99/2000 WR400 vs DRZ400E vs WR 250F vs the CRF 250X


12 replies to this topic
  • morkys

Posted October 24, 2005 - 08:14 AM

#1

Compared the WR400:

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?

thanx

:banghead:

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.)

  • simon@vic

Posted October 24, 2005 - 08:16 AM

#2

if you are a very aggressive trial rider get the wr250f {03+} or a 250x. if your not 100% insane when it comes to aggressive single track. get the drz400E . it wont let you down.

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. :banghead:

  • morkys

Posted October 24, 2005 - 08:42 AM

#3

Thanx for the advice. I don't think I'm a very aggressive trail rider, I would consider myself somewhere in between. I would probably like a WR 250F, but the WR400F is an option too, and there just happens to be one available locally with gear for what may be a reasonable price (its a 99 or 2000, not sure which), so thats why I'm asking. I'm a novice rider who wants to go "fast" and do some jumps on a small motorcross track, but no racing. I don't want something too heavy such that it will tire me in tight sections.

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,

:banghead:

  • kevin1209

Posted October 24, 2005 - 09:12 AM

#4

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth:
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.

  • morkys

Posted October 24, 2005 - 09:19 AM

#5

Ok, fair enough. I am just really stuborn about riding my bike on the road from my home to the trails, on the road between trails, or just using it as a dual-sport. Sounds like the stock gearing won't lend itself to that.

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.

:banghead:

  • simon@vic

Posted October 24, 2005 - 09:39 AM

#6

2000 wr400 vs kick start wr250. i would go for the 400
2000 wr400 vs Estart wr250. i would get the 250 !!!!!!!

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

Posted October 24, 2005 - 09:50 AM

#7

I have a 00 WR400F. mine is plated for the road. I run 14/50 sprockets and can doo 70mph comfortably, can pull faster but revs high. It can do 100mph with 14/46 gearing but believe me 70mph is as fast as you want to go on a WR, especially with agressive tires.

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.

Dan

  • Bamster

Posted October 24, 2005 - 12:15 PM

#8

I love my 400 but some of the trail riding I do, I would love a 250.
Decide on what kind of riding you are going to do. If it's over 60% tight stuff
buy the 250.

  • R_Little

Posted October 24, 2005 - 12:28 PM

#9

I own a Dual sported 00 Wr400.

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.

  • neilking

Posted October 24, 2005 - 02:46 PM

#10

I have a '99 400. It is a blast to ride! However, it can be hard to deal with when the going gets tight. I haven't dual-sported mine yet but I've been considering it. I don't think I'd want to ride it very far on the street.
Neil King

  • Captain Bob

Posted October 24, 2005 - 05:19 PM

#11

I have a 99 WR 400 that I have only owned a month ot two. It has all the free mods done but is running the stock pipe. I am an old fat dude who is just trying to get back into trail riding. The guy who I got my bike from had just registered it for the road. I will probably re-register it this spring. The street plate enables you to run in the local Turkey runs held out here in Massachusetts.

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.

Bob

  • adrenalinejunky81

Posted October 25, 2005 - 02:46 AM

#12

I have a 00 wr400. It is one of the most dirtbike-like enduros you can get. If your more into motox youd probably want a smaller ride but for anything else its great. Stock gearing tops at about 90 (but would easily go faster with a sprocket). No electric start on this one, or speedo, or directionals...all buisiness..

  • 5valve

Posted October 25, 2005 - 08:09 AM

#13

I'd go for blue 400
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




 
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.