Yamaha Grizzly ATV Forum banner

21 - 40 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
I’d be interested to hear the results , mainly on the spring swap.
I have a coops sheave and as recommended by Arnie I have a gold spring fitted , running 27” htr’s.
I don’t know if that’s correct or whether I too would somehow benefit from a drop to a purple.
If I did , what would I actually feel difference wise please ?
The only issue I have is lack of availability in the UK, there is simply very little available for tuning of any description so would have to order the spring from the US.
Many thanks.
I'd be really interested to know what affect going from the gold spring to the purple spring has on your set up. I currently have the gold EPI spring with the Coop45 machined sheave installed as per Arnie's recommendation on the spring choice. I also have a purple EPI spring to try if I didn't like the gold spring but I have never installed it. So, I am curious what affect it has on low end responsiveness and also on the high end. My assumption is that since the gold spring is stiffer than the purple spring, it causes more back shifting and would assume that should also mean better low end responsiveness. But I know most people on this forum are using the purple spring rather than the gold. So please let us know what you think of the purple spring in comparison to the gold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I'd be really interested to know what affect going from the gold spring to the purple spring has on your set up. I currently have the gold EPI spring with the Coop45 machined sheave installed as per Arnie's recommendation on the spring choice. I also have a purple EPI spring to try if I didn't like the gold spring but I have never installed it. So, I am curious what affect it has on low end responsiveness and also on the high end. My assumption is that since the gold spring is stiffer than the purple spring, it causes more back shifting and would assume that should also mean better low end responsiveness. But I know most people on this forum are using the purple spring rather than the gold. So please let us know what you think of the purple spring in comparison to the gold.
I have an 09 Grizzly 700 with 27in tires that pulls the front end with no problem, it did take some trial and error but well worth it in the end result!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
I have an 09 Grizzly 700 with 27in tires that pulls the front end with no problem, it did take some trial and error but well worth it in the end result!!!!!!
The one and only complaint I have and could really use some insight on is the exhaust. I have done many upgrades including the barkers slip on exhaust which in my opinion is to loud, I will not go back to stock exhaust, if anyone knows of a good exhaust a bit quieter than Barkers please let me know, and yes I do have the quiet core installed. Thank you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
I have an 09 Grizzly 700 with 27in tires that pulls the front end with no problem, it did take some trial and error but well worth it in the end result!!!!!!
What clutch pulley configuration did you end up with?

Thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,481 Posts
The one and only complaint I have and could really use some insight on is the exhaust. I have done many upgrades including the barkers slip on exhaust which in my opinion is to loud, I will not go back to stock exhaust, if anyone knows of a good exhaust a bit quieter than Barkers please let me know, and yes I do have the quiet core installed. Thank you
In My Opinion......
Exhaust mods are not producing the performance increases members want/expect because the performance benefits are found in the horse power range of the engine and we don't ride fast enough much for the engine to be turning that fast.
That helps explain why many focus on the torque curve with c.v.t. mods.
Exhaust mods are very beneficial when bore, compression, valve size and/or stoke are increased. Better exhaust flow produces benefits when getting rid of the products of more fuel being consumed.
I installed a 2" exhaust tip for more sound and maybe better pull, there is more noise and when she backfires the flames is longer, fatter and louder but as for the better pull......not so much.
Read the comments and listen to the cam in this bike;

and a griz can be made to stand up without body-english;
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
I changed everything, runs about the same
Everyone please don’t get me wrong my machine runs well, I would say about like stock with stock tires.

I am running 28” tires, so the taller tire I am sure affects take off

Again it runs well but not a powerhouse, in low it will take the front end up pretty easy.

Bottom line, or at least for me I would stick with a shorter height tire for my needs.

I love the grizzly, love the reliability, pretty easy to work on and it has descent power. I think it has one of the best 4x4 systems on it.

My machine does not respond as well as some other guys, just being honest.
Runs well, not a powerhouse if you want extreme low end wheelie machine and a powerhouse get a twin . I love the big bore kits and looked into them but some guys report the reliability goes down, and then again you have to tune the machine for them mods, bottom line if you have the money it can make you go as fast as you want lol, I am at a happy medium now with mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
I am just trying to give others a honest seat of the pants, riding the machine opinion

Different machines could respond better
 

·
Registered
2017 Kodiak 700 ESP SE
Joined
·
293 Posts
Do you still have the stock tires and wheels? If you do I would be curious as to how it runs leaving everything as is but just sticking those on for comparison.
 

