KTM 200 XCW Series


27 replies to this topic
  • gliderboy

Posted January 14, 2013 - 06:04 AM

#1

The online data on the KTM 200 XCW is suspect. There are many claims in the sales literature that the bike weighs 209 lbs dry, regardless of whether the bike has an electric start and battery or not. If you look at the KTM Owners manual this is the claimed weight of the 125 and the 2013 200 actually weighs 221 lbs. So for you KTM 200 aficianados, is the 2011 KTM without the electric start but with the old style frame really just as heavy as the 2013 model? or is this marketing hype? If the Owner Manual data is valid then the 200 is only 4.9 lbs lighter than the 300. That would pretty much be explained by the bigger rear tire of the 300. So what is the point of the 200?

Second question. What is the low end torque of the KTM 200 for the different model years when considering tight technical trails? KTM is selling the 2011 200 XCW for a discount. Is this a good alternative to the 2013 model?

  • Mike in Fresno

Posted January 14, 2013 - 07:42 AM

#2

KTM is notorious for widely differing weight specs.

  • gmoss357

Posted January 14, 2013 - 07:43 AM

#3

the older chassis does indeed weigh right at 209 lbs. the E start model is heavier. The new chassis is worth the money spent if the price difference isn't too substantial. I don't care for E start, so the 12 would be a good choice as well.

The 200 motor hasn't changed much thru the years, so they are going to be very similar power wise from 08 on.

  • ssrmatt

Posted January 14, 2013 - 01:39 PM

#4

I have a 13 200xcw and there is no way it weighs that much. It feels like I'm riding a 125. The bottom end is plentiful. The purpose for the 200 is tight single track and it really shines in the technical stuff.

  • gmoss357

Posted January 14, 2013 - 03:48 PM

#5

I have a 13 200xcw and there is no way it weighs that much. It feels like I'm riding a 125. The bottom end is plentiful. The purpose for the 200 is tight single track and it really shines in the technical stuff.


I know it doesn't ride that weight, but I can see it weighing that much, or close by the time you add the lighting, battery, and E start. May be a little high, but I would say easily mid to upper 210's.

  • racerxx276

Posted January 14, 2013 - 04:10 PM

#6

I haven't weighed my 13 200XCW but its feels a lot lighter than my 12 300xc, especially picking it up off the stand!

  • rolliew

Posted January 14, 2013 - 05:38 PM

#7

The online data on the KTM 200 XCW is suspect. There are many claims in the sales literature that the bike weighs 209 lbs dry, regardless of whether the bike has an electric start and battery or not. If you look at the KTM Owners manual this is the claimed weight of the 125 and the 2013 200 actually weighs 221 lbs. So for you KTM 200 aficianados, is the 2011 KTM without the electric start but with the old style frame really just as heavy as the 2013 model? or is this marketing hype? If the Owner Manual data is valid then the 200 is only 4.9 lbs lighter than the 300. That would pretty much be explained by the bigger rear tire of the 300. So what is the point of the 200?

Second question. What is the low end torque of the KTM 200 for the different model years when considering tight technical trails? KTM is selling the 2011 200 XCW for a discount. Is this a good alternative to the 2013 model?

Get the 12 if it's cheaper, plenty of low end for light trails.

  • gliderboy

Posted January 14, 2013 - 07:25 PM

#8

Get the 12 if it's cheaper, plenty of low end for light trails.


http://www.ktmworld....sale-bikes.aspx

The 2012 is not being advertised but I would expect a discount is available and that sounds like a good option. One could also remove the e-start from the 2013 or simply use one of the LiFe 1lb batteries. At least the position of the e-start is at the CG of the bike so it would be the least noticable for riding.

  • timmyp8823

Posted January 14, 2013 - 11:02 PM

#9

KTM is notorious for widely differing weight specs.

Hell,they aren't even all that great with their torque specs!

  • Lmiinch

Posted January 15, 2013 - 09:41 AM

#10

As far as the weight of the 200, I am sure the 2013 is a little heavier than older models without the electric start, but the 2013 300XCW I have seems lighter than my 2008 250 xcw. I had a 2009 200 xcw and my 2013 300 feels just as easy to throw around and the size of that chassis fits me much much better. I am way more comfortable on the bigger bike than on the 200 chassis. As far as the electric start, I never thought I wanted or needed it either but now that I have it and have used it when sitting on the side of a hill I am very happy I have it. I would not remove it if I bought a bike that had it. Is it totally necessary, no but it sure keeps you from getting fatigued when trying to start your bike in an awkward position.

