FJR1300 Exhaust Systems - Group Buy

[Warchild]

WC-
Will any of these systems pass the IBR sound check? Particularly the 4-into-1 systems?

Prospective players want to know...less weight/more power=excellent!!

dougc

Ack, sorry for the tardy response, Doug, I just saw this post now....

The Leo Vince Evo II slip-ons will definitely pass, if it's canisters you're after.

The TwoBros would be borderline when new, and will likely cause Tom Austin to break out his decibel meter.

I'll check with Muzzy as I seem to recall they, too, have an optional (removable) baffle to quiet things down a little, and I am reasonably sure their 4-1 system will pass the Sound Check as well. Of all the options, that's the one you'll obviously loose the most weight and gain the most HP from.

 

[dougc]

Ack, sorry for the tardy response, Doug, I just saw this post now....
I'll check with Muzzy as I seem to recall they, too, have an optional (removable) baffle to quiet things down a little, and I am reasonably sure their 4-1 system will pass the Sound Check as well. Of all the options, that's the one you'll obviously loose the most weight and gain the most HP from.

No problem. I was going to pm you but thought I'd wait a day. :calm:

I am interested in the 4-1, can't afford it but definitely interested, that is if it will pass a Tom Austin/IBR sound check.

Thanks, mang.

dougc

 

[SkooterG]

Of all the options, that's the one you'll obviously loose the most weight and gain the most HP from.

Why is that the 4 into 1 Muzzy system provides the biggest HP gain?

 

[dougc]

Of all the options, that's the one you'll obviously loose the most weight and gain the most HP from.

Why is that the 4 into 1 Muzzy system provides the biggest HP gain?

Dude, correct me if I'm wrong but, all the rest of the choices are slip-ons. Only the Muzzy 4-into-1 is a full system.

I would expect more gain from a full system than from a slip-on. At least it seems logical to me.

dougc

 

[twowheelnut]

Why is that the 4 into 1 Muzzy system provides the biggest HP gain?

And you need more honk for what? A faster path into the weeds? Stay away from that, skoot.

 

[MCRIDER007]

Why is that the 4 into 1 Muzzy system provides the biggest HP gain?

A 4 into 1 has less restriction to the exhaust airflow. It will make more horsepower and more noise. Most bikes with carbs have to be rejetted when a 4 into 1 is installed but it appears that re-mapping the fuel injection is not required on a FJR.

I rode a 1995 ZX-11 that had a Muzzy 4 into 1 exhaust and had also been rejetted by Muzzy. It had a normal power band until the tach hit 6500 rpms and then it came on "pipe" like the old 2 strokes.

 

[03silverbullet]

Why is that the 4 into 1 Muzzy system provides the biggest HP gain?

A 4 into 1 has less restriction to the exhaust airflow. It will make more horsepower and more noise. Most bikes with carbs have to be rejetted when a 4 into 1 is installed but it appears that re-mapping the fuel injection is not required on a FJR.

I rode a 1995 ZX-11 that had a Muzzy 4 into 1 exhaust and had also been rejetted by Muzzy. It had a normal power band until the tach hit 6500 rpms and then it came on "pipe" like the old 2 strokes.

You can get a "quite core" that will quite it down some. My bike with the quite core was about as quite as TurboDaves with his Two Brothers slip on.

With the Muzzy full system you loose the catalitic converter which will give you more power and less weight.

 

[StickyC]

Why is that the 4 into 1 Muzzy system provides the biggest HP gain?

A 4 into 1 has less restriction to the exhaust airflow. It will make more horsepower and more noise. Most bikes with carbs have to be rejetted when a 4 into 1 is installed but it appears that re-mapping the fuel injection is not required on a FJR.

I rode a 1995 ZX-11 that had a Muzzy 4 into 1 exhaust and had also been rejetted by Muzzy. It had a normal power band until the tach hit 6500 rpms and then it came on "pipe" like the old 2 strokes.

You can get a "quite core" that will quite it down some. My bike with the quite core was about as quite as TurboDaves with his Two Brothers slip on.

With the Muzzy full system you loose the catalitic converter which will give you more power and less weight.

Anybody have any audio recordings of the FJR with these pipes? Most of the ones I found here (particularly the Muzzy one) are broken links now.

