WR450F 12+ (EFI) Gas Tank any recommendations?


23 replies to this topic
  • WRF-Rowdy

Posted June 14, 2015 - 11:02 AM

#1

There are tons of gas tanks for WRs out there, but most of them seem to be for pre '07 bikes.

Some seem to fit the perimeter frames of the aluminum bikes from '07 - '11

but there is nothing for the EFI WRs except IMS. 

 

I managed to pour in 7.5 L after 100km of 80% offroad riding, that is 1.98 gal after 62 miles.

 

Besides that being quite a thirsty value for a bike that won't drool fuel through a carb's overflow hose

something in the range of 2.2 to 3.0 gallons would be interesting.

 

Especially important would be that the tank must not bend the seat and should not require more spreading of the legs.

The IMS appears to be quite wider, judging from the shroud to seat gap:

https://www.imsprodu...arge/117333.jpg

 

I'm aware that the fantastic ergos of my WF400F with YZ tank and seat won't be a reachable goal,

just curious what you guys are running on your EFI WRs for real back country usage.

 

 



  • Spiritwalker2222

Posted June 15, 2015 - 07:02 AM

#2

Hi Rowdy,

 

I'm in the same boat as you, not keen on the IMS tank. Although I might go that way. Currently I carry 2 x 1L fuel bottles with me. Best I've managed is 90 km's. All the 2 strokes and carbed 4 strokes have a lot better range than me. My old WR400 with YZ seat and tank had a lot better range.

 

Not sure what to do. Although I did lean out my fuel and advance the timing a bit, and that noticable helped the milage.



  • WRF-Rowdy

Posted June 15, 2015 - 07:46 AM

#3

Hi Rowdy,

 

I'm in the same boat as you, not keen on the IMS tank. Although I might go that way. Currently I carry 2 x 1L fuel bottles with me. Best I've managed is 90 km's. All the 2 strokes and carbed 4 strokes have a lot better range than me. My old WR400 with YZ seat and tank had a lot better range.

 

Not sure what to do. Although I did lean out my fuel and advance the timing a bit, and that noticable helped the milage.

Interesting, what mapping are you running?

 

I've got the unecessary euro header complete with O2 sensor lying around. 

I'd like to do a tiny PCB with some OP Amp that would light a LED when the O2 Voltage is below 0.5 V (a.k.a lean)

 

Then I could play with the PowerTuner to find a fuel mapping that actually won't be rich everywhere,

like I presume almost all mappings are, that flow around on the net. 

 

The good milage of the stock '03 WR (seat as ok, tank was a tad wide) made sure I'd be the last one to run dry.

EFI has pushed me to the first place, I'd say :rolleyes:


Edited by WRF-Rowdy, June 15, 2015 - 07:50 AM.


  • Spiritwalker2222

Posted June 15, 2015 - 07:59 AM

#4

I was running vlxjim's map.

3 4 4      0  0  0
3 5 3     -2 -1 0
3 4 3     -2 -2 0

 

But modified it to this.

 

2 3 3      0 0  1

2 4 2     -1 0  1

2 3 2     -1 -1 1

 

I liked vlxjim's map but find the new one has a bit better fuel economy and snap. I have my CO set to 7, I think I'll try some different settings. See if I can improve my hot starting. Although the modfied map above did improve the hot starting some. My fix for hot starting, is to crank the bike over at WOT for about 2 seconds and then start it normally.

At one point I thought about getting an air/fuel meter that I could properly map the bike with. But I'm sure I'll just stick with trial and error.



  • WRF-Rowdy

Posted June 15, 2015 - 09:10 AM

#5

I was running vlxjim's map.

3 4 4      0  0  0
3 5 3     -2 -1 0
3 4 3     -2 -2 0

 

But modified it to this.

 

2 3 3      0 0  1

2 4 2     -1 0  1

2 3 2     -1 -1 1

 

I liked vlxjim's map but find the new one has a bit better fuel economy and snap. I have my CO set to 7, I think I'll try some different settings. See if I can improve my hot starting. Although the modfied map above did improve the hot starting some. My fix for hot starting, is to crank the bike over at WOT for about 2 seconds and then start it normally.

At one point I thought about getting an air/fuel meter that I could properly map the bike with. But I'm sure I'll just stick with trial and error.

But IIRC the fuel map is the left one, so  +4 equals 8%  more fuel 

So both mappings are way richer than stock, no wonder your milage is lacking, you are cooling you engine with excessive fuel :lame:

 

and -2 for ignition means "later" e.g. ignite the charge later, another way of getting LESS power from a certain amount of fuel:

 

I remember the CDI of a buddy of mine die only partly: It was only igniting at TDC, w/o rpm dependend advancement.

Good for starting, absolutely horrible lack of power when riding.  Someone told me that there is a "stupid" fall back mechanism

that fires the plug at the trailing edge of the ignition timing strip on the flywheel, sufficient for starting.

Only when the engine has picked up speed and the CDI has a stable input voltage the processor kicks in and

calculates ignition advancing after being triggered by the andvancing edge of the ignition timing strip.

That way a dead processor circuity will not have you stranded completely.

 

We Long Range Travellers want to be at the lean side of lambda=1, w/o frying the engine, that is.

https://upload.wikim...oichiometry.jpg

 

For range I'd pick something like "Woods/Tight Trail" except for the excessivly late ignition timing.

http://www.yamaha-mo...nerChart_01.gif

 

 

But then again maybe I got the PowerTuner's signs mixed up, gotta check the book... :smashpc:


Edited by WRF-Rowdy, June 15, 2015 - 09:31 AM.


