DT200/Blaster/KTM250 power comparison

best

Active Member
Dec 17, 2010
1,656
266
130
Nova Scotia
www.glinx.com
So, weather was fine the other day, -5c and sunny, so my son and I went riding.
He has got the DT200 powered Blaster running fine, so I took his DT200 bike along to compare.
As well, I just had my KTM 250 powered Blaster out alongside his quad the other day and we have a lot of time on the stock Blaster motor.
The DT bike is interesting in that it has a tachometer on it so we can see what it is doing at what RPM.
I'll start with the DT200 and use it as a yardstick to compare the others.

DT200
This bike idles from 800-1200 rpm, 3000-4000 on choke. Doesn't sound that high but that is what the tach reads. All these 2 stroke engines are similar.
There is not much power under 4000 rpm even with the working powervalve. Less than the Blaster 200. It needs the low 1st gear to get rolling.
At about 4000rpm power builds quickly and it will wheelie in the first 3 gears at this rpm. 4000-6000 feels equal to Blaster 200.
At 6000-8000 rpm there is a sudden and strong burst of power. Better suited to pavement in higher gears as it just spins on dirt.
The engine will rev to 9000 rpm but power drops off after 8000. This is with a totally stock bike, no mods.
This bike will easily putter through trails at low rpm (and power) or run all day on the highway at 8000 rpm keeping up with traffic.
Feels best accelerating in the 5000-7000 range, pulls strong and ever increasing.

Blaster 200
Since most of you have one of these I hope my descriptions will sound familiar. I'll guess at the rpm.
Some mods, FMF pipe (more rpm), high flow air filter but otherwise close to stock.
Like the DT200 it sounds like it idles well at about 800 rpm. More torque on the bottom end than the DT200. Pulls away better off idle.
What seems like 2000-5000rpm is the fat part of the powerband, it grunts well here.
Getting up hills takes an 8000 rpm start at the bottom, it spins a bit but generally settles back into the 3-5000 rpm range and holds there.
If the rpm drop much below what feels like 3000rpm you will have to jump for another gear, fan the clutch, or bog out.
The Blaster likes running up and down the rpm range, but feels uncomfortable sitting at max rpm.
More at home trail riding than hill climbing or blasting down roads at max revs.

DT200 cylinder on a Blaster bottom end, no powervalve, FMF pipe:
Neil (Triplecrown) has done some fine work jetting this beast lately. He has filled in some of the mid-range and it really honks on top end.
Even so it has less power than the DT200 and Blaster under about 6000 rpm, then it comes on in a big burst.
The FMF pipe seems to give this engine more power and rpm than the stock DT200. It pulls hard from about 6000 rpm to quits (9000?).
In 3rd or 4th gear on hillclimbs it spins the tires relentlessly, not bogging down unless you let off the throttle. It screams.
But it will bog down if you let the rpm slip below about 6000 rpm. A fan of the clutch or quick downshift will usually bring it back to life.
There is enough power for trail riding in the 2000-6000 range but just barely. It likes more rpm than that in the higher gears on sand.
It has the wonderous sudden scream of an angry motorcross bike as it comes on pipe at 6000rpm. Like an angry bee.
The sudden burst of power from 6000-9000 usually breaks the rear tires loose and launches you ahead or into a light front tire wheelie.
It is a lot of fun, but demands that you be in the right gear at all times or the fun stops.

KTM 250SX in a Blaster chassis, lengthened Gnarly (torque) pipe
First gear is tall. Unlike the Blaster & DT, it is hard to start away without stalling. The clutch has to be feathered.
As soon as the clutch is fully out and you're rolling, your troubles are over. Tapping the throttle even at idle results in wheelspin or wheelie.
The tall gears do mean you are rolling along a quite a fast pace, even at idle. If you want to go slower, you have to feather the clutch.
This is a pain and often results in stalling in rough sections, so I "giv'er" 1/2 throttle through the rough stuff, fanning clutch to avoid
stalls and complete flip over wheelies. The strong acceleration tends to make you want to hunch forward resulting in a lot of wheel spin.
In fact, sometimes this bike seems disappointing because it doesn't have the wheelie tendency of say the 660 Raptor.
This is because you are hunching forward against the acceleration and the quick throttle response readily breaks the wheels free.
Lean back and it will pop up into a wheelie pretty much any time. The stock swingarm makes it pop up quick too. 3" longer arm coming.
The lengthened Gnarly pipe really works on this bike. Low rpm still has great gobs of torque and instant response.
Crack the throttle and start clicking gears as fast as you can, she will hit 65mph in 5th as quick as you can click.
Power is linear and no sign of sudden powerband, again the lengthened Gnarly in action. Hillclimbing is a dream.
No need to hit max revs or full throttle, she will go up any hill in any gear at half revs if the tires have anything to grab. Almost boring to watch.
Full throttle just brings wheelspin so you just work the throttle carefully up the hill.
For long straight stretches this bike is more comfortable at 3/4 revs and about 1/4 throttle.
Crazy power, I don't feel a need for more yet, just wishing for a wider spread gearbox.

