200 owners: Why so many variances?

[firffighter]

OK, just got off the phone with FMF.

The '99 Gnarly I have on my son's bike is discontinued. That would indicate that indeed this was the original Gnarly with big low end characteristics.

The '03 Fatty I have on my personal bike is specific for 200's of that year, but is also discontinued. But, it is not a 250 pipe, it was specific for 200's.

So, I believe that if I were to purchase a current Gnarly for my '03 200, I would not see any gains in low end as the current Gnarly is the same as the Fatty I currently am running in terms of performance.

Interesting!

I am not too disappointed as I do like the power delivery of my '03. If I want more grunt off the bottom, I could always go with a 12 tooth CS sprocket.

[Rick]

I think the older bikes, 99 EC 200's with 2k3 may have a different cdi box?

The original Messico pipes were different than the FMF pipes. I've tried both and prefer the Messico over the FMF, for my style.

[thejackrabbit]

my 2005 fmf gnarly's part# is 025055 same as the website. I wonder if its the low to mid pipe or the fatty?

[Danj56]

It would be nice to know if the older pipes fit the newer bikes and how they change the power delivery if at all.

[firffighter]

Just a quick update. Did a nice ride yesterday and made a small jetting change to try and help get a bit more pull off the bottom. It worked a bit better, but not significant. I climbed plenty of gnarly stuff yesterday without issue and the bike just chugged along without stalling making it up a jeep rock crawling climb. It will chug up, but you can't accelerate until you get some rpm's. This is where my son's is different. You can get pull and are able to accelerate right off bottom on steep climbs similar to a 250 or 300. Again, his will sign off earlier than mine and doesn't have the midrange punch that mine has, but that bottom pull is sure nice in the steep stuff. I am going to try a 12T CS sprocket next which will give me 12/52 gearing. A bit drastic, but a cheap try. Billy Burns ran this gearing in his 200 years ago.

The original Messico pipes were different than the FMF pipes. I've tried both and prefer the Messico over the FMF, for my style.

Wondering what your impressions were on the pipes and why you like the Messico over the FMF?

my 2005 fmf gnarly's part# is 025055 same as the website. I wonder if its the low to mid pipe or the fatty?

It is my understanding that it would be the modern version of the Gnarly which wasn't as low end oriented as the older Gnarly.

It would be nice to know if the older pipes fit the newer bikes and how they change the power delivery if at all

If I remember right, the motor was lowered 8mm from the older models. I am not sure of the older pipe would fit. I am going to try it with my son's Gnarly and will certainly report back on findings.

I am pretty sure that the reason my son's bike pulls right of bottom better than mine is due to the pipe, but the proof will be if I am able to fit his pipe on my bike and do a test.

[Danj56]

I've had both a 2001 and a 2011 and in my opinion two completely different feeling motors. I enjoyed the power of the 2001 much better, It ran like a KDX on steroids.

[firffighter]

I enjoyed the power of the 2001 much better, It ran like a KDX on steroids.

I find that very interesting. I bought this '03 based on my son's '99 performance and found the same thing. The '99 feels like my old KDX220 with carb and head mod and my '03 feels.... different. It is just fascinating to me with the motors, I believe, unchanged over the years on the 200.

Did the '01 have more pull than the '11?

[Rick]

Originally Posted by firffighter

Just a quick update. Did a nice ride yesterday and made a small jetting change to try and help get a bit more pull off the bottom. It worked a bit better, but not significant. I climbed plenty of gnarly stuff yesterday without issue and the bike just chugged along without stalling making it up a jeep rock crawling climb. It will chug up, but you can't accelerate until you get some rpm's. This is where my son's is different. You can get pull and are able to accelerate right off bottom on steep climbs similar to a 250 or 300. Again, his will sign off earlier than mine and doesn't have the midrange punch that mine has, but that bottom pull is sure nice in the steep stuff. I am going to try a 12T CS sprocket next which will give me 12/52 gearing. A bit drastic, but a cheap try. Billy Burns ran this gearing in his 200 years ago.





Wondering what your impressions were on the pipes and why you like the Messico over the FMF?



It is my understanding that it would be the modern version of the Gnarly which wasn't as low end oriented as the older Gnarly.



If I remember right, the motor was lowered 8mm from the older models. I am not sure of the older pipe would fit. I am going to try it with my son's Gnarly and will certainly report back on findings.

I am pretty sure that the reason my son's bike pulls right of bottom better than mine is due to the pipe, but the proof will be if I am able to fit his pipe on my bike and do a test.

When I we did the "seat of the pants" test my buddy and I were out riding for the day. We were riding single track loop over 12 miles long. From what I remember the FMF was more of a bottom end pipe... again, this was many years ago...I do know that my buddy liked the Messico pipe as it stronger. There hard t find, cost a butt load of cash and are paper thin.
I have no idea what pipe it was, I just know it was a FMF for a 99 EC200. The time frame that we did the test was around 2002-2003.

I know that the Doma pipes were the hot ticket back in the early years for the 250 and 300's. Not sure if one can find a Doma for a 200 anymore. Motowest (So.Cal) had some pipes as well that were screamers as well, but I don't think that have anymore around.