  • WRF-Rowdy

Posted June 15, 2015 - 10:26 AM

#6

Further thoughts about air fuel ratio vs. power vs. efficiency:

Would we happen to have a CDI, that would - per absurd coincidence -

run the engine at lamba =1 when the PowerTuner fuel values are all 0

 

then +6  would be max power (lambda 12,5)

and  -3  would be best fuel economy (lambda 16)

according to http://www.endtuning...ges/airfuel.jpg

 

see fuel amount table vs. lambda for an assumed fix air mass amount of "1000",

and assuming a change of 1 in fuel mapping of the power tuner changes fuel amount by 3%

 

arifuel-powertuner.PNG

 

So I simply have to find the powertuner map that comes as close to lambda 1 as possible,

then we set the lower left 2 x 2 square to -3 for max. efficiency :thumbsup:

and anything else to +5 or +6 for max power.  :devil:


Edited by WRF-Rowdy, June 16, 2015 - 12:17 AM.


  • mikenash

Posted June 15, 2015 - 06:44 PM

#7

The IMS tank works great, Yes it's a little wider but you'll be fine. I'd get the clear so you can see how much gas your using. I went 75 miles yesterday on mine and still had a bout a 1/2 gallon left.  



  • OUTERLIMITS

Posted June 16, 2015 - 08:52 AM

#8

Clarke now makes a 4 gal tank that wraps around the radiators.  Far cheaper than the Safari 4.2 gal

 

http://clarkemfg.com...2015-p-649.html



  • WRF-Rowdy

Posted June 16, 2015 - 12:58 PM

#9

Clarke now makes a 4 gal tank that wraps around the radiators.  Far cheaper than the Safari 4.2 gal

 

http://clarkemfg.com...2015-p-649.html

Amazing. How does the fuel pump get the fuel out of the pocket?  (assuming one has to reuse the OEM fuel pump)



  • OUTERLIMITS

Posted June 16, 2015 - 02:07 PM

#10

Not sure about this one, but some of them have little straws down there at the bottom.  I'm not crazy about this one, but it seems to be the best bang for the buck and my WR is a complete gas hog so the 4th gallon would be welcome above the IMS capacity.



Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • 5270ADVRIDER

Posted June 18, 2015 - 05:37 PM

#11

I have the IMS 3 gallon (natural) and really like it. I wasn't too sure about the color at first, but I like that I can see my fuel level. It's not noticeably wider, but it's taller. Note that you have to unbolt and raise it to remove the radiator cap also. No idea how far I can run yet, but it's a lot farther than my stock Tank!

  • bopper450

Posted June 19, 2015 - 05:40 PM

#12

A little off topic but does anyone know how much fuel is left when the light comes on? On a 2012

  • chu

Posted June 19, 2015 - 06:11 PM

#13

I'd say about a half gallon. 



  • 5270ADVRIDER

Posted June 19, 2015 - 06:15 PM

#14

A little off topic but does anyone know how much fuel is left when the light comes on? On a 2012


When the light comes on (stock Tank) you have .79 gallons left.

  • mebgardner

Posted June 20, 2015 - 04:17 PM

#15

Nice used 3.0 IMS (natural, see thru) for sale, by me, on advrider.com

 

In great condition, much less $ than new. New lower price, today.

 

http://www.advrider....d.php?t=1072486


Edited by mebgardner, June 20, 2015 - 04:22 PM.


  • OUTERLIMITS

Posted June 21, 2015 - 11:11 AM

#16

I find that my overall mileage is around 27-28 mpg.  This is with the usual mods (unlocked ecu, fmf powercore, airbox snorkle out, and full power throttle screw).  I ride mostly at sea level.  I have played around a little with maps, but the mileage doesn't seem to change that much.  I don't want to go leaner than stock as I think it is lean enough as it is, but lately have gone to all zero's on the FI (stock) and retarded the ignition a bit.  I just trail ride, but like going on multiday Baja trips as well and the fuel economy scares me a bit on this bike.  On my '08 WR450 I was probably closer to 35 mpg.  That bike had a 3.1 IMS and then a 3.6 Clarke.  I have to have at least 100 miles between gas stops so for this bike it seems like the 4 gal Clarke is the only one that is gonna cut it.  A normal route can be 120 miles between gas stops so I still will have to wear a gallon on my tool belt. 

 

Is 27-28 mpg normal for this bike?  I don't even ride that hard. This is basically just easy desert riding, but there is some soft stuff mixed in every now and then.



  • chu

Posted June 21, 2015 - 12:26 PM

#17

Positive numbers on the ignition map would probably give better fuel efficiency than negative.  Should give the fuel more time to burn.



  • Frostbite

Posted June 21, 2015 - 12:43 PM

#18

I just installed a natural Safari tank. It looks a little funny with no graphics but if fit well. I had to open up the wiring harness to get enough slack so the wires the go to the fuel pump would reach the new location. They give you a longer fuel line so no trouble there.



  • OUTERLIMITS

Posted June 21, 2015 - 07:18 PM

#19

Positive numbers on the ignition map would probably give better fuel efficiency than negative.  Should give the fuel more time to burn.

Well I thought that negative numbers would soften the power a little to make it more controllable, but if positive numbers are better for economy I'll have to play around with it I guess.



  • WRF-Rowdy

Posted June 22, 2015 - 05:47 AM

#20

Nope. Rich is power, lean is efficiency: :naughty:

https://en.wikipedia...oichiometry.jpg

 

So If the default ECU mapping (PowerTune all zeroes in fuel map) per coincidence would result in close to perfect combustion,

 

then positive numbers in the fuel map would shift the air fuel ratio towards max. power

and negative numbers in the fuel map would shift the air fuel ration towards max. economy

 

Problem, is we don't know what air-fuel ratio the default all-0 setting is producing...but I'm working on that... :rolleyes:


Edited by WRF-Rowdy, June 22, 2015 - 06:55 AM.





 
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.