Some (pretty lame I admit) vids of the KTM250 and stock (air cooled) Blaster from a while back:
Steve's KTM250 Blaster
Neil's 200 Blaster

Listen to the RPM differences between the bikes.

The DT200 Blaster has nearly the top end power of the KTM250, but only in a narrow band. Power valve alone will not fix this.
The DT200 bike proves this. We are going to work on this over the winter.
 
good write up bro, and should come in handy for anyone lookin to do a swap !!!
have some reps for sharing all this !
 
Hi
Nice write up
Thinking of doing a Yz250 swap myself

in regard to the KTM250 blaster , Would'nt a lower gearing help to avoid the stalls and having to fan the clutch?
Why don't you change it?
nuno
 
Hi
Nice write up
Thinking of doing a Yz250 swap myself

in regard to the KTM250 blaster , Would'nt a lower gearing help to avoid the stalls and having to fan the clutch?
Why don't you change it?
nuno

Yes, lower gearing would help!
I have dropped the sprocket ratio from a top speed of 125 kph (crazy fast) to a top speed of about 105 kph (just too fast).
I rather like this top speed and don't want to lose any more speed.

The motor works pretty good and I do not want to tear it apart to change transmission ratios, but that is an option.
I may keep an eye on Ebay for some EXC gears.

I do have a 300 and 350 EXC motors available to me. I do not need the extra displacement but the gearing would be nice.
The 250 is so tight in the frame that the 300 and 380 will not swap. Plus there would be exhaust and air intake fitment problems.
Rather than tear apart this good working bike, I have a spare frame and I think I'll adapt it to take the larger motors.
This way I can keep riding while working on the new project bike. More work than just tearing into the motor and swapping gears,
but hey, the fun never stops!

Pic of the 250SX in place, 380EXC in the foreground, during construction.

180616_10150134019910803_549110802_8377843_1018767_n.jpg


The swap was a lot of work, to be honest.
Welding in mounts and cutting the swingarm to fit were probably the easiest part of it.
Making a pipe fit and a good air intake were a bit of work.
Transmission gear ratios are my largest beef with an MX engine. Ratios are too close.
 
OK, Weather is bad, 4" of snow takes the fun out of runnin'.
Triplecrown is doing work on his DT/Blaster and has the cylinder off. My camera is not working but my verniers are.
I have some cylinder head comparison measurements some of you might like to hear:

DT200 head gasket thickness: 0.033" (3 steel shims)
Blaster head gasket thickness: DON'T HAVE ONE

DT200 head chamber OD = 2.650"
Blaster head chamber OD = 2.640"

DT200 head chamber quench ID (radiused) = 1.8"-1.9" Measuring to a radius
Blaster head chamber quench ID (radiused) = 1.3"-1.4" Measuring to a radius

DT200 head chamber quench height at quench ID= 0.210"
Blaster head chamber quench height at quench ID= 0.250"

DT200 head chamber height (to spark plug)= 0.610" hemisherical
Blaster head chamber height (to spark plug)= 0.840" conical

I have port measurements too, if anyone is interested in these values,
They are close to identical except for exhaust port. A modified Blaster liner could be used in a DT cylinder.
I'll have to take a closer look how a Big Bore liner might affect the powervalve.

Anyone is interested in the port height and width values?
 
OK, Weather is bad, 4" of snow takes the fun out of runnin'.
Triplecrown is doing work on his DT/Blaster and has the cylinder off. My camera is not working but my verniers are.
I have some cylinder head comparison measurements some of you might like to hear:

DT200 head gasket thickness: 0.033" (3 steel shims)
Blaster head gasket thickness: DON'T HAVE ONE

DT200 head chamber OD = 2.650"
Blaster head chamber OD = 2.640"

DT200 head chamber quench ID (radiused) = 1.8"-1.9" Measuring to a radius
Blaster head chamber quench ID (radiused) = 1.3"-1.4" Measuring to a radius

DT200 head chamber quench height at quench ID= 0.210"
Blaster head chamber quench height at quench ID= 0.250"

DT200 head chamber height (to spark plug)= 0.610" hemisherical
Blaster head chamber height (to spark plug)= 0.840" conical

I have port measurements too, if anyone is interested in these values,
They are close to identical except for exhaust port. A modified Blaster liner could be used in a DT cylinder.
I'll have to take a closer look how a Big Bore liner might affect the powervalve.

