Anyone have a direct comparison between the new WR's and the KLX?
Posted 20 March 2008 - 09:44 AM
Anyone have personal experience on both bikes? Not subjective opinions I can form those myself, I'm hoping to hear from someone who has had a decent amount of seat time on both of them.
Posted 21 March 2008 - 08:52 PM
Posted 23 March 2008 - 07:29 PM
Personally I wanted the fuel injection and if I had already bought the Kawasaki, yes I would trade it in to get the Yamaha.
I like to ride my bikes to work and when I do so I go out and crank them up to warm up before leaving and have always hated dealing with chokes.
For me it usually cost me riding days cause I would have a tendancy to not take the bike rather than having to deal with it if I was pressed for time.
I too think the WR will make more hp than the KLX, does the KLX vibrate at all? Cause the yamaha does not at all even at highway speeds and the transmission is buttery smooth.
Posted 24 March 2008 - 06:41 AM
Thanks for the feedback and I have no doubt the WR is going to be "better" just I'm having a hard time beleiving it would be ENOUGH better to warrant taking a loss on the KLX trading it in, plus spending more on the WR and I just don't think in the end it's going to be worth the difference. Yes the Kawi is carbed and but choking it for about 50 seconds which is what it typically takes mine to warm up isn't worth $2k between depreciation and increased cost of the WR.
Posted 25 March 2008 - 06:33 AM
I was faced with the same problem: Take a $2,000.00 hit on my KLX & spend an EXTRA $1,000.00 on the WR. I chose to stay. If I did not already have the KLX, I would buy the WR. However, knowing what I know, I would not take the 2G's in the posterior for a bike that is only marginally better. Better-yes. Heads-up, $1,000.00 better than a KLX-NO FREAKIN' WAY. It's in the same class as the KLX, with only a few up grades. The F.I. would definitely be super, but that's not $1,000.00 better. Everyone is screaming alum. frame, but it's still heavier than the KLX. Some are saying it will run with a DRZ-400, but that is horse shit. Everyone is just excited because it is new.
If I can work out something on a leftover at a deal a year or so from now, I might consider it, but no way in hell it makes sense to now. Most I've been offered for the KLX is $3,100.00 & I owe $3,900.00 add the $800.00 to the $1,000.00 sticker difference & it's going to cost me $1,800.00 to have the KLX's twin sister in my garage, only difference is that I won't have to bump start it on a cold morning that I wouldn't want to be riding in anyway.-??????????
For the difference, smart people have chosen to keep their money in their pockets until this Yamaha offers this in a 450, or with a free bikini team.
Posted 25 March 2008 - 06:36 AM
Posted 25 March 2008 - 09:56 AM
Posted 28 March 2008 - 01:15 PM
Good point Dean!
Posted 28 March 2008 - 01:19 PM
I'm starting to notice how many comments I've heard on how tall this bike is. Is that in the higher position?
I may be wrong, but doesn't the KLX have more suspension travel and ground clearance? Just curious why the WRR is so much taller ... there must be more height between the foot peg top and seat height?
Posted 02 April 2008 - 09:17 AM
You'd hate to be upside down on this KLX right now...wouldn't you?
Posted 02 April 2008 - 09:46 AM
Hmmm - Mine didn't come with the aux fuel tanks. Guess Kawi's fighting back. The KLX deserves a second look after all. I'm going back for a second look right now.
Posted 02 April 2008 - 02:02 PM
My new topic of agrument is that I'd rather have a KLX or TE with these features than a WR any day of the week & I don't give a crap if it is faster. Any damned arguments now????
Posted 02 April 2008 - 03:07 PM