2002 wr250 or 1998 wr400


11 replies to this topic
  • FISHIN_ROD

Posted September 26, 2007 - 08:06 PM

#1

I am looking at 2 bikes one is a 2002 wr250 with 2300 miles on it and stock. the second bike is a 1998 wr400 with many upgrades and very low hours. both bikes are in great looking shape the 1998 being alittle older and looks used.

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.

thank you,
rodney

  • JSanfilippo

Posted September 26, 2007 - 08:42 PM

#2

What is you're skill level?

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

  • FISHIN_ROD

Posted September 26, 2007 - 09:06 PM

#3

I would say intermediate type rider. I sold my stock 2004 klx400 (dualsport) a year ago and was not happy with the power of it. so I have not been riding in a little over a year. however, I am 33 y/o work as a engineer/fireman and I am in pretty good shape.

I am really concernd about the age of the bike 1998 vs the 2002. the 1998 is $2600 and the 2002 is $2900.

  • ncampion

Posted September 27, 2007 - 06:22 AM

#4

The early 400's were really bullitproof. You'll like the extra power of the bigger bike. Price sounds good with a CA plate.

  • Mutu

Posted September 27, 2007 - 06:47 AM

#5

I am worried the 250 will be to small with my weight, but it's newer, never been scatched and still has a waranty.

Still has a warranty? :thumbsup:

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! :thumbsup:

  • matt4x4

Posted September 27, 2007 - 11:34 AM

#6

I hadn't ridden in close to 15 years (I'm 39 and NOT out of shape), bought a 2000 WR400F that runs like a dream at the beginning of September - at the time I bought it I was REALLY wanting something more along the 250's, but this bike was priced right and the reviews I'd pulled up on the web basically told me I was a fool if I didn't buy it!
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).

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

Posted September 27, 2007 - 01:16 PM

#7

I would say the price is high on the 400. Plated bikes in Cali are a comodity though and fetch a higher price. You can't go wrong with the 400. My guess is that it's had all the mods done to it so go carefull at first if you get it. It'll grow on ya for sure.

  • wi_zee_ef

Posted October 01, 2007 - 09:43 PM

#8

Go for the 400.

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. :confused:

You'll love it. Good luck.

  • Birdy426

Posted October 02, 2007 - 12:35 AM

#9

I have an '01 426 and my son has an 02 250, both WRs. I'm 5'8, 240 and he's 5'10, 205. Both of us are intermediate riders int he So Cal dez. If I had ridden his 250 before I bought my 426, that's the bike I would have gone for...although I would have torn it down right away and put a 290 kit on it...in semi-stock (free mods and hot cams) form it doesn't have quite enough down low to compliment my somewhat lazy riding style. While the lighter weight of the 250 is nice, the real difference is in the inertia from the rotating mass. Don't get me wrong...I love my 426 (444 big bore now), and there's nothing like being able to ride in third gear ALL the time on single track, but the 250 is so much less fatiguiing and more manouverable because you're not constantly fighting the inertia of the motor.

  • PBDBLUE

Posted October 02, 2007 - 05:45 AM

#10

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.

  • R_Little

Posted October 02, 2007 - 08:35 AM

#11

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.

  • kjr247

Posted October 02, 2007 - 05:53 PM

#12

For me it would depend on what type of riding you did? Who do you ride with? What do they ride? I take my wife's TTR125 and have fun with it with the kids on fire roads. I look silly on it since I am 6 ft and 235 lbs. As PDB said I heard the 1997/1998 models (new models) had a few issues. But Yamaha's have always performed for me. I would go for the 400 but get it cheap. I picked up a low hour '99 model for $1500 stock. Back east this is a typical price for a WR400. I put handguards, rad guards and a skid plate on it. I also replaced the pumper diaphram and re-build the fork seals ($300 ttl). If you get the 400 it might need some work too.

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




 
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.