Anyone is interested in the port height and width values?

i would be if it ant too much troble
 
Well I just needed a bit of prompting...

The Blaster (and DT200) has 8 ports: 5 intake transfers, 2 intake and 1 exhaust.
The ports are cut into the steel liner which is pressed into a cast aluminum cylinder body.
Measurements were taken with verniers and transfer calipers and are often measured to angles and round corners.
differences under 0.010" are inconsequential for our purposes here.
All measurements for the Blaster and DT200 ports were the same except for the exhaust and intake height.
Here are the measurements:

5 Transfer ports, rectangular:
Blaster + DT200, from cylinder deck to bottom of transfer port = 2.330" to 2.340"
Blaster + DT200, from cylinder deck to top of transfer port = 1.865"
Blaster + DT200, width, center transfer port = 0.900" (hard to measure accurately)
Blaster + DT200, width, 1st side transfer ports = 0.900" (hard to measure accurately)
Blaster + DT200, width, 2nd side transfer ports = 1.000"-1.100" (hard to measure accurately)

2 Intake ports, ovaled rectangular:
Blaster + DT200, from cylinder deck to bottom of intake port = 3.755"
DT200, from cylinder deck to top of intake port = 2.760"
Blaster, from cylinder deck to top of intake port = 2.850"
Blaster + DT200, intake port width = 0.850"

Single Exhaust port, oval:
Blaster + DT200, from cylinder deck to bottom of intake port = 2.310"
DT200, from cylinder deck to top of exhaust port = 1.255"
DT200, from cylinder deck to top of exhaust port,valve closed =1.600" (highly variable)
Blaster, from cylinder deck to top of exhaust port = 1.380"
Blaster + DT200, exhaust port width = 1.700"

On quick inspection, it looks like all the intake porting is much the same.
This should be very exciting news to Blaster owners wanting DT200 horsepower. Very little to do!
Copy the 3 ports, get your head modified to DT200 specs and 30hp can be yours, no need for a radiator!

My son has an air cooled head in the machine shop being turned to DT200 specs right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blasterkiidirl
Well I just needed a bit of prompting...

The Blaster (and DT200) has 8 ports: 5 intake transfers, 2 intake and 1 exhaust.
The ports are cut into the steel liner which is pressed into a cast aluminum cylinder body.
Measurements were taken with verniers and transfer calipers and are often measured to angles and round corners.
differences under 0.010" are inconsequential for our purposes here.
All measurements for the Blaster and DT200 ports were the same except for the exhaust and intake height.
Here are the measurements:

5 Transfer ports, rectangular:
Blaster + DT200, from cylinder deck to bottom of transfer port = 2.330" to 2.340"
Blaster + DT200, from cylinder deck to top of transfer port = 1.865"
Blaster + DT200, width, center transfer port = 0.900" (hard to measure accurately)
Blaster + DT200, width, 1st side transfer ports = 0.900" (hard to measure accurately)
Blaster + DT200, width, 2nd side transfer ports = 1.000"-1.100" (hard to measure accurately)

2 Intake ports, ovaled rectangular:
Blaster + DT200, from cylinder deck to bottom of intake port = 3.755"
DT200, from cylinder deck to top of intake port = 2.760"
Blaster, from cylinder deck to top of intake port = 2.850"
Blaster + DT200, intake port width = 0.850"

Single Exhaust port, oval:
Blaster + DT200, from cylinder deck to bottom of intake port = 2.310"
DT200, from cylinder deck to top of exhaust port = 1.255"
DT200, from cylinder deck to top of exhaust port,valve closed =1.600" (highly variable)
Blaster, from cylinder deck to top of exhaust port = 1.380"
Blaster + DT200, exhaust port width = 1.700"

On quick inspection, it looks like all the intake porting is much the same.
This should be very exciting news to Blaster owners wanting DT200 horsepower. Very little to do!
Copy the 3 ports, get your head modified to DT200 specs and 30hp can be yours, no need for a radiator!