I personally feel that the 200 never fit me nearly as well as my 2 current bikes and I am very happy with my changes. The 200 is a great bike but with the racing I do I gave up way too much in power, quickness and top speed. Plus my riding style is so much more suited to the torquier 300 motor. I have never been a revver and you definitley do not have to rev a 300 to make it go!

  • gliderboy

Posted January 15, 2013 - 09:43 AM

#11

I am going to call a certain amount of bullshit on the claim of nimbileness for the 200 xcw over the 300 xcw. I think 90% of this is accounted for by the big 140/80 rear tire on the 300. The rest consisting of about 5 lbs of weight and an extra 1/2 inch of wheelbase difference seems to be a much less substantial difference. Most of the rest is due to the break loose effect of the more peaky power band.

Edited by gliderboy, January 15, 2013 - 09:46 AM.


  • Lmiinch

Posted January 15, 2013 - 09:46 AM

#12

I am going to call a certain amount of bullshit on the claim of nimbileness for the 200 xcw over the 300 xcw. I think 90% of this is accounted for by the big 140/80 rear tire on the 300. The rest consisting of about 5 lbs of weight and an extra 1/2 inch of wheelbase difference seems to be a much less substantial difference.

I totally agree, the 300 will do anything the 200 will do, but you just better not get lazy or daydream on the 300 or it will hurt you! It is kind of like a horse with a bad attitude, as long as you stay in control it is awesome but if you take your mind off what you are doing watch out! lol

  • gliderboy

Posted January 15, 2013 - 09:54 AM

#13

I totally agree, the 300 will do anything the 200 will do, but you just better not get lazy or daydream on the 300 or it will hurt you! It is kind of like a horse with a bad attitude, as long as you stay in control it is awesome but if you take your mind off what you are doing watch out! lol


A bucking bronco! One has to decide one's preference, LOL!

  • gmoss357

Posted January 15, 2013 - 11:36 AM

#14

I am going to call a certain amount of bullshit on the claim of nimbileness for the 200 xcw over the 300 xcw. I think 90% of this is accounted for by the big 140/80 rear tire on the 300. The rest consisting of about 5 lbs of weight and an extra 1/2 inch of wheelbase difference seems to be a much less substantial difference. Most of the rest is due to the break loose effect of the more peaky power band.


Have you owned or ridden both? If not, you can claim all you want but it is meaningless. The tire has little to do with it. It has everything to do with mass location and rotating of that mass. It is a well known fact that a 200 rides much lighter than the bigger bore bikes. Not worth discussing if you have not experienced it for yourself.

  • Lmiinch

Posted January 15, 2013 - 12:36 PM

#15

I have had both and I have raced the 200 for 4 years with quite a bit of success. I have recently switched to the bigger chassis 250/300 and that chassis fits me much better at 6'1". I had the 200 and my new 300 at the same time and each bike was set up much the same, same bars and they were in the rear whole on top clamp rotated to same mark on bars and there was nearly 5 inches difference in the two bikes. Now I have an 08 250/300 and it measures almost identical with my 13 300. My 08 250 feels much more comfortable than my 09 200 ever did,

Also my 2013 300 feels just as nimble and light as my last 200 which was a 2009.

Also the 250/300 is much quicker from 0 to 20 on the trail and from lugging uphills to passing speed or race speed than the 200 was. I came off 4 strokes and I am not and never will be a revver, yes I know the 200 does not have to be revved but if you wanna compete against "A" level racers on a 200 you will have to scream it where on the 300 you can let the motor lug and still go fast in the gnarly stuff.

As far as a trail riding bike the 200 is awesome and it is a great race bike as well but for me the bigger bikes seem to have the advantage. To each his own. I admire guys who can make any bike go fast, it ain't easy to do especially at my age.

