The International CBX Owners Association

Had a 'cheeseburger in paradise' at margaritaville and a cheeseburger at the IHOP. Guess which one was best? Ask Dan. Time for the food critic-THE DAN!

the ihop burger i had for breakfast was better than jimmy's

and I am now the owner of the afore mentioned D&G power pipe. It has the baffle with the reverse cone.

cbxtacy wrote:and I am now the owner of the afore mentioned D&G power pipe. It has the baffle with the reverse cone.

see if the makes your bike faster.........and stay away from cheeseburgers

I put a DG six into one on my 79. Same story, monster flat spots and no top end. It sounded great but I went back to the 6-2 Kerkers. They make good power, but they are loud. Have to be careful about where I get after it.

Dave i have a set of 6 in 2 kerkers also, I see in you picture you hung the mufflers from the top shock mount instead of the foot peg mount like normal. Did you make them brackets or did they come with the pipes

I made them. The mufflers(yea, right) are not the ones came with the pipes. It had megaphone style mufflers. These flow better and are a lot lighter too. I made a couple short intermediate pipes to turn these to the angle I wanted. Of course the mounts weren't even close so I made the hangers from the shock mounts. I think they look nicer anyway.

Thanks dave , I have the kerker cones but they don't line up with the foot pegs either so looks like i have to do the same thing

Don't copy a Triumph owners installation I viewed, he mounted the mufflers from the swinging arm..... ....

Can't believe you guys are 20+ years behind. I made the DG mistake right after they came out many years ago - dont remember which year but it was in the early 80s. The DG reduced performance on my 79 throughout the rpm band and especially on top end. I guess one could rejet to try and get some power back but this is defeating the purpose when you have an exhaust system that does not have the proper "bends" for exhaust gas efficiency. Bends are very important to expel the gases efficiently and DG does not have this design. Look at the nice smooth bends in the stock system and you will realize or should realize why the Honda system is better than all others. I tried many years ago when I was young and stupid and wanted to try them all to get more power. None of the exhaust systems worked better than the stock system. Admittidly, stock systems are hard to find but if you look for a replacement system, look for smoot bends, 6 into 2 and it will be better than a DG. DGs get loud and some folks mistake noise for speed. I have done most of them and can tell you that for sure, the stock system is the best. On my 5th CBX.... Have not tried one but the Laser 6 into 2 systems look good and have some very nice smooth bends in their design. ???? Anyone tried this Laser system yet??

Once again, has anyone tried the Laser 6 into 2 exhaust? if so, I would welcome some comments on it.

I have the DG on my '79 with 1147cc, indiv K & N's, Dynajet 3 et al, and it runs very well, no flat spots. I'd say it hauls ass, but then how would I characterize my 'Busa? I just got it back on the road after 7 years, so I'm just getting back into it. Can't compare it to other CBX's yet.

I was going to post a poll asking recomm on the DG & the other new one I have, Mac 6:2.

It seems there is some misinformation here. From a performance standpoint, ideally, you want the mod to require (up) jetting, which shows it is an improvement in breathing. The loss of power at certain rpm's indicates this (usually). Once you upjet, you are making more power, and should run better than stock, overall.

A 6:1 should scavange better than the stock 3:1. I would guess any mentioned aftermarket exhaust will be a performance improvement over the stock system, once the appropriate carb adjustments have been made, let alone the stock (cast iron-?) weight factor.

The bends on the DG are to obtain the optimum equal length tubes, not found on the stock system. I can't comment on their flow characteristics, as it isn't something apparent through observation.

Mind you, I'm not defending DG, but rather am considering a 6:2 for asthetic reasons. I want your experience with respect to performance. And I'm willing to optimize the jeting for the system, hell I can R&R the carbs & rejet in under 2 hours, maybe under 1.
DG sounds great! Surprisingly quite until I open it up. I was surprised & apprehensive at first.

Wish there was an affordable 6:2:1!

droptail, as a backyard mechanically challenged, CBX owner i am VERY impressed with a 2 hour carb overhaul.
I have a DG on an '80 and one of the reasons i chose it was that i did NOT have to rejet. No performance gain or loss as far as i can tell but it looks cool and i like the sound.

droptail wrote:
A 6:1 should scavange better than the stock 3:1. !

What theory is this supposed to be based on Without looking at a specific design, in general, a multiple header ending in one single muffler is more restrictive than individual pipes and anything in between. There is no other engine combustion concept which is more sensitive to exhaust design than a two-stroke, and I have been playing with these things for over 30 years.

droptail wrote:I would guess any mentioned aftermarket exhaust will be a performance improvement over the stock system, once the appropriate carb adjustments have been made, let alone the stock (cast iron-?) weight factor.

The bends on the DG are to obtain the optimum equal length tubes, not found on the stock system. I can't comment on their flow characteristics, as it isn't something apparent through observation.

I think you would be surprised at how few aftermarket exhausts do *anything* for performance, and how few of the trite little concepts that have become so dear to us, without our even knowing if they were true or not, are actually real. For example, scavenge. Or for that matter, any exhaust tuning principles in aftermarket exhausts. See the link below for details. :)

http://www.motorcycleproject.com/motorc ... tting.html