Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Thumpers' started by norton73, Nov 23, 2020.
The end result is an uncluttered engine...
Hose above still can be shortened up some, looks like it could get yanked off.
Yes, thanks a lot for the responses!!! I will do away with the reed valve thing !!
Yes, that is a clean look!!! I am installing the IMS 2.7 tank also, so no hoses going to the tank. Is that your pic or bike? I just need to figure 2 things...
1. Do I block off both airbox holes?
2. What to do with the hose coming from the throttle body (i think?) into the separator...is it an "intake" hose or an "outflow" hose?
1. No. just leave them be. Also do not block off the two hoses from the fuel tank. The tank vent hose especially needs to be open to outside air to prevent the tank from becoming pressurized when the Sun beats down on it and the fuel expands. I wouldn't even want to imagine the consequences of a pressurized tank.
2. Yes. It's a vacuum hose. Remove the hose along with the vacuum operated valve and block off the hose fitting at the base of the throttle body with a plug. The plugs look like this...
You can get them off ebay or from any auto parts store.
Please let me know how your IMS tank works out as I'm also considering one.
Gotcha, really apprecaite it!! ...
1. For clarification, I figured one would not want the two airbox holes to be open to more dirt intake?
- The IMS tank only has a vent on the gas cap, so no tank vent hoses at all.
2. I Will block off the vacuum hose at the base! great!
The IMS tank:
Fuel pump went in easily and low fuel light operates fine.
The "just ok":
I believe it's made for the 250s, but supposed to fit the 300 by the specs, so I took a chance.
It doesn't sit perfectly flush on the tank frame, just a bit off but is OK when tightening the lower tank bolts.
The holes for the Rad guard plastics were about 1/4 inch off, so it's easy to strip out the brass inserts in the IMS. I was careful and stretched/bent/wiggled the plastics a bit to get them to line up.
Directions show to drill a hole in the guards, but the pic is probably of the 2020 250S plastics, looks to be different than the 300?
All in all, happy with it all mounted up and with a 6 Liter Desert Fox, gives about 3 1/2 gallons.
Thanks so much for the tank review!
I really like how it looks. You can't hardly tell the difference from the stock tank except for the top.
1. The cap hose IS the tank vent... and a second hose isn't necessary because there is no recessed ring around the IMS gas cap to drain.
Of course you can close off the air box if you want. I don't think it matters since it's outside the filter anyway.
Thanks for sharing info about the tank. That's the main issue I have with the 300 so far and am glad to see that the old style tank fits.
On another note... I searched all over the internet for a set of ims pegs that would fit and was having trouble finding any in stock. I tried ordering some from one site only to have them email me saying that they were out of stock and would be giving me a refund. I finally found some ims pro series on Amazon and ordered them. Next day I received a set of ims super stock pegs. They went right on and are great. Then today I got a set of ims pro series in the mail. So I'm not sure what happened or how I got two sets of pegs since my account only shows the charge for one set.
To get to the point, I have an extra set of ims pro series pegs that I'd be willing to send to someone for just the price of shipping (maybe $15 I'm guessing). The pro series are the same width as the super stock, but are a half inch shorter in length at 2.5 inches as opposed to 3 inches long on the super stock. Still much better than the stock tiny pegs though. So pm me if you are interested and we'll arrange for shipping and payment.
Also, I'm not sure if advertising like so in this thread is against the rules. If so please let me know, moderators...
The IMS Super Stock pegs are indeed much nicer than the little OEM stubs, but pretty much anything would be, lol. I'm not sure anyone would be upset about you letting them know you have some parts. I've done it as well. Parts like this get lost real quick in the Classifieds unless one checks it a few times a day, that section moves quick.
I had the 2.7 gal tank on my 250S, and even though it's not cheap, I still believe it was totally worth it. The extra 40 miles or so of range it gave me was a difference-maker, and you are always better off with that extra weight in front of you instead of over the rear fender.
I love the double shipments from Amazon!! Has happened alot. Got a box of 6 furnace filter for the price of one, $26. just recently.
I’m seeing multiple quotes of horsepower on the KLX300 and CFR300L.
Does anyone know reliable numbers to compare the two with? Looks like the KLX has significantly more, which really surprises me.
I know of two stock KLX300 Dyno tests. They're both on youtube.One was done by JH Motor Club and the other was done by Dirt Bike Magazine.
Did you find any others? If you did, could you post the results you found. The more there are, when you average all of them together you'll get a more accurate profile.
I also found two Honda CRF300 dyno tests, both on youtube:
While the CRF300 produces less horsepower, it produces MORE torque and at WAY lower rpms... only 6,400 rpms as compared to the 7,600 rpm torque peak for the klx. This will make the Honda engine "feel" a LOT stronger than the KLX, especially in the dirt.
Great info! Thanks guys!
These numbers are a real "eye opener." I've been on the Husqvarna section too long I guess. You sure these are for a 300cc, and not a 250cc?
Biggest plus for the KLX over the CRF is the suspension. It is a better woods bike with better rebuildable revalveable suspension. The shock has both compression and rebound damping adjustment and the fork has rebound adjustment, not sure about compression. To have similar suspension on the Honda you will pay around $500-600 for aftermarket bits and probably not have the piggy back reservoir like the Kawasaki. The Kawasaki frame is pretty well competition proven since it was based off the old steel KX frames. That is why it is a better buy in most cases. Especially for the experienced rider looking for a good reliable dual sport on a budget.
Those are REAL WORLD dyno results for actual horsepower and torque to the rear wheel... and NOT advertizing hype.
These are the dyno test results for my KLX300:
You can't compare Husqvarna 300 2 stroke dyno results to 300 4 stroke engine dynos Two strokes fire twice as often per the same revolutions as 4's and so are about twice as powerful.
You have been in the Husqvarna section too long. These are main stream dual sports, not race bikes with street equipment added as some European brands. It may be fine for some experienced riders, but not so much in general. That is the KLX/CRF domain.
There is a similar comparison in street bikes, the Yamaha 700 series, known for being a heck of a lot of fun and great power spread only have 68 hp, where the new Aprilia 660 is coming in near 100. The interesting part, seems some of the media find the Yamaha easier to live with and have better mid range useful power. They love the Aprilia performance but recognize it is definitely more toward the racing spectrum where the 700 has hit a street home run for a couple years now.
Good info. One minor correction, the fork is compression adjustable not rebound adjustable.
Knew it was one or the other... thanks for the correction.
If they are measuring torque at the rear wheel, wouldn't the final drive ratios (sprockets) affect the numbers?
Thought the Honda had a smaller front sprocket.