 

[MotorSWATCop]

Muzzy also has Dyno Maps for the PCIII in house. You get the map when you place the order (if you request it). I have no idea if their maps are as good as taking YOUR bike to a Dyno center. Muzzy's maps are for the slip-ons and the full systems.

 

[exskibum]

Why is that the 4 into 1 Muzzy system provides the biggest HP gain?

A 4 into 1 has less restriction to the exhaust airflow. It will make more horsepower and more noise. Most bikes with carbs have to be rejetted when a 4 into 1 is installed but it appears that re-mapping the fuel injection is not required on a FJR.

Actually, the collector on the header is engineered so that when one pulse out of one cylinder enters the collector, it exerts a negative pressure wave (suction) back up the non pulsing header pipe(s) mated into the same collector. The downtube lengths are engineered so that the negative pressure wave arrives at the still open exhaust valve (at certain rpm ranges) during overlap (when the exhaust valve is still open and the intake valve has already begun to open). The effect is to literally suck the last of the combustion gases out of that cylinder while sucking fresh mixture in through the opening intake valve at higher velocity than would be the case without that negative pressure effect. That effect and the added inertia of the intake mixture (from higher velocity) when the exhaust valve closes act to get more charge into the combustion chamber, and at higher pressure due to the inertia effect, for the next power stroke. It's just plain all around good.

But . . . 4 into 1 headers tend to give more HP at top rpm at the expense of a flat spot in the middle range. A 4 into 2 into 1 header may give a little less top rpm HP than the true 4-1, but typically avoids the pronounced mid range flat spot of that 4-1. That's why I want to make sure the Muzzy is indeed a 4-2-1, and not a 4-1. 4-1 is sometimes a better choice on a race bike that will live near redline, but the 4-2-1 is better suited to street bikes. Most modern systems for street bikes that are said to be 4-1 are really 4-2-1, but I can't tell from the pic of the Muzzy Ti.

EDIT -- F'n WC!!! Jebus!!! You ARE going to drive me into bankruptcy. I just saw the Power Commander option (and maps too?!?). Clearly a MUST HAVE!!! I still need a Starcom, you bastid -- how the hell am I going to afford that now???

FURTHER EDIT TO ADD -- McRider is right about either a 4-1 or a 4-2-1 leaning out a bike and requiring rejetting or remapping for optimum performance. He is also right that there is less restriction in this application. The latter is largely due to the fact that the Muzzy full systems are not pushing the exhaust gases through a catalytic converter, as is the case with the OEM pipes that will continue to be used with slip ons.

 

[madmike2]

Why is that the 4 into 1 Muzzy system provides the biggest HP gain?

And you need more honk for what? A faster path into the weeds? Stay away from that, skoot.

Trying to compress the time (reduce the elapsed time of the sequence) on the "dirt-sky-dirt-sky...crap!" conundrum? :blink:

 

[twowheelnut]

Anybody have any audio recordings of the FJR with these pipes? Most of the ones I found here (particularly the Muzzy one) are broken links now.

Jeff has the TB's on his sportbikeeffects.com, though not so fair to suck up his efforts without gain for him...

 

[SkooterG]

Thanks for the excellent response exskibum.

However, I guess my question is now why is a 4-2-1 system inherently better for power (or is it?) than a system like Dale Walker's 4-2-2 system. I realize the 4-2-2 will be heavier, but will it suffer from some inherent design disadvantage when it come to making HP?

I would NOT be interested at all in sacrificing midrange for max HP on a bike like the FJR, and would wonder why anyone else would too.

 

[Warchild]

From pevious Muzzy full system threads:

The Muzzy weighs about 13lbs, the stock exhaust weighs 30-35lbs.

10.2 HP gain:

Look at the general torque curve flatness between 4500-7500 RPM (typical White Pine average RPMs )

 

[exskibum]

. . . , I guess my question is now why is a 4-2-1 system inherently better for power (or is it?) than a system like Dale Walker's 4-2-2 system. I realize the 4-2-2 will be heavier, but will it suffer from some inherent design disadvantage when it come to making HP?
I would NOT be interested at all in sacrificing midrange for max HP on a bike like the FJR, and would wonder why anyone else would too.

