Opinions and comparisions WR vs. CRFX, KLX 450's


44 replies to this topic
  • SVR6

Posted February 12, 2013 - 04:17 PM

#21

I've been racing an 05 CRF250R AMA enduro and thinking of buying a newer WR250f or R. Would this be an improvement for competitive woods riding? Been thinking yz250 also because of lower center of mass and cheaper maintenance. The yz being a two stroke is more thirsty. If so, what years are bad. Been told to go for an 05+ yz250 because of the lighter alum frame.

Another Yam will look nice next to my black 09R6 road racer....

Thanks

Stephen

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted February 12, 2013 - 05:01 PM

#22

The aluminum frame is heavier, not lighter. It's just faster to make, so it's cheaper.


The 2005 YZ's had terrible forks. 2006 or later.

WR250R is a street/trail bike. Cannot be raced.

WR250F is a very, very slow and heavy trail bike.

Actually, a WR has lower center of gravity than a YZ, but it's much heavier.

2006 YZ250F or 450f makes a great offroad bike, but since it's close ratio, you have to mess with the gearing if you go from low speed to high speed riding a lot.

The WR's after 2007, with a bit of work, can be very competitive for woods. They are just heavy, so they do tire you out a bit faster.

Edited by Krannie, February 12, 2013 - 05:02 PM.


  • MANIAC998

Posted February 13, 2013 - 04:29 AM

#23

Lots of great information in this thread!!

  • SVR6

Posted February 13, 2013 - 10:05 AM

#24

Thanks Krannie. Sounds like i should stick to my Honda crf250r. Only thing I don't like is the close ratio tranny. Guess I may go orange, or husky, gas/gas, Husaberg...

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted February 13, 2013 - 01:47 PM

#25

Thanks Krannie. Sounds like i should stick to my Honda crf250r. Only thing I don't like is the close ratio tranny. Guess I may go orange, or husky, gas/gas, Husaberg...


If you like your CRFR, you should try a 2006-8 CRF450R, because it will accept a wide-ratio trans gear set sold by a few different companies.

That's my plan....!

  • Bandit9

Posted February 13, 2013 - 04:06 PM

#26

What companies sell that?

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted February 13, 2013 - 04:33 PM

#27

What companies sell that?


http://www.crfsonly....pic.php?t=31557

http://www.crfsonly....roducts_id/3699

  • Bandit9

Posted February 13, 2013 - 06:45 PM

#28

Pretty neat. Is that just the 450x gears? Seems strange they wouldn't lower 1st, usually that is one of the big gripes with MX bikes off road.

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted February 13, 2013 - 07:13 PM

#29

Pretty neat. Is that just the 450x gears? Seems strange they wouldn't lower 1st, usually that is one of the big gripes with MX bikes off road.


If you raise all the others, it's irrelevant. You just gear down.

  • jetrep

Posted February 13, 2013 - 07:34 PM

#30

Pretty neat. Is that just the 450x gears? Seems strange they wouldn't lower 1st, usually that is one of the big gripes with MX bikes off road.


They mention on the forum that they left first gear alone because it is part of one or two of the shafts...replacing them would be cost prohibitive.

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • MANIAC998

Posted February 14, 2013 - 04:38 AM

#31

If you like your CRFR, you should try a 2006-8 CRF450R, because it will accept a wide-ratio trans gear set sold by a few different companies.

That's my plan....!


Any idea on if this is what JCR Honda runs in there Baja bikes?

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted February 14, 2013 - 06:09 AM

#32

Any idea on if this is what JCR Honda runs in there Baja bikes?


The JCR bikes are X's, not R's.
It's a stock X motor with lot of treatments; specifically, everything above the Crank is aftermarket or R oem parts.

  • n16ht5

Posted February 14, 2013 - 07:47 AM

#33

I haven't rode a KLX450, but I wouldn't put it in the same class at all.

CRFX felt tighter, slightly more hp although abrupt (similarly modded out), but the suspension was rough and unforgiving. And the owner complaigned of having to adjust the valves all the time and how annoying the oil changes were.

WR450 is almost perfect for me on the trails IMO. stupid reliable, rediculously smooth power delivery, smooth suspension. just wish it had a 6th gear and held more oil. It felt like the CRFX felt more like a desert high speed bike and the WR more suited in the tight trails, even though the WR feels heavier.

I wouldn't ever bother getting a 250 again.

  • Slackkinhard

Posted February 14, 2013 - 07:58 AM

#34

The KLX is just plain not built as well as a Yam or Honda. It's metallurgy is suspect, to say the least.


I have NO idea where you get that idea. My KLX has 16K hard miles on it before rebuild, and only failed me when the starter clutch came loose. Clutch pack replaced once, valves replaced at about 10K with SS.

the only issue I have with the KLX is that it's heavy to pick up. Easy to ride, fly's like a pig. If ya want to lighten it up and add power, almost everything KX bolts on. Last summer I had the opportunity to ride with Larry Roessler...guess what bike he spent his own money on? The KLX is tried and true, and great offroad bike if you can deal with some weight.

