Full system exhaust

[Spook]

WAAAAAAAAAAAA I will send ya some cheese for your whine.

I take it, then, that you support/like/condone "Loud Pipes"...?

I condone support people not being such asshats about what other people ride. There are a lot of other people out there that think our bike have way more horsepower than we need to do 75 miles an hour down the interstate. NOW why in the world do you need a bike capable of doing 150 you offend me with your having the need for a bike with sooooo much excessive power.

+1 he should be riding one of these

Obnoxiously loud pipes are pointless for both the rider and the by-standers, however a bit of sound is good and adds safety IMHO.

I am pretty much for every one riding their ride and not trying to force their ideas on every one else. That is where we lost the old RD350 class bikes. Where for several years there were Fees put on all imports over 700CC's I get pretty sick of bikers putting down and going against other bikers because of how they dress, what they ride etc. We need to stick togeather or be taken down piece by piece apart. I ride with all sorts from straight pipe HD riders to dead quiet GW riders I figgure what ever floats your boat. I myself like to have just enough rumble to cover up the whine you hear with stock pipes.

 

[Spook]

Skooter, Yes they fixed it.. Of that I am 100% sure hands down BTDT and got the T'Shirt. I have been all they way over, with perfect form mind you ;-) .. but all the way over and loaded hard in a turn.... It dont drag no mo. I have hit my stock header prior tho, there is a picture here somewhere from back in the day

Now!!!!!!

Howwwwlly Crap guys

OK, FOR ME,, I have had the Holeshot cans stock headers and now run a full 421 Muzzy Titanium system.

The reason I went with the muzzy is because it is different. It is louder but Muzzy makes a quiet core for it, that i do not have, because I am half deaf and could not give a **** about the noise volume. I listen to my ipod when I ride with some nice ER6i earphones.

Performance cannot be compared because I had stock headers with my Holeshots. I have more performance with my muzzy but that is not apples to apples since I have the full system this time.

Had I not had a getoff and had to replace my system I would have added the header system to the holeshot and been totally happy.

Everyone has their own preference.. I wanted to save weights as well.

FWIW the aftermarket stuff is WAY!!!!!! cheaper than the OEM stuff.. Last I looked the OEM headers and cans were 2300 bucks for a complete set. My muzzy was about 1250 ish I think.. Perhaps a bit more but I dont really remember. Its been a while

So, as far as "Loud Pipes" crowd... FUKIN PLEASE!!!! The muzzy aint **** compared to the piped HD's out there.. I dont run the quiet core because I dont want to spend the money for it since i dont give a **** about the noise I cannot hear anyway < pretty simple huh

FOR ME!!! the stock FJR sounds like a mouse farting in a tin can.

The good news is I stayed at a holiday in express

I have to agree the stock pipe sound weak. Nice thing about the FJR you can keep ahead of the HD's and let them listen to your pipes. Even at full boar the Muzzies do not seem that loud to me.

 

[jdeez1]

I'm looking at getting one of these two. Figured this might be an easy way of getting pro and cons of each.
edit: i tried setting this up as a poll, but it looks like it didn't work. sorry

I've been thinking about a header, since i already have a set of Blueflame Performance EVOIII slip-ons. Since i don't particularly like the unbalanced look of the Muzzy 4-2-1, i guess that really only leaves the Dale Walker 4-2 headers.

Is anyone using and is happy with a different header that maintains the dual pipes?

I felt the same way about the Muzzy (Loud), a little too -rice racer- -look at me- sound for my taste. Ordered the "quiet" baffle and it sounds nice, not sewing machine quiet but not obnoxious either. Very close in sound to my Busas Akropovic system which also is just right....kind of Ferrari stock.

 

[v65]

Last I looked the OEM headers and cans were 2300 bucks for a complete set.

I cannot get over that. How much do you think it costs to make that set of pipes? Sure there are design costs, but :blink:

 

[UselessPickles]

Last I looked the OEM headers and cans were 2300 bucks for a complete set.

I cannot get over that. How much do you think it costs to make that set of pipes? Sure there are design costs, but :blink:

The stock mufflers have catalytic converters and extra baffle complexity to drive up costs in materials and manufacturing. They also only fit the FJR. I'd be willing to bet that the actual muffler section of many aftermarket slip-ons is exactly the same for all/many bikes, with only a difference in supplied mounting hardware and connector pipes to fit specific models. That would reduce design costs per bike model.

