Anyone have photos of their 06 w/Clarke or IMS tanks?


29 replies to this topic
  • OcotilloBound

Posted November 28, 2006 - 06:43 PM

#1

I am looking for photos of 06 YZ450F's with both Clarke 2.6 gal tanks and IMS 3.1 gal tanks, to see which one I like better. I am specifically looking for pics that show how well the shrouds integrate with the tank, how far the tank protrudes into the engine area and how much higher it goes as well, how the petcock is located/integrated, and also I would like to see photos of black vs. natural if anyone has them. I have already browsed the garage looking for pics but wasn't able to find any really. I am leaning toward the Clarke because the IMS seems too bulky, and I don't think I need 3.1 gal capacity. I'd probably fall off the bike from exhaustion before I ran out of fuel with that big of tank. But if it isn't too bulky and the price is right, I might go that way. Seems to me the Clarkes are at least $35 cheaper though, but I have heard people say IMS is higher quality stuff. Also, any comments on crossover tubes/multi petcock setups is appreciated along with photos. Links are fine, they don't have to be put up here, and photos that are specifically of the tank and surroundings are most appreciated. Plus any comments on people's likes and their dislikes about either tank are desired too. Thanks.

  • Fastdaddy

Posted November 28, 2006 - 07:06 PM

#2

I have the Ims neutral color on a 06 I really like it. My digital camera is broke although I have cingular cell phone I could maybe send you a photo with that. Pm me if interested. I havnt really looked at the clark so I dont know anything about them. However on the IMS tank I had to reverse my petcock so the valve is in towards the motor. This had to be done in order to make the outlet point towards the carb. I geuss you could have a longer fuel line but I didnt want it to get snagged. I would reccomend the neutral color cause it really comes in handy for quick reference of fuel amount.As far as riding with it I cant even tell it from the stock. Maybe faster guys can.

  • MacJammer

Posted November 28, 2006 - 07:06 PM

#3

I have been looking at IMS tanks but they only make it in blue or natural. Have you found any after market tanks in black. I ride the sand a lot and have ran out of gas twice on the open sand it really sucks. I think I would love the 3.1 gallon tank but I really want the black. I have the '06 50th anniversary edition. Let me know what you know. Is there one in black out there.

  • mlight9

Posted November 28, 2006 - 07:09 PM

#4

I have a Clarke 2.6 on my bike and it works just fine. The shrouds don't sit as flush as it does with the stock tank, they might stick out about a 1/8 inch or so, but no big deal. The tank hangs down about 2" more than stock on both sides and about 2" higher than the stock one. I don't notice it being any wider over stock but the lady and Clarke said it was about 1/2" wider than stock. I didn't consider the IMS tank just because it was going to be way to big, and have heard they can cause your bike to over heat if the trail gets to tight and you can't keep your speed up. I will try and take some pics tomorrow if I get a chance. I bought mine from Clarke and got a good deal from them.

  • OcotilloBound

Posted November 29, 2006 - 12:47 PM

#5

Macjammer, the Clarke 2.6's are available from them in just about any color you could want, including black. $190 is the cost. Still, I want to see some photos, because no matter they say, I don't care if it's utilitarian or not, if it looks bad on my bike, I don't want it. And I'm still undecided about going with the natural or the black, too, so any photos are much appreciated.

  • Kyle Prior

Posted November 29, 2006 - 01:04 PM

#6

I havent seen on the 06s, but on most bikes, I prefer the look of the IMS a lot better.

  • LIL ROG

Posted November 29, 2006 - 02:59 PM

#7

heres a pic of the ims on my bike. i like the ims a lot
Posted Image

  • Kyle Prior

Posted November 29, 2006 - 04:28 PM

#8

heres a pic of the ims on my bike. i like the ims a lot
Posted Image


Haha, whats up Roger? Its Kyle... I like the bike.

  • MacJammer

Posted November 29, 2006 - 10:14 PM

#9

Ocotillobound, thanks for the info. I totally agree with you. You can't put a tank on that back if it doesn't look good. It is way to sexy to put something ugly on.

  • OcotilloBound

Posted November 30, 2006 - 12:37 AM

#10

Thanks for the photo Rog, nice looking bike. But that tank is so damn big. Hey Grayracer, don't you have a Clarke on your 06? Can you post up a pic? I'd love to see it. Thanks.