  • YHGEORGE

Posted February 14, 2013 - 10:21 AM

#35

Ditto on the KLX. I am a Honda guy but a friend had one and it rode very light. No idea what it weighed but on the trail it felt much lighter than a 450X. Much. If Kaw still sold them it would be my pick. But if you are looking at new, ck out the latest Dirt Bike mag article on the Yammie. The modded WR sure sounds nice.

Edited by YHGEORGE, February 14, 2013 - 10:23 AM.


  • Navaho6

Posted February 14, 2013 - 12:42 PM

#36

For the woods guys, what do think about the aluminum frames? Would you still want a steel frame?


I bought an '09 WR450F last Summer to compare to my '06 steel-framed WR. I rode them back to back several times over two months. Sold the '09 because the bike was not as stable as the steel-framed '06. The '09 had a bad tendency to oversteer when pushed hard. I checked the steering bearings and adjusted the sag and fork height to many different positions without any luck. I even swapped the forks and shocks as I had a better setup on the '06. Both bikes had steering dampers. There was no question in my mind that I was more confident and faster on the steel-framed WR. The '09 was not terrible. It just wasn't as surefooted as the '06 at faster speed.

I have only ridden a 450X one time but I felt that it was very much like the WR. I felt instantly comfortable on the 450X. The guy that I swapped with said that the WR felt just like the Honda.

I've ridden the new '12 WR450F twice but not long enough (or hard enough) to really judge it completely. Loved the suspension. Hated the tall seat height, clutch pull, and choked-up motor. The new WR has a lot of potential as a race bike but you will have to spend some $ to get there.

I also own a 2007 KTM 450 EXC. The KTM has better suspension than the WR but but is squirrely in the corners. In deep sand it is almost unmanageable, even with a steering damper. The rake is steep so the front is unstable because it will over steer very easily. If you ride KTM's you probably get used to it but I'd rather not. I've busted it too many times on this bike so I don't have any confidence in the front end. I have no gripes about it as a dual sport bike which is what I bought it for.

  • Bandit9

Posted February 14, 2013 - 02:09 PM

#37

I completely disagree with Navaho on the WR stuff. We ride together and talked quite a bit about his issue. I believe his forks were too soft. My 09 displays none of the stuff he comlained about. I went from steel 06 to Aluminum 09. My 09 is much more athletic, better side to side, feels lighter while riding, stabil as hell.

As far as Kawasaki's build quality, this is the first I've heard of it. I rode MXphlippers at Breezy when he first got it a few years ago. I remember thinking it had light steering, tall gearing, and good seat. Had potential. Never saw it again though.

I'm skeptical of Honda valve trains and see no point in risking buying one when a Yamaha is an option.

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted February 14, 2013 - 02:23 PM

#38

....my buddy has a friend who talked to a guy who rode one, and he told me...

  • Krannie McKranface

Posted February 14, 2013 - 02:44 PM

#39

I have NO idea where you get that idea. My KLX has 16K hard miles on it before rebuild, and only failed me when the starter clutch came loose. Clutch pack replaced once, valves replaced at about 10K with SS.

the only issue I have with the KLX is that it's heavy to pick up. Easy to ride, fly's like a pig. If ya want to lighten it up and add power, almost everything KX bolts on. Last summer I had the opportunity to ride with Larry Roessler...guess what bike he spent his own money on? The KLX is tried and true, and great offroad bike if you can deal with some weight.


Well, if you have 16k 'hard' miles and you haven't changed the piston and rings, and the clutch plates, and the plug, and the timing chain, and the timing tensioner, yet, those aren't hard miles.....or you are designing a two-wheeled bomb....

When you pull the motor apart, and go to put it back together again, you will see. I'm talking about the castings.
You can't meet the torque specs on half of the bolts, because there are not enough threads/shallow thread holes, and they all strip at 1/2 the torque spec. The clutch basket bolts snap like peanut brittle. The clutch cover bolts (top right three) will strip out with only 7.5 ftlbs, and they spec at 13.5. etc. etc.

Oh, and I've ridding with LR two....and he road a Husky TE 310, a KX450, a KX450F, and couple of other bikes I can't remember.

He takes the KLX when he knows he's going to ride with SLOW people....

  • Slackkinhard

Posted February 14, 2013 - 02:55 PM

#40

Well, if you have 16k 'hard' miles and you haven't changed the piston and rings, and the clutch plates, and the plug, and the timing chain, and the timing tensioner, yet, those aren't hard miles.....or you are designing a two-wheeled bomb....

When you pull the motor apart, and go to put it back together again, you will see. I'm talking about the castings.
You can't meet the torque specs on half of the bolts, because there are not enough threads/shallow thread holes, and they all strip at 1/2 the torque spec. The clutch basket bolts snap like peanut brittle. The clutch cover bolts (top right three) will strip out with only 7.5 ftlbs, and they spec at 13.5. etc. etc.

Oh, and I've ridding with LR two....and he road a Husky TE 310, a KX450, a KX450F, and couple of other bikes I can't remember.

He takes the KLX when he knows he's going to ride with SLOW people....


Ok, I'll let him know ya said that.

Sorry, but I'm gonna let this stand on its own merit. I'm an engineer I have rebuilt it, and you seem to be talking out your arse. Just letting everyone know! Bye :p

Edited by Slackkinhard, February 14, 2013 - 02:55 PM.





 
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.

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.