 

[FJR919]

Dude, you HAVE to further explain how the smaller diameter, more restrictive, stock exhaust system affords more flow capability than the larger diameter Holeshot system simply because it incorporates a crossover pipe.....especially at low-to-moderate rpms?!?!

I think you misread what is being said. If the amount of exhaust is constant, then a larger exhaust pipe will be able to expel the gases more quickly, but the flow rate of the smaller pipe will be greater. At lower rpms, where the smaller pipe is able to keep up with the flow and completely expel the gases, the higher flow rate is desirable since the intake valve overlaps the exhaust valve opening: the high flow rate helps bring in fresh air. So smaller pipes are generally better at lower rpms than larger pipes.

On the flip side with the smaller pipe you lose some high rpm power since the pipe is not able to flow out the exhaust gases fast enough. A crossover pipe can ameliorate some of that problem by giving an alternate path for the gases to follow. So a smaller pipe with a crossover can be a best of both worlds situation on a motor with a wide powerband like the FJR. Having no experience with designing such a system it seems like a black art to me because you get into issues of tuning where the crossover pipe goes by the exhaust pulses.

Good explanation, but the primary issue is optimum velocity. Everybody forgets that power is about flow, and exhaust gases slow down in a larger pipe than they do in a smaller one. The key is to achieve optimum velocity for the size engine and desired rpm range. If velocity slows down you lose the scavenging effect pulling stagnant exhaust gases out and allowing for a more complete cylinder fill of fresh air and fuel.

Just like too big a carb, or too big an intake tract or port, power is lost because velocity is decreased. Crossover pipes primarily enhance low end torque and not as much on the top end as one would think. That is why when designing an exhaust the crossover pipes are not the same diameter as the rest of the exhaust. They are usually about 75% of the pipe they attach too. But they are many variables in designing an exhaust. The crossover location, collector length, all affect power.

The FJR is not an R1 or a CBR. As a sport tourer, Yamaha designed it with great low end and midrange. A good exhaust should not result in a loss of low end or mid range power. IMHO larger primary pipe diameter was a step in the wrong direction for this application.

And yes, I have designed a few exhausts in my day, but they were for 8 cylinder cars. Computer software programs (Engine Analyzer PRO) and dyno results have backed them up.

 

[UselessPickles]

Dude, you HAVE to further explain how the smaller diameter, more restrictive, stock exhaust system affords more flow capability than the larger diameter Holeshot system simply because it incorporates a crossover pipe.....especially at low-to-moderate rpms?!?!

I think you misread what is being said. If the amount of exhaust is constant, then a larger exhaust pipe will be able to expel the gases more quickly, but the flow rate of the smaller pipe will be greater. At lower rpms, where the smaller pipe is able to keep up with the flow and completely expel the gases, the higher flow rate is desirable since the intake valve overlaps the exhaust valve opening: the high flow rate helps bring in fresh air. So smaller pipes are generally better at lower rpms than larger pipes.

On the flip side with the smaller pipe you lose some high rpm power since the pipe is not able to flow out the exhaust gases fast enough. A crossover pipe can ameliorate some of that problem by giving an alternate path for the gases to follow. So a smaller pipe with a crossover can be a best of both worlds situation on a motor with a wide powerband like the FJR. Having no experience with designing such a system it seems like a black art to me because you get into issues of tuning where the crossover pipe goes by the exhaust pulses.

Good explanation, but the primary issue is optimum velocity. Everybody forgets that power is about flow, and exhaust gases slow down in a larger pipe than they do in a smaller one. The key is to achieve optimum velocity for the size engine and desired rpm range. If velocity slows down you lose the scavenging effect pulling stagnant exhaust gases out and allowing for a more complete cylinder fill of fresh air and fuel.

Just like too big a carb, or too big an intake tract or port, power is lost because velocity is decreased. Crossover pipes primarily enhance low end torque and not as much on the top end as one would think. That is why when designing an exhaust the crossover pipes are not the same diameter as the rest of the exhaust. They are usually about 75% of the pipe they attach too. But they are many variables in designing an exhaust. The crossover location, collector length, all affect power.

