hey folks,i just got an official reply from BOYESEN themself about that:
Anytime you add a reed spacer you will gain bottom end but you will lose top end,The choice is yours to which you want to gain or lose.
so as all 2 stroke engines when you add a mod,you cannot have the whole powerband gains on bottom,mid and top end.
enjoy it!

 

Scramblered, get ahold of someone else and see what they tell you. I personally wouldnt run one if HPD didnt stress it so much for the big bores. I would like to see what everyone else thinks,Bubba

 

For drag racing; I won't use a spacer. It does help with primary compression on the big bores. If getting from point A-B in the quickest time is your main concern; dump the spacer.

 

Thanks for the reply,Eric. I have wondered if I really needed the spacer at all. about the only thing I use mine for now is sand riding and drag racing. I believe I will dump it! Thanks again. Bubba

 

that right,when racing (when you need more top end speed) no spacer will be better as well,but for no-racing like slow trail riding,climbing,muds stuff,the spacer will get you an edge more on bottom end torque,by my side i'm in the process to dump all the spacers out on the quad and sled,top end is needed.

 

The only time the spacer is really needed is when the reed cage obstructs port flow, using the spacer moves the cage away from the ports. That is why you'll see them more on the big bore motors.

 

Hmmm, I would think the longevity of the reeds would also be increased, spacing them further away from the heat generating events of the motor. Heat and vibration are the worst enemies of a composite component. Also (I'm guilty of 4 stroke logic here) back in my drag racing days, the longer the intake (i.e. tunnel rams) the straighter and greater the intake velocity....hence the name tunnel "ram". It would be fun to have a timed sand strip to test the differences. I always like to compare the factual time slips. Anyone out there done this?


Ken

 

Ken, I usually try to avoid controversy, but I agree with you. The longer the intake runner, the more top end it should produce. I would really like to have an understandable explanation for this if it is not true. Reed life was another concern as well. Call mike tommorrow and see what he says. Heck, you probably have his home number dont you? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] Bubba

 

Actually; I was first alerted to a reed petal premature failure by Brent Albert of Fat Albert's Motorsports who Mxed a HPD chassied 400. He pointed out the fact that when the reeds were spaced back they actually opened far enough for the ends of the petals to hit the intake track. This caused premature wear of the petals on the tips and corners. The V-Force ll reed cage adressed this problem indirectly by allowing the user to adjust the reed expansion via the three screws and a slotted plate on top and bottom outside reeds.

 

When you increase the length of an intake runner you increase low end torque and throttle response but loose higher RPM HP. Take a look at the earlier Ford engines for example. The EFI 5.0 in the trucks had very long intake runners to produce more low end for the heavy truck, but the runners in the mustang were much shorter giving it the higher HP wanted in the lighter car. It all depends on where you need the power.