XR 400 vs WR 400


18 replies to this topic
  • inte

Posted December 21, 2004 - 01:18 PM

#1

Looking at possibly purchasing either a 2000 XR 400 or a 2000 WR 400. Other than the XR being air-cooled & the WR water cooled, what are (if any) the significant differences in these two bikes (weight, power, reliability, etc...)?

  • jhteneyck

Posted December 21, 2004 - 05:49 PM

#2

Get the WR. I have both and the WR is MUCH more bike than the XR ever will be.
Weight - about even
Power - WR blows doors on the XR all day long
Relability - Both are VERY proven designs. XR is bullet proof but the WR is bullet proof as a liquid cooled bike can get.

Get the blue bike. I have yet to ride my XR since buying my WR :cry:

  • Bamster

Posted December 21, 2004 - 07:29 PM

#3

The WR hands down.
More power.
Better suspention.

  • JRAMBO

Posted December 21, 2004 - 07:46 PM

#4

I agree with every body else on the thread if you know how to ride then it is no question the WR.Just all around way faster way better even with the weight.Better power to weight ratio.

  • WRookie

Posted December 21, 2004 - 07:58 PM

#5

If you have to ask which one is better then you should probably get the xr. Now for a more serious question. I'm trying to decide between a fully restored 69 beetle or a new C5 Corvette. Hmmm. Oh my. Gee whiz. Gosh. What am I to do?

This may be the most snide post I have ever made. Oh well.

  • inte

Posted December 21, 2004 - 09:05 PM

#6

If you have to ask which one is better then you should probably get the xr. Now for a more serious question. I'm trying to decide between a fully restored 69 beetle or a new C5 Corvette. Hmmm. Oh my. Gee whiz. Gosh. What am I to do?

This may be the most snide post I have ever made. Oh well.


Oh that ... restoring the '51 split-window beetle in my garage is another story...

  • lewichris

Posted December 22, 2004 - 04:47 PM

#7

XR is heavier,
uni cam aircooled engine.
Bulletproof,
red ( :cry: )
honda( :cry: )
might as well only be a 3 gear bike, cause there is not enough power in 4 and 5th to really do anything.

The xr250 is a great bike. For the beginning crowd.

Now the wr.
heavy,
blue( :cry: )
yamaha( :cry: )
Tons of free mods
dual cam, 5 valve,
better suspention,
way more power
higher reving motor
faster,
more nimble in the woods.

THose are just my opinions.

I have ridden both and i choose the wr.

Good luck

  • inte

Posted December 22, 2004 - 06:34 PM

#8

All good stuff to know!

One important thing I forgot to ask - what (if any) are significant differences in model years 98-2004 for the WR 400 F?

One thing that appealed to me about the XR 400 is it basically hasn't changed since '96 - bad in that it's an old design - good in that there's no surprises for things grenading in the motor... regardless of what year I get I know what I'm getting...

I'm looking at a 99 WR & was curious if there's anything unique about this model to be aware of.

  • marcusmoberg

Posted December 22, 2004 - 08:10 PM

#9

The WR has a lot more power than the XR! The XR weighs 257 lbs. dry. The WR weighs 240lbs. dry. The seat on the WR is 2 inches higher! The WR's carbureter is 3 mm bigger than the XR's! The WR has more suspension travel than the XR! The WR's forks are 3 mm bigger! The WR has 2 more inches of ground clearance the XR! The WR is from the YZ lineup which means big power! The XR is more of a great trail bike! My WR is as fast as a Honda XR650! :cry: The WR cost $600.00 more than the XR brand new but, it's worth it! :cry: :cry: :cry: :lol: :cry: :D

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

Posted December 23, 2004 - 05:25 AM

#10

more nimble in the woods.


I agree with everything about the WR except this

have you road a XR400 and a WR in the woods? The XR400 are twitchy as hell, but they do turn nice in tight stuff

PS, I own both, have plates on the XR too

  • lewichris

Posted December 23, 2004 - 09:14 AM

#11

I agree with everything about the WR except this

have you road a XR400 and a WR in the woods? The XR400 are twitchy as hell, but they do turn nice in tight stuff

PS, I own both, have plates on the XR too



Well since i won a wr i would say i have ridden it in the woods. I have ridden the xr in the woods also. I stick to liking the wr better for all of it.

Just my .02

  • lewichris

Posted December 23, 2004 - 09:16 AM

#12

All good stuff to know!

One important thing I forgot to ask - what (if any) are significant differences in model years 98-2004 for the WR 400 F?

One thing that appealed to me about the XR 400 is it basically hasn't changed since '96 - bad in that it's an old design - good in that there's no surprises for things grenading in the motor... regardless of what year I get I know what I'm getting...

I'm looking at a 99 WR & was curious if there's anything unique about this model to be aware of.


well 98-2000 are the 400 of course.
2001-2002? were 426
and late 2003 -present are the 450's.

Those are the major differences.

the 450 come with electric start, and auto decompression. YOu can yz time them but i think you will need the yz cam to do this to the 450.

Chris

  • jhteneyck

Posted December 23, 2004 - 05:27 PM

#13

Look at the suspension as well. Not everything is speed. the XR has JUNK suspension when compared tot he WR. I too have them both and have not ridden the XR since the WR showed up in my Garage. XR is a good rig...dont get me wrong. If I was buying a new bike today the XR would not even be a consideration. The WR is that good. Just my .02

  • tufftonka

Posted June 21, 2008 - 10:39 PM

#14

Can anyone tell me if a WR 400F 2001 has more power then the previous 98,99 & 2000 models. Has the shape of the bike changed by any chance?

  • Alternative

Posted June 22, 2008 - 05:19 AM

#15

It doesn't have any more power although there were 3 changes I know of in 2001:

1. Titanium valves (the earlier ones were stainless)
2. 2nd gen. FCR carburetor (the earlier ones had the 1st gen. which are known for breaking slide plates)
3. Bigger radiators (not painted, the earlier ones were black)

There may have been some other minor changes (like suspension tweaks) but nothing else too drastic.

  • Ak Yammy

Posted June 22, 2008 - 01:56 PM

#16

One thing kind of only touched on here, how experienced of rider are you? I know I may get flamed but if you are really green the XR may be the one.
Less intimidating power and a little easier in the tight stuff for a new rider. Downside is when you get better if you ride a WR' you'll want one. :thumbsup:
Buddy has a 2000 XR and it is a very forgiving bike. My gripes are not being able to get the front end light over obstacles and yeah the suspension is crap.
Just my .02

  • Alternative

Posted June 22, 2008 - 03:11 PM

#17

Original discussion is nearly 4 years old :thumbsup:.

  • Ak Yammy

Posted June 22, 2008 - 09:36 PM

#18

Whoa right you are

  • Ak Yammy

Posted June 22, 2008 - 09:40 PM

#19

Whoops hit the post by mistake, meant to add that I feel a bit silly after realizing that got dredged up from 04.:thumbsup: Dudes probably rippin it up on a 450 these days:ride:




 
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.