The FJR is not an R1 or a CBR. As a sport tourer, Yamaha designed it with great low end and midrange. A good exhaust should not result in a loss of low end or mid range power. IMHO larger primary pipe diameter was a step in the wrong direction for this application.

And yes, I have designed a few exhausts in my day, but they were for 8 cylinder cars. Computer software programs (Engine Analyzer PRO) and dyno results have backed them up.

Here's something to think about...

All the talk of larger diameter pipe and lack of cross-over pipe reducing low/mid-range torque is most likely true, but it would be a reduction relative to if the Holeshot header had smaller pipe and a cross-over pipe. It does not necessarily mean that the end result is less low/mid-range torque than a stock FJR. It's quite possible that a full Holeshot exhaust system (with properly tuned fuel adjustments) results in gains across the RPM range, but the gains are shifted more to the high RPM range.

The actual amount of losses/gains at various RPMs is important. For example, maybe a cross-over pipe would have gained only 2 ft-lbs of torque in the mid range (relative to the actual Holeshot design), but would have added another $100 or more to supplies and manufacturing costs in addition to increasing shipping costs to send larger 1-piece headers out to customers.

As I understand it, the larger pipe diameter would shift some power to higher RPMs; not just cause the loss of power at lower RPMs. But how much power was shifted by how many RPMs? Again, the end result as a full exhaust system may may not have any net losses in torque, but just have more net gains in torque at higher RPMs. This would be welcomed by those who complain of the FJR "running out of steam" at high RPMs while keeping everyone happy with the low/mid-range torque.

The product description on the Holeshot website aligns with this theory:

The header tubes are only 1/8th" larger than stock to retain the strong mid range you like about the FJR.

So maybe it could have more mid-range torque with smaller pipes and a cross-over pipe, but it's likely to still be an improvement over stock. The only way to know for sure would be to see dyno charts for a bike with a full Holeshot system compared to a bike with only Holeshot slip-ons.

 

[v65]

And yes, I have designed a few exhausts in my day, but they were for 8 cylinder cars. Computer software programs (Engine Analyzer PRO) and dyno results have backed them up.

So, I have this Holeshot header in my basement waiting for an install, still got access to that software?

 

[FJR919]

Dude, you HAVE to further explain how the smaller diameter, more restrictive, stock exhaust system affords more flow capability than the larger diameter Holeshot system simply because it incorporates a crossover pipe.....especially at low-to-moderate rpms?!?!

I think you misread what is being said. If the amount of exhaust is constant, then a larger exhaust pipe will be able to expel the gases more quickly, but the flow rate of the smaller pipe will be greater. At lower rpms, where the smaller pipe is able to keep up with the flow and completely expel the gases, the higher flow rate is desirable since the intake valve overlaps the exhaust valve opening: the high flow rate helps bring in fresh air. So smaller pipes are generally better at lower rpms than larger pipes.

On the flip side with the smaller pipe you lose some high rpm power since the pipe is not able to flow out the exhaust gases fast enough. A crossover pipe can ameliorate some of that problem by giving an alternate path for the gases to follow. So a smaller pipe with a crossover can be a best of both worlds situation on a motor with a wide powerband like the FJR. Having no experience with designing such a system it seems like a black art to me because you get into issues of tuning where the crossover pipe goes by the exhaust pulses.

For this size engine, I consider 1/8 inch to be a significant size increase. Engines with twice the displacement per cylinder will have powerband shifts with a 1/8 increase in diameter. Don't think 1/8 diameter, think of the increase in total area that results.

As for kicking the powerband higher, the FJR doesn't have the other components to take advantage of the increase in pipe diameter. It would need longer duration cams with perhaps more lift, larger intake and exhaust ports, and maybe larger throttle bodies. Then to keep it from being a dog down low because of the longer cam duration, you would need to bump the compression ratio up.

Good explanation, but the primary issue is optimum velocity. Everybody forgets that power is about flow, and exhaust gases slow down in a larger pipe than they do in a smaller one. The key is to achieve optimum velocity for the size engine and desired rpm range. If velocity slows down you lose the scavenging effect pulling stagnant exhaust gases out and allowing for a more complete cylinder fill of fresh air and fuel.

