Pointless hp question

[crazybrit]

Clearly, money spent on suspension and knowing how to ride is better spent than money on adding more power. I know this, so noone needs to tell me [I think I have the forks sorted (for stock), whether I can ride or not is a different matter LOL]

I think I read, as stock that the 220R puts about about 28 ponies. Not that impressive compared to the 200EXC which is closer to 40.

Anyone know the approximate power gains for a stock 220R plus:
- new 607 reeds
- RB 220R head mod
- RB carb
- FMF rev pipe

I had all these done, just waiting on some parts I need to replace the original 220R piston with a Wiseco.

Curious if anyone has a clue on the new power. Personally, I'm more interested in improving the existing power delivery than on more absolute power...... but I must admit to being curious.

Thanks

[Indawoods]

On a 220?

Oh...'bout 26 I think....















































I have no idea!

[2001kdx]

"220R puts about about 28 ponies. Not that impressive compared to the 200EXC which is closer to 40. "

Please understand something. 1997 is the year where your 220 was designed. In 1997 the 220 might have put out 28 RWHP, but the '97 200EXC might have made 33-35. As of Now, the EXC's are more advanced and developed, while the KDX is not. So a brand new 200EXC might be nearing 40 RWHP, while the kdx still sticks at 28. Get it?

Horsepower means very little in the woods anyway. I bet i've seen guys on 250's and 250f's that i could crush on an XR100 in the twisties

[m0rie]

Not exactly apples to apples but there were some dyno's done a while ago that showed a modified KDX pretty close to a KTM 200 of unknown year.

http://justkdx.dirtrider.net/dynotesting.html

[crazybrit]

Horsepower means very little in the woods anyway. I bet i've seen guys on 250's and 250f's that i could crush on an XR100 in the twisties

You're correct on the 200EXC. My mistake.

Still; JEEZUS. I said I realize it's all about rider and not power. What d'ya want, for me to write it in freakin' blood. Sigh.

I was just curious if anyone knew what the changes in power were. Simple Q.

Yes, I "geddit". It's not what you intended me to get, but I do indeed get it!!

[thebleakness]

Clearly, money spent on suspension and knowing how to ride is better spent than money on adding more power. I know this, so noone needs to tell me [I think I have the forks sorted (for stock), whether I can ride or not is a different matter LOL]

I think I read, as stock that the 220R puts about about 28 ponies. Not that impressive compared to the 200EXC which is closer to 40.

Anyone know the approximate power gains for a stock 220R plus:
- new 607 reeds
- RB 220R head mod
- RB carb
- FMF rev pipe

I had all these done, just waiting on some parts I need to replace the original 220R piston with a Wiseco.

Curious if anyone has a clue on the new power. Personally, I'm more interested in improving the existing power delivery than on more absolute power...... but I must admit to being curious.

Thanks

I'm pretty sure it's going to put out about 76hp. At least that's what I've read...

[Indawoods]

[crazybrit]

I'm pretty sure it's going to put out about 76hp. At least that's what I've read...

Yah ... I'm so glad I asked this question .... shoulda known better ..... next time

[Jeb]

It's reasonable to expect that it's gonna be more than 2 or 3 horsepower based on how much stronger the bike actually becomes with the mods, a change that's very noticeable . . .

if FMF's claims that their pipe adds 10-15% horsepower are true, that's 2 or 3 horsepower. I'm confident that the RB mods add that if not more (and I'll bet many would have the same opinion), so it seems reasonable that one would get 4-5 horsepower out of those combination of mods. Perhaps more if someone takes the time to optimize performance through the combined effects of plug selection, jetting, SSS (oh yeah!), fuel, etc.

But, like you suggest, it IS about the rider. Even so, my feeling is that it's as much about the way horsepower comes on that makes a difference. For example, the TTR230 I used to have has a "nameplate" maximum engine hp output of the equivalent of about 18hp. My son's RM65 is between 13 and 14hp (within, of course, the narrow sliver of that powerband). Naturally, I would take the 230 on the trails given the choice between the two. 'Point being I'll bet a 1 hp in the right place is quite significant . . .

so you're exactly right about the power delivery part vs. the absolute power being what's important. And a 220 is all about power delivery on them nasty trails!!

[MXOldtimer]

"
Horsepower means very little in the woods anyway. :

07 KTM 525 w/ dealer equipped goodies & bling, $9200.00

06 KDX w/ mods, under $5000.00.

Push'n, bump'n, plain being nasty, "not passing" but, instead just stay on the KTM through the woods and piss'n him off with the lil KDX, PRICELESS!




Yeah that was me being an ass a few weeks ago.

.

[scheckaet]

Push'n, bump'n, plain being nasty, "not passing" but, instead just stay on the KTM through the woods and piss'n him off with the lil KDX, PRICELESS!

[canyncarvr]

You're right of course...concerning the fidillities of horsepower ratings and advertised numbers.

40hp on a 200? EXC or not...that's highly unlikely.

Obviously, no one knows the answer to your question.

Jeb's reasoning sounds about right, though...for the admittedly curious.

Do you feel better now that you know?

[kawagumby]

I'll toss this out for consideration;
I used to race RM400's cross-country - I had several. They were rated at close to 36 HP as I recall. I can remember exactly how they pulled a familiar uphill fireroad with jumps (on a good day they'd pull 4th gear, mostly I had to use 3rd). My current 220 pulls that same uphill section very, very similarly- both speedwise and torque-wise.

[2001kdx]

Kawagumby, how long have you had that KX250 in your sig?

[kawagumby]

Kawagumby, how long have you had that KX250 in your sig?

I put it in a couple of weeks ago...I've had the bike since the first of the year.