99/2000 WR400 vs DRZ400E vs WR 250F vs the CRF 250X
Posted October 24, 2005 - 08:14 AM
The CRF 250X is lighter less power and potentially less reliable?
The WR250F is lighter, less power and equally reliable as the 400?
The DRZ400E isn't quite as powerful as the WR400 and is heavier?
Are the above statements generally true?
Looking at a 1999/2000 WR400 as a trail bike to dual sport. I rode a CRF250X and love the power and light weight but can't afford one, and I'm shying away for valve reliability reasons. Is the 1999/2000 WR400 ok for trails but also able to go around a motorcross for fun? I liked the power of the CRF250X and the ability to wheelie over stuff in 2nd and 3rd gear etc, and I liked the 250X's light weight. I've ridden heavier bikes, like an 82 XL 250..heheheh..no remote comparison necessary...
What should I know about the WR400 before grabbing one?
Is it not too difficult to dual-sport?
How heavy are the 1999/2000 models?
Does it have electric start?
What is the top speed in terms of dual-sport riding?
Can it drive at 100-110 KM/HR (62-68 MPH) without much problem such as oil issues, vibration, too high of rpm's?
P.S. I'm asking similar questions comparing bikes to the CRF250X because that is the most modern bike I have ridden, and I rode it very recently for 4 hours on forest trails and mellow tracks (whoops and berms, a small jump.)
Posted October 24, 2005 - 08:16 AM
top speed is determines by gearing not by "bike power". you could gear a 250 to do 180km/h but you wouldn't be able to ride it off road......... or you can gear a 400+ for trials trails but it sucks in 5th on the road.
Posted October 24, 2005 - 08:42 AM
I apologize about the top speed question. I should have qualified it. I totally understand about changing countershaft and rear sprockets to alter the gearing for various types of riding. What I'm asking is, how the WR400 as is on the road at 110 KM an hour or 70 MPH? Is it survivable at that speed/rpm for an hour on the way to trails, or could you slightly alter the gearing to make road riding better without ruining the tight woods and off road riding?
thanx for the feedback,
Posted October 24, 2005 - 09:12 AM
Between a WR250 and WR400, I would get the 400. It's just a little heavier, but the power difference is very substantial. No the greatest bikes on MX stuff, but if you're just goofing around, it won't matter. For trails, the 400 is a great all-around bike. My '98 WR400 weighs in at 260 lbs fully fueled. My 2000 WR250 weighed in at 245 lbs full.
As far as highway riding, neither one of my bikes would go over 70 mph if you rode them off a cliff. Changing the sprockets will help, but I'm not sure how the engine will take it. I'm sure everyone will chime in to give their opinions, too. That's what makes Thumper Talk so cool.
Posted October 24, 2005 - 09:19 AM
Is it going to be topped out at ultra high rpm going 65 MPH on the road?
Is it going to be poor enough to cause un-due engine wear if riddin for long periods like that?
Could I change the stock gearing to make it manageable on the highway and still ridable on the trails?
Looking at a 99/2000 WR400.
Posted October 24, 2005 - 09:39 AM
2000 wr400 vs Estart wr250. i would get the 250 !!!!!!!
Posted October 24, 2005 - 09:50 AM
Out of 10
Trails - 9
Track - 6
road - 6.
I'm up grading to Racetech front springs and valving to make it a better track bike. Both the bike and I will also try to shave a few pounds off this winter.
I bought the bike with intentions to ride 50% road and 50% trail. My actual is now 90% offroad, 10% road. I just love it on dirt and only use the road when needed. I've even raced it, you should of seen the looks when i road it to the track on the road and then lined up for a race....
I would strongly reccomend the 400. good luck.
Posted October 24, 2005 - 12:15 PM
Decide on what kind of riding you are going to do. If it's over 60% tight stuff
buy the 250.
Posted October 24, 2005 - 12:28 PM
It is a better MX bike than a woods bike....you give up a little to a CRF250x in the real tight stuff.
It is great in the south Jersey sand ...as good as anything out there in sand whoops.
It is geared way too low and is not at all comfortable on the the highway. You can ride it there but you will not like it. It is better though than any 250 will be on the highway. The hard dirt bike seat and vibration will not make it fun. The DRZ is a way better street bike.
It will get around an MX track pretty darn good. 40-50 foot triples are no problem.
I run 2 sets of suspension, one stiff for MX and sand and another short and soft for trail.
You will need an auto-d cam as it is kick only.
I ride my DR650 on all non-competitive trail rides and ride the WR for racing only now.
Posted October 24, 2005 - 02:46 PM
Posted October 24, 2005 - 05:19 PM
When I first got the bike I wasn't sure if it was the right bike for me. In the tight twisty rocky single track, it seemed to have too much power. The first few rides were beating the crap out of me. HOWEVER, once I got the suspension reasonably dialed in, things changed significantly! Will I go out and win my first ISDT? no! But! I am really liking this bike. I couldn't think of going to a 250 or anything less then what I have got. Does it still feel a bit heavy in the tight stuff? Not as bad as it did. I am developing confidence in the bike and as such, my pace has stepped up. I would go with the WR400. I do not think you will regret it.
Posted October 25, 2005 - 02:46 AM
Posted October 25, 2005 - 08:09 AM
more low end power, so its easier to maintain low rpm moving in narrow terrain
I dont actually know what tight terrain means for you guys, but my thingy goes pretty much anywhere