Just like too big a carb, or too big an intake tract or port, power is lost because velocity is decreased. Crossover pipes primarily enhance low end torque and not as much on the top end as one would think. That is why when designing an exhaust the crossover pipes are not the same diameter as the rest of the exhaust. They are usually about 75% of the pipe they attach too. But they are many variables in designing an exhaust. The crossover location, collector length, all affect power.

The FJR is not an R1 or a CBR. As a sport tourer, Yamaha designed it with great low end and midrange. A good exhaust should not result in a loss of low end or mid range power. IMHO larger primary pipe diameter was a step in the wrong direction for this application.

And yes, I have designed a few exhausts in my day, but they were for 8 cylinder cars. Computer software programs (Engine Analyzer PRO) and dyno results have backed them up.

Here's something to think about...

All the talk of larger diameter pipe and lack of cross-over pipe reducing low/mid-range torque is most likely true, but it would be a reduction relative to if the Holeshot header had smaller pipe and a cross-over pipe. It does not necessarily mean that the end result is less low/mid-range torque than a stock FJR. It's quite possible that a full Holeshot exhaust system (with properly tuned fuel adjustments) results in gains across the RPM range, but the gains are shifted more to the high RPM range.

The actual amount of losses/gains at various RPMs is important. For example, maybe a cross-over pipe would have gained only 2 ft-lbs of torque in the mid range (relative to the actual Holeshot design), but would have added another $100 or more to supplies and manufacturing costs in addition to increasing shipping costs to send larger 1-piece headers out to customers.

As I understand it, the larger pipe diameter would shift some power to higher RPMs; not just cause the loss of power at lower RPMs. But how much power was shifted by how many RPMs? Again, the end result as a full exhaust system may may not have any net losses in torque, but just have more net gains in torque at higher RPMs. This would be welcomed by those who complain of the FJR "running out of steam" at high RPMs while keeping everyone happy with the low/mid-range torque.

The product description on the Holeshot website aligns with this theory:

The header tubes are only 1/8th" larger than stock to retain the strong mid range you like about the FJR.

So maybe it could have more mid-range torque with smaller pipes and a cross-over pipe, but it's likely to still be an improvement over stock. The only way to know for sure would be to see dyno charts for a bike with a full Holeshot system compared to a bike with only Holeshot slip-ons.

 

[FJR919]

Wow, I don't know what happened above. Sorry, I didn't mean to reprint so much of the other answers.

 

[FJR919]

And yes, I have designed a few exhausts in my day, but they were for 8 cylinder cars. Computer software programs (Engine Analyzer PRO) and dyno results have backed them up.

So, I have this Holeshot header in my basement waiting for an install, still got access to that software?

I do, but for the software to work properly you really have to build the engine to get all the data to make the results accurate. Mach air flow through the engine has to be figured. You need things like intake and exhaust port volumes, combustion chamber volumes, intake and exhaust port lengths, intake and airbox volumes and dimensions. You also need to punch in all the lobe dimensions of the cams, intake and exhaust centerlines, etc. In fact, for full readouts including structural failure rates you need rod to stroke ratios, and the weight of all the internal components. I was weighing pushods filled with oil and hydraulic rollers filled with oil to get accurate numbers. When I did get all the numbers, it took two hours to load all the data into the program

I don't think we can get enough meaningful information from Yamaha or our assembled FJRs to get any kind of accurate results.

 

[strike3]

Does anybody know what the stock headers weigh versus the Muzzy and holeshot headers? To me that would be a deciding factor on whether to remove the cats on the stock headers compared to buying the aftermarket headers.

 

[Geezer]

I felt the same way about the Muzzy (Loud), a little too -rice racer- -look at me- sound for my taste. Ordered the "quiet" baffle and it sounds nice, not sewing machine quiet but not obnoxious either. Very close in sound to my Busas Akropovic system which also is just right....kind of Ferrari stock.

I have the Muzzy system with round aluminum muffler and I had Muzzy send me a 'quiet core' for it. They sent me exactly the same core that was in the muffler when I got it. It is louder than I like and I'd really like to quiet it down if I can. I repacked the core and it helped, and it has gotten quiter with use, but is still pretty loud.

jdeez1, can you post a picture of the quiet core, or describe the difference between it and the stock core? The core I have is just a perforated tube wrapped with fiberglass packing.