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • john351

Posted November 30, 2006 - 03:24 AM

#11

Here is mine. It is an IMS.

Posted Image

Posted Image

  • YZ_Abuser

Posted December 01, 2006 - 08:01 AM

#12

I looks like you would have to pull the tank to do a plug change with the IMS.

  • grayracer513

Posted December 01, 2006 - 10:56 AM

#13

These are thumbnails. Click to enlarge. The tank is a Clarke 2.6 ( it actually holds 2.8 ). I think my next one will be an IMS.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Left and right sides^

This one shows how the shrouds don't sit flush against the tank v
Posted Image
Here you can see the detail of the right side petcock and fuel hose routing. The hose is protected by foil as it passes over the exhaust. v
Posted Image

  • grayracer513

Posted December 01, 2006 - 01:31 PM

#14

Should be fine now. It's been a fun morning.

I looks like you would have to pull the tank to do a plug change with the IMS.


That's true of the stock tank, also.

  • OcotilloBound

Posted December 01, 2006 - 04:36 PM

#15

Did the tank come with both petcocks? Or did you have to rig all that up yourself, and what was the cost for that? I am a little wary now, having seen the gaps on the shrouds, and having you say that your next tank will be an IMS. What made you decide on that? I do think the Clarke is less bulky and that it protrudes less into the engine bay, plus I don't particularly like the petcock location on the IMS, but I'm curious why you have second thoughts on the Clarke. Maybe you want to sell it, like to me for instance? Just a thought.

  • grayracer513

Posted December 01, 2006 - 04:54 PM

#16

The Clarke comes with no petcocks, and no holes predrilled for one on either side. The embedded brass nuts are there, and the correct hole locations are dimpled in, but you drill it the way you want it. The petcocks themselves are '03 units I got from TT OEM for around $20 for the pair. The '06 unit would have been nicer on the right side, because then I could have run the line rearward, but the valve would have run nearly $30, and it would have hit the front head bolt on that side. I ran two to avoid unusable gas stuck on the off side.

If you look at the fit of both tanks, the IMS sits higher up at the bottom than the Clarke, especially on the right side. It also gets some extra fuel into the area where the rear shock bracket forks off the cradle spars. I like that better, I think. The downside to that is that the overall fuel load is a little higher on the IMS.

The Clarke, OTOH, fit well (other than the shroud thing), and is almost unnoticeable as being an oversized tank while you're riding it.

  • OcotilloBound

Posted December 01, 2006 - 06:26 PM

#17

Yeah, the unusable gas on the off side is a problem with the Clarke on my YZ250. I have to lay the bike completely over to get it to run to the petcock side if I run out. The plus to that is I have a decent reserve left if I do run out, which I haven't done. And the expense and difficulty of running a crossover tube like you did seemed to me a bit much so I opted for the easier way.
Damn, I don't know if this thread has confused me more about which one to buy or clarified it. I still think I want black, which would preclude the IMS altogether, but the Clarke has some of the drawbacks I want to avoid, like being very low on one side, and the petcock issue. And the consensus on the IMS is that it is very good and well-liked, and I could live with the natural one, so.....I guess I'll see if I can find a deal on one or the other and let that make my decision for me. If I decide to buy a new one, the IMS is $35 more new though, so it's a difficult decision. Not that $35 should make all the difference on a $7000 bike, what is that, 1/2 of 1%? The one that is better should be the one to get no matter what the price. The question is still which one is better. :worthy: And I guess that's a personal decision.

  • ONLY4STROKES

Posted December 01, 2006 - 07:49 PM

#18

Mine's not an '06...but I have an opinion on the whole Clarke vs IMS debate. When it came time for me to buy a desert tank for my '04, I was looking at Clarke to begin with because it was cheaper. Downside was I do long rides and was anal about having the most capacity (as long as it didn't effect the geometry much)...the Clarke only held 2.8 (one gallon more than stock), while the IMS carried 3.2 gallons. It doesn't sound like much, but it makes a difference. I can get close to 100 miles out of my IMS tank with the extra capacity.

