KDXRIDER.NET

My 2001 200 motor broke the crank. Went to local repair shop they have a 220 motor that I can buy cheaper then rebuilding. The 220 has rb head mod the 200 carb I will be useing has been moded by rb. I have a FMF woods pipe currently do I need to switch to a desert pipe or do the RB head and carb mods off set the performance from mid to top end ? Thanks for any input.

General consensus is that a woods pipe is not a great match for the 220. I would think the RB mods would counter some of this, but probably not all. A REV pipe would probably be a better choice. If you are set on the swap (personally, I would rebuild mine), there is no reason why you can't try the woods pipe first if you already have it and see how it feels.

I've used both pipes on both kdx's. You'll be fine with a woods pipe - it still provides a good rev out. Some experienced enduro 220 riders have said they prefer the woods pipe over the rev pipe.

What a lot of people don't get about the 220, is that it has a much broader torque curve (with just basic mods) - so even though the 200 rev's out a bit longer (although not that much with a woods pipe) it cannot pull as hard in the most typically-used woods-terrain rpm ranges (single-track twisties etc) that the 220 will. I notice I'm usually a gear higher in most places with the 220 over the 200.

I've got a woods pipe on my RB'd carb and head 220 hybrid. I have nothing to compare it to besides my KX125 before I did the hybrid swap. Post swap it is very torquey and excellent for the trails I ride. I will eventually buy a Rev pipe just to see what kind of difference it provides. If the Rev pipe ends up hurting the low end much I'd stick with the Woods pipe (the trails up here are very winding and steep rocky/rooty sections).

It all ends up leaning towards what kind of riding you do and what kind of power you prefer.

The PC pipe on the 220 is a much better " more power everywhere " pipe than either of
the others. I found the desert pipe too focused on just top end and the woods pipe was
built for the 200 only.

Just my opinion

I've found particularly on the KDX 200 or 220 the bikes always feel faster with a pipe that allows good overrev. They certainly sound nice up in that range, and tend to come on more violently giving you the impression that the sucker is making more power. I'd have to guess on a dyno that setup makes 2 more peak hp. With extensive drag race testing of KDX's in many configs over the years I've found the bikes that fall flat are all WAY faster short shifted, and generally faster than a pipe hitting, overreving bike. So, I'll take the torque and midrange, short-shifting, falling flat setup everytime. Nearly never scream overrev in the woods, and again if speed is your game then would likely be going faster if you had already grabbed another gear. The KDX is a low-midrange port design drastically by nature. Without port work the revvy pipe is simply a tradeoff moving a couple hp from down low into the overrev.

My 220 pulls a gear higher than my 200 just about everywhere...but the 200 is more linear and deceivingly fast (and for some reason, a little more fun to ride most places). I've often wondered which one I would keep if I could only have one...and I still can't decide - I'd have to flip a coin, then I'd still be unhappy. The rev pipe demands a lot more rider concentration on the 200, but on the 220 it provides almost 250 like higher-rpm power in some situations while retaining more torque than the 200 at lower revs.

Supposedly the 220 was developed in eastern US enduro country, and I wonder if they found the smaller intake tract offered better overall velocity than the 125-based 200 design.

Interestingly, I had both engines torn down at the same time last year and compared the intake ports - based just on the size of the intake tract, you'd think the 220 wouldn't flow well at higher rpms... but that's not the case at all. It revs very well and pulls hardest in the upper range, that's where mine makes the most power - almost feels like a 250.

Many an Engine builder will slam the porting design of the 220 and I'd guess it's because it's
an unconventional design. I Love mine for woods riding ! If you want to go for a lazy ride ,
leave it in a slightly higher gear and it pulls great. If my son and I are on a fast open trail ,
it has plenty of midrange / top to get you in trouble.
Just to start the 220 and letting it warm up , the exhaust is so much more snappier and sounds great.
The 200 has more of a conventional regular 2 stroke sound. Same PC pipe and silencers on both.

I am going to throw my .02 worth out there from a 4 stroke Guy. who has the Platinum I PC pipe on my 00 220. I still have the 33m stock carb, which I have leaned out to the extreme at the bottom end, i.e. 35 pilot, stock needle in the top clip position, #135 main, air box top removed. It does not have the bottom end torque I would like for the style of riding I do, but if mid range and top end and quick revs are what you crave, it is pretty darned impressive. I just need to crack the throttle and I have an instant wheelie machine, which is great for getting over obstacles, however I feel I have constantly feather the clutch in tight situations, which is not what I bought the bike for. Case in point, went camping a couple of weekends ago and that's what my XR 200 is for. I swapped with a Guy who had a 84 IT200, that was air cooled. I noticed right away, this old bike had more bottom end torque than my 220.

Now the caveat, I need to go through my bike this winter and check compression, Kips valve movement and the condition of the reeds. Any one of these could be a potential issue I am having, but have yet to eliminate them. If they all check out, I will try to track down a PC II pipe for more low end torque. But in closing, I still want to iterate, for a revv'er, the PC I is awesome. If you do most of your riding in a wide open area the PC I is the way to go.

Michael

I will have to add that if a 1984 IT175 has more torque than your 220, You have some work to do.
That 175 should be no comparison to the 220 or the 200.

Unless is ported, carbureted and piped for low end. Most which most 2s trials bikes are designed similarly. But yes, it gives me something to shoot for.

Michael

So how does an old FMF Fat Boy pipe compare to the new FMF models?

Ive avoided this thread long enough.We are coming to Great Woods no matter the date.There will be a fun gift to raffle off,either a flag or sculpture yet to be designed.Any suggestions?

TWMOODY wrote:I will have to add that if a 1984 IT175 has more torque than your 220, You have some work to do.
That 175 should be no comparison to the 220 or the 200.

Old thread but agree 100% . The top end on the 00 / 220 must be pretty tired.

Replate , new piston , reeds and send the head off to RB and he'd be one happy camper.