 

[RiderCoach Lar]

I don't think we can get enough meaningful information from Yamaha or our assembled FJRs to get any kind of accurate results.

Probably neither can the folks at Muzzys or Holeshot Performance. Good thing that didn't stop 'em :glare:

Does anybody know what the stock headers weigh versus the Muzzy and holeshot headers? To me that would be a deciding factor on whether to remove the cats on the stock headers compared to buying the aftermarket headers.

Are you looking for the weight of a "cat-less" stock header? I know there's a pretty significant difference between the weight of the stock headers and the Holeshots. It would be interesting to know the weight difference AFTER a 'cat-ectomy'.

 

[FJR919]

I don't think we can get enough meaningful information from Yamaha or our assembled FJRs to get any kind of accurate results.

Probably neither can the folks at Muzzys or Holeshot Performance. Good thing that didn't stop 'em :glare:

If one has the dyno access and the ability to fabricate prototypes, they don't have to go through all the computer simulations to come up with a good header. R & D is expensive and time consuming, and that's part of the reason a well engineered sysytem like Akrapovic costs so much money.

I don't mean to knock Dale at Holeshot; I think he's a good guy who built a catless header to a price point. Maybe he felt more R & D or more expensive properly sized tubing (in my opinion) with the complexity of a crossover would have priced it at a point that maybe it wouldn't sell well enough to justify his costs.

I would have been willing to pay more for a dual muffler header that would not give anything up to the stock decatted header.

 

[UselessPickles]

Does anybody know what the stock headers weigh versus the Muzzy and holeshot headers? To me that would be a deciding factor on whether to remove the cats on the stock headers compared to buying the aftermarket headers.

I just did some weighing the other day, but don't have the holeshot headers on hand to weigh (getting ceramic coated). I weighed with a basic bathroom scale by weighing myself with and without holding various items and subtracting my weight:

Stock header: 11 lbs.

Stock muffler: 10 lbs. (x2 -> 20 lbs. for both)

Titanium Hexacone: 6.5 lbs. (x2 -> 13 lbs. for both)

Maybe someone else can use the same method to weigh their holeshots. If not, I'll weigh them when I get them back (hopefully this week).

 

[FJR919]

I don't think we can get enough meaningful information from Yamaha or our assembled FJRs to get any kind of accurate results.

Probably neither can the folks at Muzzys or Holeshot Performance. Good thing that didn't stop 'em :glare:

Does anybody know what the stock headers weigh versus the Muzzy and holeshot headers? To me that would be a deciding factor on whether to remove the cats on the stock headers compared to buying the aftermarket headers.

Are you looking for the weight of a "cat-less" stock header? I know there's a pretty significant difference between the weight of the stock headers and the Holeshots. It would be interesting to know the weight difference AFTER a 'cat-ectomy'.

If I recall correctly, each core weighed a pound each. So by the time you're done with all the rewelding, you're probably lighter by just shy of two pounds.

 

[JamesK]

If I recall correctly, each core weighed a pound each. So by the time you're done with all the rewelding, you're probably lighter by just shy of two pounds.

For those of us not capable of de-catting the stock header, is there anyone on the Forum or elsewhere who's interested in doing the 'cat-ectomy', and if yes, what kind of $$$ would you think that would run - thanks. I personally would prefer to stick with the de-catted stock header.

 

[UselessPickles]

Looks like my theory about the Holeshot headers may be correct. I got some info directly from Dale Walker:

I tried a cross over and it did not help one bit............ zippo

Its so close to stock in the very low, but may be down every so slightly.................. not much though

Looks like the Holeshot header will not cause you to lose low/mid-range torque, but only give gains in the higher RPMs. Keep in mind that slip-ons also usually improve torque across the entire RPM range. Dale did qualify his statements with the need for proper tuning (with a PCIII or similar).

He also did spend lots of time adjusting and testing the design on a Dyno, so it's not a haphazard design just to get rid of catalytic converters that some people imply when criticizing the design.

 

[03silverbullet]

https://www.fjrforum.com/forum//index.php?s...sucks&st=20

This is a dyno chart I had done awhile back. I think the 421 is better than a 422. Less weight and less cost.

I still don't like the customer service at Muzzy, but the pipe works.

The chart is half way down the page.