Now, this was not really a fair test. My 200 is modded to a degree, squish, timing advanced and the head pipe has been shorted a bit. All the pipe mounts have been moved to bolt up in OEM locations, so if yo look at the pipe you would never know it has been touched. Back in the day it would flat out run away from a KTM EXC 200 I've had some people question that it really was a 200!!

For my 200 the oversized powervalve cover does nothing, the mod to the pipe provides the same effect as the oversized p/v cover.

I tend to ride on the aggressive side, I like that fact the I can lug it down (2k3) with very little stall, but a little clutch gets it singing much like a 125 on roids!

I don't like messing with jetting and I know for a fact that if I was to drop from the 40 pilot get down to a 35 or 37.5 it would be much crisper than what it is. I like the "fatness" on the bottom, as it is a little more forgiving in tight stuff, but like I stated, a little clutch and twist it come on in the mid a screams!

I have a RB modded carb on my YZ125, with a bore to 39mm and I'm super happy with that. Just thinking out loud, what a RB modded carb with the divider plate and a 39mm bore to the PWK38 on a 200 would be like? The divider plate could have a positive effect down low and then provide a little more over rev on top with a pipe that is tuned for more mid to top end????
Again, just thinking out loud.

I have a old FMF TCII spark arrestor laying around, my plan is to cut it down to about the size of a FMF shorty, repack it and give that a try as long as I can make it pass sound checks. I'd like to see what the effect of a shorty would be as well.

Hope this helps.

[firffighter]

Awesome Rick. Great to hear your impressions on the 200 and the different pipe options over the years. Interesting that you've modded your pipe for more performance as well. Steve Berkner also mentioned this and he added 10mm to the 200 pipe and found good bottom end results with that mod.

I also found this post you made a while back:

I have a 200 that has some motor mods performed, yes it will loft the front end to a degree.

One think to keep in mind is, the 200-300 is pretty much all the same bike, so the overall weight is pretty much the same. If 250 or 300 feels heavy, then the 200 is really close to the same weight with less hp and torque.

I think it would be safe to say that there is a difference in power delivery and overall power between a 200 and 250, and.....a 300! Riding a 300 monster after you've been on a 200 is a complete different program. I have plenty of seat time on Kevin's EC 300 and jumping from a 300 onto a 200 I can see how this guys is feeling like he is missing something......he is..about 99.6 cc's!

I am not sure if the gear box of the 200 uses the same gear box and overall ratio's as the 250 or 300?? I only ask this question because what other guys run on a 250 or 300 just might not work well on a 200.
I see there are several guys using a 12 tooth C/S sprocket....that seems a little tight for me, but who am I to judge what another person uses.

I agree with Hamilton, about the crisp jetting, tapping the clutch to clear trail trash.

The 200 likes to be ridden like a 125 on Red Bull, Yes the motor is very smooth and electric and linar, but it lacks overall robust, yes it can be lugged and will pull cleanly may require clutch work, or a down shift.

IMHO, after coming off a 300 and going to a 200 is going to require the pilot to change to a more aggresive riding style. You can ride a 200 like a 300, but your going to fall off the pipe, bogging the motor, be in the wrong gear and could be frustrated. The 200 likes to be attacked, aggressive style, ringing it out to a degree, on the pipe.....it begs for it and that robust motor can and will handle everything you dish out, just like it's bigger brothers.

This got me to thinking a bit about my experience so far with the EC200. Before going to the 200's, I was riding 250's and 300's for about 3-4 years. That ability to lug and pull a gear or 2 high all day long was the norm. I could idle up hills and just roll on the throttle without any issues. I went to the KTM 200 about 2 years ago and loved the change. But, that bike had a Rekluse, so I was able to lug that bike without issue as the Rekluse would just keep grabbing and pulling for you. Now on this EC200 I think I have a tendency to want it to pull like those other bikes and it really isn't made for that. I have been telling myself to get it higher in the rpms and let it do its thing, but it is hard to make the transition some times. I absolutely love the light feel and know that the bike make life so much easier on long technical rides because you aren't fighting the bike and it wont wear you out. Heck, we have guys riding Husky 125's in the steepest stuff we have here in the PNW and they are able to tackle that terrain without issue as they are letting the bike sing.

I think I'll get better at it with time and will be trying a few other little tweaks: 12T sprocket, 40 pilot down from 42 and will give the older Gnarly pipe a try.

[liv2day]

I don't have the historical perspective as my '11 was the first GG 200 I've ridden.

That said, we have 2 11's in the garage now and I can tell you that the power delivery for both is quite similar. There are small jetting differences between both bikes and you can tell they're different - the #7 slide with the R1470 needle @2 & 40 PJ pulls stronger off idle than my wife's with #6 slide, NEDH #2 with a 42 PJ. My guess is I could drop the PJ to 40 and it would pull a little more off idle, but it's good for her riding style as it is now.

One of the tests I adopted is the 3rd gear roll-on with the motor under slight load and the throttle barely cracked. Both bikes will loft the front wheel if you wack it open, but it's not crazy like my brother-in-law's 250...lol.

One thing to keep in mind is both our bikes had the RB Head Mod, I know this helped.

I really wish FMF made a Gnarly pipe for newer 200s, I would like to try one.