My son has an air cooled head in the machine shop being turned to DT200 specs right now.

holly sh*t did ur homework rep 4 u !!! 1 other question why do did u take out the power valve from the dt200 when putting it into the blaster ???
 
holly sh*t did ur homework rep 4 u !!! 1 other question why do did u take out the power valve from the dt200 when putting it into the blaster ???

We didn't take it out, we just didn't have the electronics on the spare bike to swap over on the Blaster.
It is still in place, just set to wide open for these tests.
We can adjust it on the trail now, so that will be interesting. Still makes a lot of power.
Looking into modding a Blaster cylinder and head to DT specs in the next week or so. Stay tuned...
 
So, sent the Blaster head out to the machine shop to try to duplicate the DT200 head.
As mentioned previously, the Blaster has a small conical chamber, the DT200 a large hemispherical one.
Also the DT200 has a narrower but flatter quench band. The DT200 cc's out at 22cc, Blaster at 23cc.

The machined head did not come out exactly as expected.
Chamber was a bit large, quench band too small and not flat enough, chamber too large at 28cc.
I ran the numbers and I think it will still work. The goal is aircooled Blaster at 32 hp and good torque.

Stock quench was 0.110". Wow, that sucks! Should be 0.040"-0.060".
We had tried it at 0.090" and had detonation problems with the stock Blaster head and premium fuel.
This 28cc head might just work out for us. Plus, every mm (0.039") we lower the head rids us 3.6cc,
so I left off the base gasket and filed the head a bit. The modified head has 0.070" quench height now,
still heavy, but we'll see how it works tomorrow.

No mods to anything else. We want to see how the head and quench work.
The cylinder ports look terrible. Liner mismatch, port/piston mismatch, square edges everywhere.
Lots of room for improvement on the Blaster cylinder. Maybe this should be an engine thread?
However the goal is to use the DT200 as a guide to getting 32 hp...

Didn't take any pictures, anyone want pictures of anything? Just name it.
 
Snow storm and resultant snowmobile and car work held up the test ride, but got it out today.
Hard to do a real good evaluation because of bad track conditions but the ass-dyno likes it.

The head and quench mod (and 0.020" lowered ports) boosted low end torque strongly and increased top end power moderately.
Compression is the same as stock, even with the big chamber, and jetting which had been on, seemed lean with these mods.
Didn't have the time or conditions to play with jetting or run it real hard and hillclimb but it looks promising, torquey.
The low end to mid range torque is close to that of my KTM 250 now, off idle is much stronger actually, idle is smooth and steady.
The Blaster will pull away easily in 3rd gear at an idle and hauls 6th gear better than it ever did, with no spark knock.
It does not have the top end punch and powerband burst that the DT200 cylinder has, but much more mid-range.

This motor has strong "grunt" whereas the DT200 is an "on pipe" screamer. Feels like much more displacement now.
This is a stock unported cylinder. I am thinking the top end can be improved more yet, cleaning up and raising the ports.
Incidentally, the Blaster/DTcylinders weigh about the same.

From what we are seeing, the DT200 cylinder may not be the wonder cure all think it to be.
The DT200 is peaky even with the powervalve working (powervalve does work on our DT200 motorcycle).
Then too, the DT200 is crying for the quench mod too, so help is available for its weak low and mid-range.
More work to do but I suspect the air cooled Blaster engine will do anything the DT200 can without the complication.
The advantages of liquid cooling may be more theoretical than real.

We'll run this combination for a while, find its jetting, make sure it is safe for detonation, then try more tricks.
Quench can be brought down to 0.040" and angle flattened, ports cleaned up, ports raised.
I'd like to test the effect of the Boost Bottle, we have it plugged off right now.
More to come.
 
[/QUOTE]This motor has strong "grunt" whereas the DT200 is an "on pipe" screamer. Feels like much more displacement now.[/QUOTE]

sweet mid-range sound and power, we should try and get some pictures/videos of it.
 
Interesting
A lot of info around hear on porting but not a lot on head mods
You said the DT200 head was hemisferical and the blaster conical
did you change teh shape of the blaster to hemi also ? or are you just modding
the current shape ?

Nuno
 
Interesting
A lot of info around hear on porting but not a lot on head mods
You said the DT200 head was hemisferical and the blaster conical
did you change teh shape of the blaster to hemi also ? or are you just modding
the current shape ?
Nuno

Yes, changed the Blaster head to a hemispherical bowl, but a bit of the conical chamber did remain, because of its depth.
So, chamber (hemi bowl) was opened up from diameter 1.400" (Blaster) to diameter 1.800" (DT200).
That left a diameter 0.800" conical bowl down to 0.820" deep in the modified Blaster head. Wish I'd taken pictures, easy to show than explain.
Chamber volume was increased from 23cc to 28cc but that was made up by putting the head 0.040" closer to the piston.
The quench ring was kept at about the same angle as the Blaster head.

