2002 wr250 or 1998 wr400
Posted September 26, 2007 - 08:06 PM
I am 5'10" and 215#. I am worried the 250 will be to small with my weight, but it's newer, never been scatched and still has a waranty. It also comes with full riding gear. the 1998 wr 400 is older and looks a little rougher, however, it would have plenty of power for my weight. both bikes are daul sport ca plated. I ride mainly in the dirt on fire trails near my house and like to play around with some small mx jumps.
which bike would be better for me.
Posted September 26, 2007 - 08:42 PM
Based soley on you're physical size, I'd pick the 400. However, if you've never been on a bike before (and you're risk averse) the 250f is a way to go. The 400s are burly, from what I've read they really don't give up much in terms of grunt to the current 450s
Posted September 26, 2007 - 09:06 PM
I am really concernd about the age of the bike 1998 vs the 2002. the 1998 is $2600 and the 2002 is $2900.
Posted September 27, 2007 - 06:22 AM
Posted September 27, 2007 - 06:47 AM
Still has a warranty?
I am worried the 250 will be to small with my weight, but it's newer, never been scatched and still has a waranty.
Anyway, the 400 were a beast of a bike, hard to keep that front wheel planted!
Very fun indeed! I I could only choose out of those two, I go the 400. Depending on price of course!
Posted September 27, 2007 - 11:34 AM
So, I bought it - first day - yeah, I did wonder for a moment what I'd done, but quickly became accustomed to the snappy throttle response and now (about 3 weeks later) really enjoy not having the front wheel planted much!
Go for the 400 - you won't regret it - although the price does seem a bit high - esp in US $.
For reference, Mine cost me $2300 Canadian (about 2150 US) with helmet, goggles, boots, bike stand and full shop manual, and the bike is in really great mechanical condition - frame definitely could use some paint where the typical rub spots are but that's pretty much expected. (no plate but plates up here stay with the owner anyways).
Posted September 27, 2007 - 01:16 PM
Posted October 01, 2007 - 09:43 PM
I have a 98 YZ400F with the WR transmission. It's CA plated. I paid alot more than you are being asked to pay for the 400. Partly cos of the plate, partly cos of the aftermarket stuff like Excel wheels, DrD pipe etc.
I'm 5'9" and 205, and it hauls @ss. It'll make your old 400 seem pedestrian.
I've ridden later 250s (both MX and trail) to compare. They are easier to ride & you will give up alot of weight to them (steel frame etc), and the WR will need more man-handling across whoops / jumps and when it gets outta shape, but the 400s grunt will make up for it.
You'll love it. Good luck.
Posted October 02, 2007 - 12:35 AM
Posted October 02, 2007 - 05:45 AM
Posted October 02, 2007 - 08:35 AM
A couple of things to look out for. The '98 400 is very reliable but not quite as bullet proof as the newer generations. In '99 they beefed up the connecting rod (bigger small end bearing) after some early failures though it was not a widespread problem. Also around '99/'00 they changed the counterbalance shaft to use a spline rather than a key after experiencing excessive wear of the keyway. Neither of these would be showstoppers for me but something to consider especially if the bike has a lot of hours.
I believe the 98-00 motors are identical. They changed to a larger rod bearing and the splined counterbalancer in '01 with the 426.
Posted October 02, 2007 - 05:53 PM
If you prefer to ride on one wheel...go for the 400. If you want to ride mellow get the 250. Either way your a winner. They both will be fun to ride. KJR