200 owners: Why so many variances?

[firffighter]

After purchasing my '03 EC200 a couple of months ago I began to do a lot of research on what others have done with their 200's and impressions from 200 owners on their bikes performance. There seems to be quite a bit of variation with performance and some variations with mods. I realize that many factors play into the equation, and being a smaller cc bike, set up is key.

Some of the common mods are well documented:

* Head mod which many have done and love the results

* Gearing. Seems to be key with the 200.

* Large volume PV cover. Most notice a big difference especially with the smaller cc 200

* Jetting. Key for any 2 stroke, but seems to be a larger factor with the smaller 200

The variations seem to come in performance. Many find their 200's soft on power. Some find them peaky. Some say they have nice linear power. Some have great bottom end but sign off. Kinda all over the board.

If my research is correct, the motor is basically the same for all years.

So, my question is why the large variations in performance? I'd love to hear from the 200 owners with your impressions.




One quick note: I also own a '99 EC200, which is my sons, and have done a back to back comparison. Both bikes are set up nearly identical. Same jetting with LT needle. Fresh topend, gearing is close with the '99 at 13/51 and my '03 at 13/52. Both have large PV cover. Neither has head mod.

The '99 has noticeably more grunt off the bottom. It's pulls really well down low, but begins to sign off a bit past mid. My '03 is soft on the bottom, but pulls hard mid all of the way to the top. I attribute this to the only difference in the bikes, the pipe. The '99 has a FMF Gnarly and the '03 has a FMF Fatty.

Research on pipes reveals that the early Gnarly was known to give bikes a strong bottom pull. The "new" Gnarly is the same as the Fatty with the Gnarly being made with heavier gauge steel. Some even experienced their 200's having a 250 pipe on which made for weak performance.

I'm going to swap pipes just for curiosity.

 

[noobi]

Pretty much what you pointed out for the 200 not dissimilar to how most people find gasgas' in general. Poor factory tolerances and stock jetting specs mean that seemingly identical bikes can behave very differently.

They have been all over the board with carb sizes and versions as well, which never helps if two bikes have the same jetting but different performance.

My 200 was set up as well as possible without engine mods, and changes in jetting were pretty noticeable. Needle changes could make the bike whatever you wanted it to be.

You say both bikes are the same jetting wise with new top ends, do they have the same squish heights? Increased compression in one over the other would attribute to improved bottom end response. Will be interesting to see whether the pipe is responsible for the differences.

 

[paulos]

I've only had my 05 for 6 mths and have been playing around with the jetting since i got it. I've added a bigger powervalve cover and had got the bike to where i was fairly happy with it despite a little hesitation off idle that i was going to live with.

A mate of mine had bought a 2011 6days after riding mine and although he loves it i found it more like a 125, and he even commented that mine was easier to ride.

Than another mate bought yet another 2011 6days and it was chalk and cheese compared to the other 2011 bike. More like mine in terms of the power delivery but super linear throughout the rev range.

In the last two weeks I've taken mine back to one base gasket, put in a new set of rings, measured the squish and had the head modified to suit, and pulled the power valve assembly apart and replaced one of the bearings due to a bit of play. I found the flapper was fairly coked up, so I'm hoping that it'll be a different machine once i bolt it together this week.

I think what you say is true though, they're a motor where all the components have to be right. When i got mine the jetting was rich and there was play in the power valve assembly. Combine those factors with the hefty squish measurement, coked up powervalve and extra base gasket and you could chase your tail for a while getting it to run right.

 

[Jakobi]

Who knows what has changed in port layout through the years. In the 250s and 300's I've seen some changes and also some significant differences in the casting of the ports.

The PV spring and number of shims could be in any range of who knows what with those crazy spaniards too. Has anyone ever pulled the spring from the governor and put it on a tester? I imagine that this is just another tolerance which potentially could be all over the shop.

Variances in the intake tract, reeds, reed block spacers, carb size and models, squish clearances, etc.

 

[Anders]

So far i have ridden no other EC200 than my own. That might soon change as my eldest son just brought home a '11 EC200 Racing. it will replace his '09 EC300 Six days.
Until we have done some comparisions I cannot really say much about differences.

However, I have done a series of mods to my bike to make it more old-man friendly (read: flatter torque curve and easier to keep from stalling);
Bigger PV cover, looks much like the LTR one but it is from Biketech UK.
Rekluse (the first version)
FMF Gnarly, don't know if its the first or second type.
My bike has 2K3 ignition with the heavy flywheel (this is no mod, it was delivered that way)
I don't know if the head is turned down, but the previous owner said something about adjusting the head, so it might be.
Rain/Shine switch, althoug I can't say I notice much difference.
Lectron 38mm as I never got the Keihin to run as I would like it to. Probably a combination of a worn carb and lack of patience on my part.

