I don't mind jetting, IF the carb is easy to take off/put on the bike. And IF I can jet on and get it working well enough so that I don't have to re-jet for conditions or elevation, (elevation up to a reasonable level, If I go from sea level to 10,000 ft I know I'd have to). Bottom line, I don't mind jetting, but really hate re-jetting. Which is one reason I put up with my old KTM 520 for so long. It would always run and had enough power so that even if it lost some I didn't really miss it. Usually it had too much power. I never liked the suspension or handling, but I learned to live with it. I'm riding a GasGas now because from what I can gather, they are extremely reliable and I know they handle fantastic. In my own way, I replaced my old 520 with a bike that should be as reliable and works better for me.
I also hate the FI currently available on off road bikes. Since KTM has gone to FI, bikes are having many more problems than with carbs, especially the 4ts. They are simply too finicky for modern junk fuel, varied fuel, and the type of varied riding we do. Carbs seem to cover those bases than the current FI. Eventually they'll get the bugs worked out, and it will likely be the aftermarket that solves the problems. Kawsakis are having problems with electrical inputs and wiring, some of which is design and some production issues. Eventually they'll work that out. Husabergs are having all kinds of problems! Production issues, design issues, design of how the FI interacts with the engine regarding changes in elevation and weather, as well as some issues thay have no idea whats going on. The early FI Husabergs overheated from normal riding at times! Wasn't FI supposed to fix that? It got worse with FI. Todays bikes with FI are generally getting fewer hrs on top ends than before with carbs! How can modern bike designers look themselves in the mirror?! They adapted a more modern technology which has been around since the 1930s with the first FI airplanes, and can't make it work on a single cylinder 2 or 4 stroke dirt bike! What could be simpler? Bottom line is they are throwing some FI guesses out on new bikes and letting the consumer and the aftermarket work out the issues!
Shame on you, Jap big 4, Husaberg, Husky, KTM! And speaking of KTM, THEY CAN'T MAKE A KICKSTART SYSTEM RELIABLE ON THEIR 2 STROKES! Guys I know with 2 stroke KTM who ride alot go through at least 2 starters a year. And those starters ain't cheap. Kudos for putting e start on 2 strokes, and I'll give you a year to perfect it, but IT'S BEEN 4 YEARS, AND IT STILL BREAKS! The new bikes cost nearly 10 grand, AND THE KICKSTARTERS AREN'T RELIABLE, AND THEY WON'T WARRANTY THEM! Someone please find the nearest KTM engineer and KICK EM' IN THE NUTS FOR ME, AND I DON'T EVEN RIDE A KTM ANYMORE!
No way I'll buy any FI bike until I am comfortable that it works at least as well as a carb, and that I can work on it myself without expensive tools or diagnostic equip. If I can't fix it on the trail as easily as a carb, I don't want it.
It does look like this smart carb is a great product, but I'll let you guys with more money and smarts than me figure that out for sure. How will it affect top end and bottom end wear? Fuel economy? (although that should be better, but we'll see). Parts availibility? Can I take it apart on the trail with basic tools if needed, are there a bunch of tiny parts to lose? Will the slide wear out faster than a carb? Needle wear? Will it be more or less affected by trash? No matter how hard you try, off road bikes are going to get some trash in the tank, and you're gonna get bad fuel. I recently bought a new fuel can. I used it 3 times, but bought gas from different stations. I emptied it, and found trash in the bottom. I was careful when I filled it to not allow anything to fall inside, I always clean the spout before I pour, when I take off the spout to fill it, I make sure to lay it on a clean rag, or at least lay the spout on a clean place, and look it over before I screw it back on. The only way I can think of that new fuel can was dirty after 3 fills is it came from the pump or the fuel in the tank at the station. Fact is, you are going to get some trash in your bikes tank. No matter how careful you are, it's gonna happen. Whatever fuel delivery system is on a bike it needs to be versatile enough to deal with most of that problem. My old DRZ carb does pretty good. My old KTM was great in that regard. It never was hard to start or ran poorly except one time when I got some water in the fuel from a remote gas station. A bit of Sea Foam fixed that in 10 minutes.
So far, from what I've read this carb almost seems to be too good to be true, and yes I'm a skeptic. Probably because my mechanical skills are average, and I ride in some nasty and remote places that if you can't ride your bike out, you'll have to have at least 5 buddies to help you push and carry it out, or you'll have to take it apart and carry it out a piece at a time! No way you'll be able to pull it out with another bike. Reliability and simplicity are key at times.
I do think that eventually they'll get dirt bike FI working well enough for me to trust it, but here's an example: Chevy used a simple 7 sensor throttle body setup on their trucks from 1988-about 1995. Then they started tweaking. In about 99 or so, they went to a 23 sensor setup! Maybe they had to due to our esteemed government, but if you were going to drive a Chevy truck across Baja, or any remote place, which would you rather have? On the older trucks you could carry 3 basic sensors (which cost about 250.00 total for those sensors, at dealer prices), and no diagnostic equip, and keep it running. The other sensors made it run a bit better but didn't make much real difference. It might miss a little and drop a little mileage, but it would still go. Now, after 13-14 years of testing and design, Chevy uses 27 sensors, but it's pretty reliable, but if you were going on a long tough remote trip, how many sensors would you need to carry? What diagnostic equipment? When properly tuned, my 1989 Chevy 1/2 ton with a V8 would get about 19-20 mpg average. And it did that consistently, (when properly tuned), until it had over 400,000 miles on it. It still ran great and gave NO motor problems until I sold it with 430,000. My buddies 2000 model only got 24 at best, and usually about 19-21 average. Yes, it had alot more power, but they also redesigned the heads, pistons, ignition, exhaust, and shaved off about 400 lbs of weight. And improved aerodynamics. He was constantly changing sensors and ended up buying 2 diagnostic tools which cost several hundred bucks. And he's a real mechanic, not a shade tree guy like me! From what he tells me, the very late models don't get any better mileage, are much harder to diagnose, and only have about 20 more hp. He's driving an 87 model, first gen FI, although he swapped in an early 80s vette motor, and it has about 330 hp, gets over 20 mpg, and never breaks. They went backwards in quality, design, durability, simplicity, in every way! Shame on you, Chevy! Stop selling poorly designed products and then charging 100.00 an hour to fix it!
Forget it! I'm old, old school, not real bright, and kinda lazy, or some would say. I don't mind working on something occasionally if I can fix it and forget it for a long time. I'd rather drive my truck than work on it. I'd rather ride my bike than jet it. If this newfangled carburetor thang turns out to be better in all or most ways than older carbs, YES I'll buy one for around 450 bucks! We'll see in a couple of years when there are a bunch of them out there with 500 hrs on them.
What a rant! I feel better now. Sorry, I guess I kinda hijacked this post.
