy and decent performance are mutually exclusive. I'm so uses to carbureted bikes the fuel injection business is scary.






 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.