The combination of these mods gives me a bike that pulls from low down and never stalls. The engine has just sufficient power for my type of riding. It is not peaky, but pulls quite cleanly all the way.

 

[firffighter]

Sounds like I'm not the only one who has noticed this. I think that the variances that may be part of owning a Gasgas are more noticeable with the smaller cc's.

I wonder if the porting between the 2 bikes I own are different enough to notice the big difference in low end? I am leaning toward the pipes being different and will test it out soon.

I did look up Billy Burns specs when he was running the 200 and he was running 12/52 gearing which I'm sure helped with some grunt right off the bottom.

I love the mid range on my bike and it loves to be ridden there.

Just interesting to me that the same bike with virtually the same set up are so different.

 

[thejackrabbit]

OP what is the part # on your fmf pipes. the gnarly and the fatty. it should be located on the tab closest to the gas tank

 

[barossi73]

my 2 cents worth - even if th factory had the best qc and each bike left the factory identical they would still vary to some degree based on location,and fuel oil mix/quality variations alone.factor in how th engine is operated/maintained by diff riders for (x) hrs and wear and exhaust cond also figure.dont forget by now most owners would have modified/tweaked something or at least played with the idle/airscrew and/or jets/needles for better or worse.personally i love that its sensitive to even small changes,u can tell when uv made an improvement more easily or when something is off and its satisfying when u nut something out(if not the experts on this forum prob have already 4 u).a 2t owner cant help but learn what th engine is doin and as u do ur hopefully able to refine it specifically to ur riding style.perhaps they vary caus we just cant help fiddling with them!my 2 cents worth should be taken with a grain of salt tho,my 2013 200 has only needed minor jetting changes out th box,evrything else engine is stock(so far)and im perfectly happy.ha must have got a goodie or else th factory hired a german for qc?.seems like 2t rewards good riding/tuning and punishes poor.i can live with that no prob.should make me a better rider and tuner then! could be with used bikes theres prob quite a number out there that hav ended up either badly tuned/setup thru bad advice or ?,or diff parts/pipes/jetting/fuel etc to setup for a specific event/conditions.eg.sea level on east coast last winter,sells bike,new owner on diff fuel west coast riding this summer at 1500m cant get bike to run right and hasn't found gasgasrider.org yet!

 

[firffighter]

Great input.

I love my 200 and it is such a fun bike. It runs great and is awesome in the tight singletrack. It is jetted spot on and you can throw it in 3rd with virtually no throttle and it wont die. Again, it is awesome in the mid range and when I ride it there, it flies and has no problem lofting the front end.

I just find it strange that my son's '99 with same set up other than the pipe is so different in power delivery. I have them both set up with same fuel/oil, same AS settings and idle settings and they both run awesome, just different delivery is all.

I find it interesting and enjoy tinkering to fine tune my bikes and have done so for many years. I've been on 2-strokes for the most part for almost 10 years now and have learned so much about how mods affect performance. I have enjoyed reading what others have done and how their bikes perform as well. I personally enjoy the 200's for the many advantages they provide in woods riding. I like that they have "personality" Its rare to read any negative reviews about the 200's and I think than there are quite a few riders who are gravitating toward the smaller cc 2-strokes as they are easy to ride and the technology has come along so far with these bikes that now can lug and don't need to be ridden on the pipe all day like in the past.

Again, I think that mods tend to affect smaller cc bikes more drastically and jetting on a smaller bike is always essential. Jetting alone can change the characteristics quite drastically.

My theory on my personal 200's is the difference in pipes and hope to do some testing in the next couple of weeks to see if my theory is right.

BTW, the Gnarly is stamped 020 U 08
the Fatty is stamped 112 025049

The FMF site shows the Gnarly only as and option with # 025055 for the '03 and # 020118 for the '99. Weird since the current Gnarly on my '99 is not that # on the FMF site. This would lead me to believe its the older Gnarly which was very bottom end oriented, thus the difference in power delivery between the 2 bikes. Hmm, might give FMF a quick call to solve this mystery!

 

[Jakobi]

Any bike will show improvement with jetting, but IMO its more essential/fiddly the larger the engine. With the smaller capacities the small throttle openings aren't as essential as you spend more time with the the throttle open further.

Swap the pipes over and see how that effects each bike. Thats what a tinkerer would do!

 

[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]

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.