Did you not click on the link to D. Pippin's web site that I put in my earlier thread? He would mention if modifications were needed. From this forum I've understood the 36 fits both ends, only mod is cutting a piece off of the throttle cam on the carb, the return cable section, to get clearance. it's in Pippin's article.

 

Mark, it's been awhile, but didn't the carb fit the stock tank without trimming the throttle wheel? I can't recall for sure. I know my aftermarket Acerbis 3.7 tank definitely required it, but that tank is a whole other animal.

 

I had a Clarke 2.7 gallon tank on the bike prior to installing the Mikuni TM36-38 carb and it required trimming the throttle wheel and using only a pull throttle cable.
Didn't try it with a stock tank so don't know if there was clearance for the Mikuni without trimming.

 

i clicked the link but only briefly scrolled through it. now after going back through i see there are instructions on what needs to be done to install the carb. but my question about the 2 and how they are different is still unanswered. im going to buy a TM, now its just a matter of which one. it seems like more have done the TM36 over the 33, is this simply because its bigger or is there another reason?

 

I personally think from what I've looked at, the jetting is fairly documented by both Pippin and TNC. The 33 is only documented with the modified bored 34 version from B&B. There is other documentation for base line jetting in other posts, but those two have the results to verify their settings, especially that they are both near identical and the riding experience from TNC.

 

As a point of fact - and fud for thot - for anyone contemplating any TM purchase for their KLX:

There is not one shred of evidence, not one shred of data, not one shred of anything, that indicates/proves that ANY of the "setups" for any of the TM's ( including B&B's ) provides proper performance fueling for the KLX - or even safe fueling for the KLX.

All our TM setups are simple hand me downs from previous members that "seems to run just fine" (via their Dyno Butt).. Bill does not show any dyno data proving correct fueling for his carb and its' setups either.
This fact can be ignored - as it has for decades - but when I found out that terrible fueling ( as shown via my Dyno testing ) seemed to run the KLX "just fine", I realized that uncharted carb setups should never be left on a KLX ..

If you choose a TM and a forum "hand me down" setup, or a "phone call setup" from Bill, you sure as h$ll better put the bike on a dyno to check its' fueling curve at various cruising scenarios as well as WOT.


Posted what I think needs to be made clear - anyone that wants to respond, do so by posting an AFR chart for a TM setup on a KLX.. Spare all of us from any more personal Dyno Butt assessments - which are worthless.

 

Scoobydoo has some big shoes to fill. Personally I think BB's jetting is way to rich, that is what my butt sayes. I do live at 3300 and ride to 12000ft. It ain't blown up yet!

 

Really, quit trying to **** on everyone's Cherrios, because they don't want to stick with a CV and adhere to your opinion, instead of wheels on the ground experience. How the heck do you think it was done before your beloved dyno runs? How do you think they tune at the track for most racers? No dyno in the pits.

 

Good grief, Klxster...it's early in the afternoon to be drinking already...and not on the weekend...LOL! Give it a rest. You make it sound like a whole bunch of people who have installed and used the TM34 or 36 have no clue what they're doing and are just stumbling around in the dark with these two carbs. Dynos are great, but they are not an absolute requirement for someone with decent mechanical experience to jet a carb jetted to an optimum performance level suitable to their needs. And who's touting higher horsepower? Those of us who've done either pumper carb like the response and power characteristics. I live with four CVK carbs on my KLR's over many years. I thought they worked excellently on those bikes with proper jetting to fit the exhaust and intake mods. I was very disappointed in the CVK on the 250. It worked, and that's about all the praise I'll give it. The TM36-68 provided an acceleration boost that I could actually feel by the seat-of-the-pants. "Feel" is a real thing for those who've ridden and tuned motorcycles for 51 years like I have. I know you enjoy the CVK...that's great. It's just not the only game in town.

 

Lets blow some minds.
Wanna know what I think about CVK carbs ?
They are all POS's and have no business on ANY modern bike as well as ANY offroad 4-stroke bike.
My relationship with the CVK is our of necessity - not personal preference.
I joined to learn how to improve the performance of my new KLX - What I found was years of useless crap in here. No tested mod recipes, no known outcomes, no nothing except "hey this seems to work"...
So I had to "go it alone", constant research, struggling to increase my knowledge base.. Since the CVK came on the bike, and tuning info on it was as sketchy in here as it still is for the expensive TM's, I "did my thing" with the CVK being used for fueling duty.. Over a year and 30+ dyno pulls later, I had my recipe and my known outcomes ( as well as a long list of "lessons learned") - which I shared on the forum.. End of story..
So when I see new members thinking about TM's, I think it is important to note that TM setups, to date, have unknown fueling curves and unknown performance outcomes. And to suggest that any TM setup be carefully assessed via a dyno session..


P.S. I'll **** where ever I want to - everyone's Cheerios is as good a place as any.. Also, I do really need to try alcoholism again - I've never been any good at it..