I also prefer the design of the IMS, it's got a smoother look and mine fits better than a Clarke. The IMS carries fuel lower on the bike so it lessens the top-heavy feel. I use this bike for motocross as well as off-road, and I don't exchange tanks when going to the track, I just fill it up half way and go for it...even off of jumps you can't tell the difference from stock. In corners when the tank is full, it feels different at first, but you get used to it very quickly. With the Clarke it has a section that protrudes above the seat and when it's full there is a noticable difference in feel that isn't very welcome. Overall I think the IMS tanks are designed better than the Clarke's...and most of them fit better from my experience.

Posted Image

  • OcotilloBound

Posted December 01, 2006 - 09:51 PM

#19

Mine's not an '06...but I have an opinion on the whole Clarke vs IMS debate. When it came time for me to buy a desert tank for my '04, I was looking at Clarke to begin with because it was cheaper. Downside was I do long rides and was anal about having the most capacity (as long as it didn't effect the geometry much)...the Clarke only held 2.8 (one gallon more than stock), while the IMS carried 3.2 gallons. It doesn't sound like much, but it makes a difference. I can get close to 100 miles out of my IMS tank with the extra capacity.

I also prefer the design of the IMS, it's got a smoother look and mine fits better than a Clarke. The IMS carries fuel lower on the bike so it lessens the top-heavy feel. I use this bike for motocross as well as off-road, and I don't exchange tanks when going to the track, I just fill it up half way and go for it...even off of jumps you can't tell the difference from stock. In corners when the tank is full, it feels different at first, but you get used to it very quickly. With the Clarke it has a section that protrudes above the seat and when it's full there is a noticable difference in feel that isn't very welcome. Overall I think the IMS tanks are designed better than the Clarke's...and most of them fit better from my experience.

Posted Image


I appreciate your input. BTW, nice looking 04 - I like the blue rims with the frame painted as they are. The tanks for the 06's are of a different design, though, and have to integrate with the aluminum frame spars much differently than the old steel framed bikes. Actually, I think IMS did a great job forming the tank to fit the frame, but it is a large tank, larger than I would likely need. But it is nice to go on long desert rides and not worry about running out, although quite often my buddy drives his baja bug on these rides and can carry gas for us. (not to mention the cooler of ice cold bevies- which can be a problem when he gets a bit squirrely and ice water comes pouring out all over - but that's what bungees are for)
Next question - when you buy these tanks new from the manufacturer, I assume they come without petcocks, and they either expect you to transfer the one from your stocker to it, or buy one of theirs. Any issues with the IMS petcocks, or has everyone pretty much used the stock one in their IMS tank? And routing-wise, can you use the stock hose for it? Obviously this question is only applying to 06's. Thanks to all for the the great photos and input. And if anyone has a line on a used IMS in good shape let me know, or if they have the hook-up at the factory. :worthy:

  • ONLY4STROKES

Posted December 01, 2006 - 10:14 PM

#20

Only some models come with petcocks, so if not you have to use the one you have. I know IMS tanks come with new petcock gaskets, new fuel line, transfer petcocks, as well as a good set of instructions for easiest install and a new screw cap. It depends on the tank, but I think on the '06 250/450F tank (IMS) you can use the stock fuel line if you want...but like I said, most come with new fuel line. On my '04 it came with more fuel lines because it has two outlets and one line has to extend over the airboot to the other side of the tank.





Related Content

Forums
Photo

James Stewart back on a YZ450F by YamaLink


Dirt Bike   Special Interest Forums   Pro Racing
  • Hot  47 replies
Wiki
WR Camshaft Swap Info - last post by jamesm113

WR Camshaft Swap Info


Articles
  • 0 replies
Forums
Photo

Chubby dad, looking at bikes , First trip to the orange/black forum ! by Slow_ride


Dirt Bike   Make / Model Specific   KTM   250-530 EXC/MXC/SXC/XC-W/XCR-W (4-Strokes)
  • Hot  28 replies
Forums
Photo

Snake pit oct 30th by The Anvil


Dirt Bike   Dirt Bike Regional Discussion   California
  • Hot  293 replies
Forums
Photo

yz250x vs 450 4t comparisons (preferably desert riding) needed by JakeNorthrupYZ450F


Dirt Bike   Make / Model Specific   Yamaha   Yamaha 2-Stroke
  • 9 replies
 
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.