Author Topic: What Is The Best All Around Pipe For The LT250R (Read 30367 times)

MotorGeek - Jerry Hall · « **Reply #125 on:** April 28, 2015, 03:27:42 pm »

Quote from: MotorGeek on April 28, 2015, 03:24:12 pm

We resumed engine development on the LT 250 Suzuki after a 25 plus year break. We gathered up an arm load of pipes to do our initial testing. In our initial test we tested the Paul turner pipe and silencer, DR Q / Shearer pipe and silencer, Dyno Port, and a few other that we could not identify the manufacturer of the pipes. We wanted to test a FTZ exhaust system but could not find one for testing. We would still like to test a FTZ. Our test mule is a 1987 LT 250. The engine ports were cleaned up but port timings were not changed. It had a TM38 Mikuni. We modified the stock head. It had Boysen dual stage reed petals on a RM 400 intake manifold. Stock stroke and a 68mm Wiseco piston.

Displayed below is the top 3 pipe contenders tested on the engine specs. listed above.

Blue lines are the Paul Turner
Red is the Dyno Port
Green is the DR Q / Shearer

MotorGeek - Jerry Hall · « **Reply #126 on:** April 28, 2015, 03:31:53 pm »

The chain appeared a little dry so we thoroughly lubed it an re-ran the test:

The engine spec were unchanged and shows the importance of keeping the chain lubed.

Blue line is Paul Turner pipe and silencer
Red is Dr Q / Shearer and silencer
Green is Dyno Port pipe and silencer

MotorGeek - Jerry Hall · « **Reply #127 on:** April 28, 2015, 03:52:34 pm »

We pulled the cylinder a few times, modified the ports to the current level testing each increment of port changes. We installed and tested the HPR/V2 reed assembly and also installed a TM 38 Mikuni bored to 41.5mm.

After getting the ports in the ballpark for this stage of testing, we stated our LT 250 pipe development process. We are showing the graph of what we are calling HPR Test Pipe # 1. The pipe has more Peak power than the other pipes but it is not acceptable to us because we believe we can develop the pipe and ports to produce a wider power band with as much or more peak power and still make it produce more power in the mid and lower RPM range.

It takes time to develop a pipe and port package. Stay tuned for updates:

Blue line is DR Q / Shearer pipe and silencer
Red line is HPR test pipe # 1 pipe and silencer
Green line is Paul Turner pipe and silencer

Maxxh2o · « **Reply #128 on:** April 28, 2015, 06:17:56 pm »

I'll ask.....will you be making a lt250 pipe available any time soon?

Mitch Keller · « **Reply #129 on:** April 28, 2015, 09:18:15 pm »

Wish you had one of those FTZ pipes to test., Jerry we also posted these results on SQ-HQ Face Book Site.

Sublunacy · « **Reply #130 on:** April 28, 2015, 09:26:02 pm »

get a power valved engine. the 88-92 powervalve puts the T in torque. and its the same size as an lt500. you cant sell that pipe to me based on the 87/ no way! im better off taking joe blows advice on pipes. or am i wrong?

well done trying to fix the scp top end but its been done allready. Also the pt pipe will slay on the track! your just making a rev pipe for a torque port on a non powervalved engine. makes NO sense whatsoever!

El Diablo · « **Reply #131 on:** April 28, 2015, 09:31:02 pm »

Quote from: Sublunacy on April 28, 2015, 09:26:02 pm

get a power valved engine. the 98-92 powervalve puts the T in torque. and its the same size as an lt500. you cant sell that pipe to me based on the 87/ no way! im better off taking joe blows advice on pipes. or am i wrong?

well done trying to fix the scp top end but its been done allready. the pt pipe will slay on the track! your just making a rev pipe for a torque port on a non powervalved engine. makes little sense to me.

The 87 engine is a powervalved engine. 85-86 are the non-pv ones

Iceracer · « **Reply #132 on:** April 29, 2015, 02:33:25 am »

I ve seen similar results with the testing i have done. Now thats there's some actual data to compare, ill post up a couple graphs from the last time i had a 250 on the rollers. All dyno testing was done with a 92 small reed engine , 41.5 tm mikuni, v force 2 reeds on Heminutt's cylinder.

Red line is Ftz pipe
Blue line is Shearer/Q

Iceracer · « **Reply #133 on:** April 29, 2015, 02:41:27 am »

Same engine same day, I should add all runs were on a Dynojet eddy current 188 machine. we spent about 10 hours on the machine that day. Each pipe was run through all the same variations, power valve changes jetting changes etc untill we had optimised each pipe. Pipes were all run from 3/4 - 2 turns on powervalve.
Red is Dynoport
Blue is Ftz

Gillio · « **Reply #134 on:** April 29, 2015, 04:36:44 am »

MotorGeek - Jerry Hall · « **Reply #135 on:** April 29, 2015, 08:31:02 am »

Quote from: Sublunacy on April 28, 2015, 09:26:02 pm

get a power valved engine. the 88-92 powervalve puts the T in torque. and its the same size as an lt500. you cant sell that pipe to me based on the 87/ no way! im better off taking joe blows advice on pipes. or am i wrong?

well done trying to fix the scp top end but its been done allready. Also the pt pipe will slay on the track! your just making a rev pipe for a torque port on a non powervalved engine. makes NO sense whatsoever!

