Suzuki 2 Strokes

Already has put 20.000 on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er280I0A9Vw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks and sounds horrible.

Sounds slightly flat like a well muffled 3 into 1 and he claims it is not more inefficient that a stock system. I suspect that the loss of weight is balanced by a slight loss of power so that it feels more or less the same.

Looks horrid,sounds horrid,must be horrid,cheap & nasty modification
Cheers,
Roger

Looks like a 4 stroke and sounds like a 2 stroke. I can see why you hate it.

Can't decipher which is worst. Look or sound. Maybe, performance.

The correct answer for 100 points is:

C

All of the above

tz375 wrote:The correct answer for 100 points is:

C

All of the above

Ahh, 'rap' singer. .........

Have a heart fellas. Maybe that's all the guy could afford to do. He certainly didn't do it to prove a point.

Probably works as well as some of the other 3 into 1 pipes.

It basically will work as if there is no real exhaust effect at all. Stock pipes are like a parallel header and the first two stages of an expansion chamber but instead of the convergent cone, they have a flat plate to support the stinger/muffler tube.

So a stock pipe will tend to do a reasonable job of clearing out the combustion chamber but not such a good job of shoving it back in. Some Kawasakis have a full expansion chamber design but dimensions are not necessarily perfect. Suzuki - not so much.

This three into one is like a few on the market back in the day that the "collector" will send a short suction wave and after that no real harmonic activity.

A great 3 into 1 would have a merge collector and expansion chamber with appropriate angles and below peak revs would work like a good expansion chamber, but above a certain RPM threshold the stuffing waves will start to interfere with other waves and the1 into 3 (for the reverse pulse/wave) weakens it.

Sleds have been making great power for years with their 2 into 1 and 3 into 1 systems but on sleds, a good three into three system makes more top end.

This example is none of the above, but the weight loss should balance oiut any performance loss at street speeds and sensible revs.

The OP had rusted pipes and tried something different. Good luck to him. If he used a smaller muffler it may have looked and sounded better to some ears.

I applaud him on the header design. But, saying we don't have heart because it looks and sounds like crap on a vintage 2 stroke isn't quite fair either. If someone posts a video anywhere on the internet. You are allowing the public to share it's opinion. Good or bad. Money was not the issue here. You can buy a better looking and most likely a better sounding muffler for his modification for under $50. He simply chose not to. Which is his choice also. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Universal-Motor ... 8b&vxp=mtr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Each to his own I guess. IMO it looks awful....as for sound, it was hard to tell how much of the noise was pipe, and how much was mechanical. There was a faint 3-1 type sound which was ok for me, but masked by what sounded like mechanical din.

That makes me want to bang my head against the wall.
Bet he works for the EPA,choke it down,put it on youtube and everyone will follow.

He has AMSOIL stickers..........NUFF SAID!



Lane