Not familiar enough with the Walker system, but will take a shot at the typical scenario. In a 4-2-1 or 4-2-1-2, you have a second collector mating the first two pairs, which also exerts a negative pressure wave back up the non pulsing tubes, and that paired pairs system is tuned to hit the exhaust valves at overlap at designed for RPM ranges. All 4 cylinders are benefited by the negative pressure waves generated from every other cylinder's exhaust pulse, and the geniuses that design these things manage to smooth out the power curve over middle RPMs from that somehow. Most modern performance 4 cylinders come from the factory with much of this already engineered into a heavy and EPA quiet (sometimes cat'ed) OEM exhaust system. If I understand the 4-2-2 nomenclature correctly, you don't have the second collector contributing, since each pair joins in one collector and then goes to an exhaust can.

From the power curve Dale posted, this Muzzy must be a 4-2-1 -- that looks really healthy all the way up. I'm off to the Muzzy site now to do some collector configuration verifying before I wring out that credit card on yet another of WC's irresistible GBs.

EDIT TO ADD: From their site, it looks like the Muzzy stainless full system header for the FJR is specifically identified as a 4-2-1. Like I said -- almost had to be from the dyno results Dale posted. Jebus -- my credit card is already screaming.

 

[TexasFJR]

why dont all exhaust manuf. have these videos...these are very cool, but not on the GB list...too bad.

 

[Warchild]

EDIT TO ADD: From their site, it looks like the Muzzy stainless full system header for the FJR is specifically identified as a 4-2-1. Like I said -- almost had to be from the dyno results Dale posted. Jebus -- my credit card is already screaming.

Nyeah.... it's only money. It's not like you can take it with you, so... you might as well party your *** off and rock to the beat.

Carpe diem, my brothers. Now is the time to party... right now, while you're still breathing. B)

 

[FJRocket]

EDIT TO ADD: From their site, it looks like the Muzzy stainless full system header for the FJR is specifically identified as a 4-2-1. Like I said -- almost had to be from the dyno results Dale posted. Jebus -- my credit card is already screaming.

Nyeah.... it's only money. It's not like you can take it with you, so... you might as well party your *** off and rock to the beat.

Carpe diem, my brothers. Now is the time to party... right now, while you're still breathing. B)

Carpe April Diem. :****:

(Waaaa.... :cray: )

 

[jdeez1]

Those whom are concerned about the Muzzy weight difference should read this, I contacted them long ago with the same question. My Question: you list: The oval titanium muffler weighs 4.6 pounds, the oval carbon 3.5 pounds.

You however do not list the weight of the The round aluminum muffler or The new oval stainless steel mufflers.

This information would be very usefull in my decision of which system to purchase.

Muzzy's reply: Jason

07-24-06

The aluminum and stainless weigh about the same as the titanium.

Curtis Dorn

Sales & Technical

541-385-0706 ext-107

He never actually gives the weight of the aluminum.

I however will be strongly considering the TI system as I remember reading somewhere that an Oval system of the same dimensions and design will be quieter than a round one, My oval akropovic on the Busa is very reasonable and never obnoxious.

I also like the way a TI system can "bend" without cracking, unlike the carbon fiber, I think I can lose a pound to make up for the difference

But then there could be the round al with the quiet core??

 

[JohnB]

Those whom are concerned about the Muzzy weight difference should read this, I contacted them long ago with the same question. My Question: you list: The oval titanium muffler weighs 4.6 pounds, the oval carbon 3.5 pounds.
You however do not list the weight of the The round aluminum muffler or The new oval stainless steel mufflers.

This information would be very usefull in my decision of which system to purchase.

Muzzy's reply: Jason

07-24-06

The aluminum and stainless weigh about the same as the titanium.

Curtis Dorn

Sales & Technical

541-385-0706 ext-107

He never actually gives the weight of the aluminum.

I however will be strongly considering the TI system as I remember reading somewhere that an Oval system of the same dimensions and design will be quieter than a round one, My oval akropovic on the Busa is very reasonable and never obnoxious.

I also like the way a TI system can "bend" without cracking, unlike the carbon fiber, I think I can lose a pound to make up for the difference

But then there could be the round al with the quiet core??

If the (LeoVince) aluminum and titanium oval slip-ons weight about the same, is there any advantage to the titanium to justify the extra $160 (other than if you like the "look" better)?