Suzuki 2 Strokes

Hi Everyone,

Here's my 74 Gt 250.

I've been lurking here for a few months while I have been working on my 74 Gt 250, and I have learned quite a bit. I have rebuilt the brake caliper, installed new points and put pod air filters on (there was no air filter at all when I got it) and mounted new tires.

Everything is great up to 6,000rpm. The bike pulls strong straight to 6,000 then she sputters. I went from the stock 112.5 mains to 132.5 the results are basically the same. If I roll off the throttle she'll pull a bit farther, but still sputters out.

I am a bit confused. Should I go up even more, or am I missing something.

Any help would be appreciated.

Without stock air boxes or longer tubes on your pods these bikes don't run well, this may or may not be your issue but correcting this might fix it.

132 is too rich, shouldn't need to move the sizes that much even with chambers. I would get the airbox issue fixed, go back to stock jetting and see if that corrects your issue.

I went to school with a Wayne Cook, are you from Joisey???

@Ram. I went back to the 112.5s and it was much better. I guess I was going in the wrong direction. The 112.5 is too small, but I think a 115or117 might be the ticket. I should add that the last time the 112.5s were in, the old points were as well and the timing was way off. A great lesson in "one thing at a time."

@Joisey. No, I live in the "D.". Dee-troit

waynecook wrote:I live in the "D."

Hey me too (Farmington Hills). So what do you think of our new helmet law?

Josh

What helmet law Josh? Are hats compulsory now or was it even worse than that?

Michigan abolished the helmet law just a couple days ago. So the upside is helmets are rider's choice now but the downside is we may see insurance rates go up as a result. With the exception of a ride or two through my neighborhood just for the experience I'll still wear the full-face.

That's truly bizarre. never saw that coming. You are probably right about insurance rates going up unless the costs are buried (bad pun - unintentional) in healthcare insurance costs rather than bike insurance.

I just read a few articles and Op Ed pieces and general consensus seems to be that a small number of people pushed for the change and it suited the party in power for political reasons even though a significant majority apparently said they were fine with the law the way it was. And it was a bipartisan vote apparently.

I first heard about our helmet law at work the other day. The person talking about it said it was done to promote tourism due to no helmet law in Indiana or Illinois. I.E. who wants to buy a helmet just to go to Michigan?

Ill still wear mine.

I respect people's right to decide for themselves whether they wear a helmet or not. As Josh mentioned though, this is going to lead to an increase in both insurance and health care premiums. People will crash, and without helmets, they are going to be more seriously injured. These injuries will cost money, and the insurance companies will not absorb those costs, they will pass them along.

On a side note. I have seen eight cyclists riding without helmets since the law passed. Seven guys on Harleys and one kid in shorts and flip-flops on a CBR. Take from that what you like.

Wayne

This is becoming a threadjack, but with the No Helmet BS, what people forget is that RIGHTS come with RESPONSIBILITIES. Just because you Can ride without a helmet doesn't mean that you SHOULD. It has become a way of life to talk about and demand RIGHTS but they have to be balanced.

Wayne, where did you end up on those main jets?

I don't mind the off topic discussion. It's an important one.


I have 115, 117, and 120s ordered. I'll start there. With it being better at 112.5 than at 135, I have to believe that Ram was right and I was going the wrong way.