·
Grizzled
Joined
·
3,424 Posts
Rotational weight is the killer... as most already know. However, was surprised to see a listed weight on the Zillas as they don't seem that bad for the size you are running:

Zilla
Tire Size
Part Number
Weight
Tread Depth
Max load
Price

28-10-12
MZ152100​
26.0​
1.19​
495​
$119.90

BigHorn Originals (as a comparison, weight is the 4th column)
26-9R-12
MBH166780​
25/32​
22.9​
410​
$140.00
26-12R-12
MBH166767​
25/32​
30.0​
520​
$146.00



With the same size Zilla at each corner, you are looking at an overall weight at almost exactly what the popular 26" BigHorn users are running. In fact, in 2 wheel drive, the 26" BigHorn's are spinning more rear weight but that weight is closer in to the rotation. Comparing both, maybe it's a wash???

However, in 4x4, the Zilla tires are certain to rob you of more power versus the BigHorns. You did already recognize tires/wheels as being the biggest factor to robbing power, so you know this.

One final thought, you might want to look into installing an AFR meter on your bike to make sure you are adjusted for optimal fuel burn per throttle position.
 

·
Registered
2017 Kodiak 700 ESP SE
Joined
·
293 Posts
I have 26' Zillas on my 700 Kodiak, (25" is stock on the Kodiak vs 26" stock for the Grizz) only Mod so far is 1.5mm shim. It will pull the front up a little, more so in low gear but only if traction is good enough to prevent wheel spin. Most of the time I'm spinning like crazy and leaving a trench behind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter #31
I am just applying tire size the way it used to effect performance when I was drag racing pretty much, taller tire takes some acceleration on bottom but gives MPH on top.

Shorter tire opposite effect
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,592 Posts
I changed everything, runs about the same
Everyone please don’t get me wrong my machine runs well, I would say about like stock with stock tires.

I am running 28” tires, so the taller tire I am sure affects take off

Again it runs well but not a powerhouse, in low it will take the front end up pretty easy.

Bottom line, or at least for me I would stick with a shorter height tire for my needs.

I love the grizzly, love the reliability, pretty easy to work on and it has descent power. I think it has one of the best 4x4 systems on it.

My machine does not respond as well as some other guys, just being honest.
Runs well, not a powerhouse if you want extreme low end wheelie machine and a powerhouse get a twin . I love the big bore kits and looked into them but some guys report the reliability goes down, and then again you have to tune the machine for them mods, bottom line if you have the money it can make you go as fast as you want lol, I am at a happy medium now with mine.
I'm not understand why you seem so disappointed..... Your bike wheelies in Low, feel close to stock tires. And performs great. I see this as a success.... Why so down?
Heck you only have 46hp and your Turning some big tires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
You are right

I have accepted the fact it is what it is now, I am not disappointed well maybe a little after reading a bunch of post on here some saying how good their machine ran after machined sheave, weights, springs, etc.

It helped me some but I didn’t experience the same results as a lot of people posted and just wanted to throw that out there for others members don’t spend a bunch of money.

A 1.5mm shim and maybe some different weights are the best bang for the buck.
 

·
Registered
2019 700 SE Tac Black
Joined
·
33 Posts
For reference , I run bearclaw 27” x 12 Htr’s , 9” front , 11” rear.
HTR FRONT 27" = 26lb
REAR 27" = 35lbs

my Grizz has no problems ( in 2 wheel drive ) lifting in low with no effort , and a bit of a yuck on the bars she happily lifts in high.
Coops mod 3, and gold spring.
Hits the limiter at indicated 61mph, though due to tyre size it’s more like 65 mph.
just waiting for shims and a purple spring to arrive so I can play with it a bit more.
Im thinking I’ll drop to 26” tyres next change just to see how much perkier she feels.
 

·
Registered
2019 700 SE Tac Black
Joined
·
33 Posts
Oh , and by the way , my weights are actual weights as I weighed then on my digital scales before fitting.
Generally I don’t believe a lot of claimed / stated manufacturer weights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,592 Posts
You are right

I have accepted the fact it is what it is now, I am not disappointed well maybe a little after reading a bunch of post on here some saying how good their machine ran after machined sheave, weights, springs, etc.

It helped me some but I didn’t experience the same results as a lot of people posted and just wanted to throw that out there for others members don’t spend a bunch of money.

A 1.5mm shim and maybe some different weights are the best bang for the buck.
Remember when I advised you exactly that awhile back in your other thread....this was my quote


If your so happy with the way it's running now, why do you keep wanting to change it?

Heck drive it the way it is for 6 months, one year, whatever. Enjoy what you've already achieve for a little while
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,481 Posts
This is a fun thread but tough to follow.
Following it and what others are doing has become impossible without re-reading the posts because not all members have added a signature to their account.