  • gliderboy

Posted January 15, 2013 - 06:05 PM

#16

Gmoss,
"The tire has little to do with it. It has everything to do with mass location and rotating of that mass"

No, I have not ridden these two bikes but have decided on the 300 xcw. But it is one thing to feel a difference, and another to explain the difference that accounts for it. I have heard this engine rotating mass theory from magazine review types too but do not believe it makes much sense. The big rear wheel is a large rotating mass that should directly make the 300 feel less nimble. However, with the engine rotating mass one would also have to consider that the 200 has to spin its mass significantly faster than the 300 does, which works to negate the higher mass effect of the 300. Additionally, the engine mass is centrally located which should minimize its effect on handling. Before I believe these claims I would like to see the math. But given the 200 is probably spinning 50% faster to produce the same power I am at least very skeptical about this explanation.

Edited by gliderboy, January 15, 2013 - 06:14 PM.


  • gmoss357

Posted January 15, 2013 - 06:33 PM

#17

Gmoss,
"The tire has little to do with it. It has everything to do with mass location and rotating of that mass"

No, I have not ridden these two bikes but have decided on the 300 xcw. But it is one thing to feel a difference, and another to explain the difference that accounts for it. I have heard this engine rotating mass theory from magazine review types too but do not believe it makes much sense. The big rear wheel is a large rotating mass that should directly make the 300 feel less nimble. However, with the engine rotating mass one would also have to consider that the 200 has to spin its mass significantly faster than the 300 does, which works to negate the higher mass effect of the 300. Additionally, the engine mass is centrally located which should minimize its effect on handling. Before I believe these claims I would like to see the math. But given the 200 is probably spinning 50% faster to produce the same power I am at least very skeptical about this explanation.


there again, believe what you want. ride them both and then you can postulate. the math won't matter at that point.

there is plenty of seat of the pants proof on this forum as well as ktmtalk. ask the question over there and you will see, but, as you say, you won't believe words, so no point in me wasting any more time...

  • ssrmatt

Posted January 15, 2013 - 07:08 PM

#18

I too can verify what gmoss is saying. My buddy has a 2011 300xc and it feels way bigger and nowhere near as nimble as my 200. Not even a comparison IMO. It's definitely not because of the rear tire either.

  • gliderboy

Posted January 16, 2013 - 12:58 AM

#19

Thanks for all the input. I will try to keep an open mind about this 200 vs 300 debate. I have fond memories of my friends old Maico 400 powerband so I am leaning heavily towards the 300 given the slight price and weight difference. But I am not a big man so I appreciate a nimble bike as well.

To say it is definitely not the tire would be simple to test how the 200 handles with the 140/80 rear tire. If there is no difference I will buy that conclusion. But I did notice one fellow on the recent KTM tire thread saying that larger tires on his 200 messed up its handling.

  • Lmiinch

Posted January 16, 2013 - 06:08 AM

#20

Thanks for all the input. I will try to keep an open mind about this 200 vs 300 debate. I have fond memories of my friends old Maico 400 powerband so I am leaning heavily towards the 300 given the slight price and weight difference. But I am not a big man so I appreciate a nimble bike as well.

To say it is definitely not the tire would be simple to test how the 200 handles with the 140/80 rear tire. If there is no difference I will buy that conclusion. But I did notice one fellow on the recent KTM tire thread saying that larger tires on his 200 messed up its handling.

You're physiscal size will make a difference on these bikes. Like I said I have raced the 200 for several years and I liked it alot but I never felt totally comfortable on the bike. I am 6'1" and when ready to race I push 200 lbs geared up and for me the bigger chassis just feels more comfortable. I would never say anything negative about the 200 it is awesome, but my 2013 300 feels very nimble under me, maybe alot of that is just positive thinking since I have put all my apples into the 300 cart so to speak... but I really feel the 300 fits me better. And yes my 200 was set up with any and everything I wanted on it and the suspension was really good. The bike just made me feel crampt and I even looked hunched back when standing. Just my observations, but the 200, and all the bikes on that chassis are very good bikes and I would never say anything about anyone's choice of a bike. I have been beaten handily by guys on 150's...But I have also beaten 300's on my 200, I just know that i have also lost races because I was not comfortable and because my bike had a powerband that did not really suit my riding style. So either way you will have an awesome bike.




 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

RegisterSign InClose
If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.