In spite of some theoretical shortcomings (too much quench angle and plug depth) this head was an overwhelming success.
I would theorize due to increased chamber turbulence and better scavenging.
Works good and I recommend this mod for power throughout the entire range.

Cost? About $60 give or take at most machine shops.
 
Ok
So i'm trying to understand all the good info here and so made a small picture
of what you are saying:
Is this right ?
headmod.jpg


The head chamber OD is what is what i don't get
is that the full diameter including the quench ring?
If the piston is the same size should it not be the same?
Nuno
 
Sorry for the crude drawing, done in Paint. Edited to correct some dimensions.

Not to scale, all the dimensions inch.
Modified head was hand filed down later to get the 0.070" quench value,
so I believe deck height is now actually 0.020", this will affect all "mod" values including chamber volume (down about 3cc).

423064_10150704345095803_1097655040_n.jpg


Next step is to file the gasket surface down 0.010" at a time and see where we get detonation on our 91 octane fuel.
The goal is a quench of 0.040", about minimum for an aircooled engine doing 9000rpm.
Then the goal is to raise the cylinder until the bottom of the ports matches the top of the piston at BDC while keeping our quench gap.
Then the goal is to cut the port heights for the duration that gives the broadest, smoothest power.

If you are planning on duplicating this mod, I would recommend keeping the flatter DT200 quench angle and
doing away with the 0.040" step, just machining the head gasket surface flush with the quench.

Now if the weather would only get with the testing program. -5c at the moment going to -12c tonight...

While I am editing, I thought I'd throw in Ken's picture of a sectioned modified head from his
http://www.blasterforum.com/engine-13/naked-blaster-head-45709/ post
Note Kennedy chose to deepen the chamber more than Neil and I did and got rid of the conical part.
This head would have a huge volume (over 30cc) and quench distance I would surmise.

IMAG02501.jpg
 
Last edited:
great info thus far!!!!

what CDI are you using on these motors? one big difference between the 2 is that the DT runs nearly 30 degrees of ignition lead, where the blaster is only about 16. I don't think that you'd be able to get this much timing into it without having some overheating issues on the aircooled motor.


glad to see someone thinking outside the box a bit!
 
Still using the Blaster CDI so far, but Triplecrown has worked it +4 on occasion. Everyone know it is his Blaster?
I don't know what he has it at right now.
My advice was to advance it as far as he feels power gain. No gain? Put it back to stock.
He did have detonation with the regular Blaster head but none so far on the modded head.
Maybe Triplecrown can give us some insight on where he has the timing right now?
He has his own place and I swear I only ever see him in the garage and on the trails!

Remember, if you are getting a good fast burn with lots of chamber turbulence you will not need a lot of ignition advance.
Big advance is for slow burning engines.
Even the DT is built to very conservative specs, and with the colder head, you may be right, it might need more lead.

As you up the cylinder pressure with compression and filling, the engine will get much more touchy about advance.
It actually gets easier to "feel" where it should be, as power drops off and detonation appears quick with more pressure.

There are two factors with the ignition. Initial advance and curve. Curve is built in so we will play with the initial.
If more initial advance gives more mid and top power, but detonation on low rpm, we need more curve.
You can get a feel for it as you do your tuning. So far, we are not there yet.

Most of the 2 stroke sleds and outboards and bikes I tinkered with had fixed timing. No advance curve, just initial advance.
With a 2 stroke, pressure increases exponentially as the rpm go up and you hit powerband.
This speeds up the burn rate with pressure and rpm. Not the same as a 4 stroke.
 
great info thus far!!!!

what CDI are you using on these motors? one big difference between the 2 is that the DT runs nearly 30 degrees of ignition lead, where the blaster is only about 16. I don't think that you'd be able to get this much timing into it without having some overheating issues on the aircooled motor.


glad to see someone thinking outside the box a bit!

ya with both the dt top end and aircooled modded head topend we've just been running the blaster cdi. i might have a dt cdi sittin around to try, i dident think there was a diff. atm with the blaster cdi im running it +2 on the timing. no sign of det, had problems trying +4 with stock blaster head but havent tryed going that far with this setup yet and like Best said with more compression the timing adj seem more noticable.