So without rte-reading today;
Has anyone in this thread determined the true diameter (roll-out) of the tires they run?
The tire roll-out is the drag to the drive system (engine crank to the tire patch), so a s some members are considering shorter tires, know its not the weight of the tires that causes most of the problem, its the true diameter of the replacement tires as a ratio to the true diameter of the stock tires the machine was engineered for/delivered with.

Someone mentioned race cars so think on these parameters....
An N.H.R.A. top fuel car engine turns @ 9000 rotations per minute, producing 9 to 10 thousand h.p., uses a slipping clutch mechanism that needs replacement after each 1000 ft. race and goes from the start line to the finish line in less than 4 seconds using tires that grow in diameter with increasing centrifugal force. Has anyone noticed the small painted triangles on the rear tire sidewalls of these cars?

Then our grizzlys produce 46 h.p. around 5600 r.p.m. which we don't ride at much, have a wet clutch we don't want to replace after every ride and use tires that stay a constant diameter at the speeds we travel.

The small paint patches on the sidewalls of the cars is to count the true number of tire rotations over the 1000 ft. run with growing tire circumference because these team managers understand the ratio of how many engine r.p.m.'s per tire rotation when using a slipping clutch. Doing the math, 9000 engine r.p.m.'s divide by 60 seconds multiplied by 4 equals 600 engine rotations to move their car 1000 ft. They do it slightly faster meaning with fewer engine revolutions but you get the point.

OK...we aren't that sophisticated yet, but some things/aspects of the race car drive-line we can considered like the race car managers so I will use the numbers from my '06' 660 Grizzly for comparison. (It is very important that you learn the numbers for your machine.)

The stock tires rolled 74" (roll-out) per axle/tire rotation so over a measured mile the tires turned 856 revolutions. (5280 x 12 divided by 74) With no slipping clutch the time required is not important, I can run 30 m.p.h. or 60 m.p.h. and the number of tire rotations does not change.

What is important is....with a locking wet clutch, by changing the stock pulley ratio of my 660 from 2.5:1 to 3.54:1, I was allowing the engine to turn more total revolutions over the same measured miles which produces more total power from the engine. At 30 m.p.h. my engine is in the torque producing range, and at 60 m.p.h. it has transitioned to making increasing h.p. with diminishing torque, so I learned to make the required changes for what type of power my 660 engine was producing depending on the speed of travel.

My high ratio is good for in/over/up/through the big rocks. I have all the power I need to climb up or drive over and any time I want I can accelerate knowing the engine will not bog down in high transmission gear. Its not the barn burned of the competitive twins and I don't ride much flat paved ground either. My 660 will go from 0 to 20 m.p.h. in just over 1 second on rough concrete so is plenty fast enough the big rocks. Here are some videos.....the first may seem boring, it is of the griz launching on concrete, going 20 ft. to 20 m.p.h. Not too impressive but listen to how long the tires slide to stop while remembering this is at 7000 ft., the engine does not bog down when the wet clutch engages and the front tires comes slightly off the ground. I determined that 20 m.p.h. was about my top speed on the rocky trails, so then started adding c.v.t. mods for cruising easier trails or roads at higher cruising speeds.

Here is riding the rocks in Moab;

or riding around here;

In many situations a stock griz will work, I've ridden with many members on a stock bike over the same trails, but what I learned is the c.v.t. mods make the going easier at higher speeds which around here with very long days riding available, requiring very high fuel mileage, the less gas I have to take with, the more beverages for me I can take along.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
A couple things you are actually wrong about, the weight is a tire does come into play, especially if the majority of the weight difference is in the lugs, not the actual casing. More weight out on the outer circumference plus more drag on the system.
The other thing is, our tires do change in diameter as we ride, the faster you travel the taller they can get due to centrifical force. This is much more noticeable with a bias ply tire.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
2017 Kodiak 700 ESP SE
Joined
·
293 Posts
I have 26' Zillas on my 700 Kodiak, (25" is stock on the Kodiak vs 26" stock for the Grizz) only Mod so far is 1.5mm shim. It will pull the front up a little, more so in low gear but only if traction is good enough to prevent wheel spin. Most of the time I'm spinning like crazy and leaving a trench behind.
So I decided to see how much I could pull the front wheels off the ground with maximum traction by doing some hole shots on pavement (never done it before). In low gear it came up so fast I had to let off quick so as to not go over backwards and in high the wheels came up about 6”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
So I decided to see how much I could pull the front wheels off the ground with maximum traction by doing some hole shots on pavement (never done it before). In low gear it came up so fast I had to let off quick so as to not go over backwards and in high the wheels came up about 6”
Now that sounds more like it.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
21 - 40 of 41 Posts
Top