I am not trying to sell you a pipe. I am ashamed of test pipe #1 and it's narrow power band. I was trying to show the members the effects different pipes have on the power curve on the same engine. If I can build a pipe that comes on similar to the Paul Turner and has the top end similar to test pipe # 1, I will make pipes. In the mean time I will keep testing a showing the results from time to time

Mitch Keller · « **Reply #136 on:** April 29, 2015, 08:42:49 am »

Quote from: Sublunacy on April 28, 2015, 09:26:02 pm

get a power valved engine. the 88-92 powervalve puts the T in torque. and its the same size as an lt500. you cant sell that pipe to me based on the 87/ no way! im better off taking joe blows advice on pipes. or am i wrong?

well done trying to fix the scp top end but its been done allready. Also the pt pipe will slay on the track! your just making a rev pipe for a torque port on a non powervalved engine. makes NO sense whatsoever!

You are so out of text, its just pipe testing comparing, I went through six versions of this with my own pipe , I bet HPR will be at #4 to #5 before he see results that he is happy with, we have been asking for dyno post of the LT250s for years, and we got them, the correct answer should be Thank You Jerry, looking forward to seeing new revisions and postings instead of posting trash that you don't understand. I have a very low tolerance for this kind of posting, keep it positive please.

Zilla273 · « **Reply #137 on:** April 29, 2015, 02:11:06 pm »

Greazee · « **Reply #138 on:** April 29, 2015, 02:44:40 pm »

Jerry and Carl. Which style Dyno Port was done in your dyno testing? They have a Mid-Top and a "BIG Volume" listed.

Zilla273 · « **Reply #139 on:** April 29, 2015, 05:03:19 pm »

mid top i believe

92lt250wannabe · « **Reply #140 on:** April 29, 2015, 05:23:06 pm »

I like seeing that ftZ and shearer dyno comparison. That ftZ has a nice power curve.

MotorGeek - Jerry Hall · « **Reply #141 on:** April 29, 2015, 05:24:16 pm »

Quote from: Greazee on April 29, 2015, 02:44:40 pm

Jerry and Carl. Which style Dyno Port was done in your dyno testing? They have a Mid-Top and a "BIG Volume" listed.

The Dyno Port pipe we tested had a mid-section circumference of 380 mm and 140 mm long

Iceracer · « **Reply #142 on:** April 29, 2015, 06:47:16 pm »

The one's I tested with were the big volume pipes. Its belly section is also 380 c and 140 long.

Maxxh2o · « **Reply #143 on:** April 29, 2015, 08:05:54 pm »

Any pics of the dynoport big volume vs mid top? How is the silencer quality?

Cunningham_821 · « **Reply #144 on:** April 30, 2015, 04:40:23 am »

Looks like a good baseline pipe to work off of jerry like u said bring that power on a little sooner you will have a little monster. Always amuses me when some1 that doesnt have the knowledge to make a legit comment but trys to anyways..

Sublunacy · « **Reply #145 on:** May 01, 2015, 08:11:05 am »

88-92 powervalved engines are superior on the track. the powervalve is the same size as a lt500 aswell as the reeds.

a plus 2mm piston will slightly increase case compression. as would moving the reed closer to the piston.....
----
i like the dyno that ice racer posted. there clearly is no " best exhaust" »» THEY ALL MAKE THE SAME TORQUE» the paul turner is great for 6000 rpm. the dyno port is great for 7000 rpm. the ftz is great for 8000 rpm. everything else is just ok.....

92lt250wannabe · « **Reply #146 on:** May 01, 2015, 11:48:41 am »

Haha

Gillio · « **Reply #147 on:** May 01, 2015, 12:53:28 pm »

I need to measure up my Dynoport and see what one it is. Im gonna give it a whirl this summer on the 285 and see how she runs. Its the only pipe I have rode around on, except for the HPR #1.

Q2W · « **Reply #148 on:** May 01, 2015, 01:20:01 pm »

Quote from: Sublunacy on May 01, 2015, 08:11:05 am

88-92 powervalved engines are superior on the track. the powervalve is the same size as a lt500 aswell as the reeds.

a plus 2mm piston will slightly increase case compression. as would moving the reed closer to the piston.....
----
i like the dyno that ice racer posted. there clearly is no " best exhaust" »» THEY ALL MAKE THE SAME TORQUE» the paul turner is great for 6000 rpm. the dyno port is great for 7000 rpm. the ftz is great for 8000 rpm. everything else is just ok.....

you do know that the 87 motors are power valved... right?

Figured a smart guy like yourself would know that.

92lt250wannabe · « **Reply #149 on:** May 01, 2015, 01:30:20 pm »

There is a dynoport for sale on Craigslist in illinois

News:

Author Topic: What Is The Best All Around Pipe For The LT250R (Read 30367 times)

Suzuki Quadracer HQ Store Zone