Suzuki HP 450 vs. 250 2s vs. 250f


28 replies to this topic
  • zig06

Posted April 25, 2008 - 10:14 AM

#1

About a month ago I spotted a magazine that did a off road compairison with a Suzuki RMZ450, RM250 and a RMZ250f.

They even charted the HP of all 3 on one graph. Which was pretty cool!

Anyways, now I can't find the article. :thumbsup: It could have even been in a street bike magazine... I don't remember, and now I can't find it! Does anyone out there know what magazine it was?

Mega thanks to anyone that knows what magazine (and month) it was in.

  • willyd465

Posted April 25, 2008 - 10:19 AM

#2

i actually have that magazine, but i think it is at home and i am still up at college. i think it was transworld motocross. as matter of fact i know it is either transworld or racer x. i think it was the February edition

  • alan443

Posted April 25, 2008 - 02:08 PM

#3

im in hawaii,and get my magazines late,and i recently got the april 08 transworld mx,and it has that article in it.

  • willyd465

Posted April 25, 2008 - 03:33 PM

#4

dang, april.....i was wayyyyy off

  • zig06

Posted April 25, 2008 - 06:10 PM

#5

Excellent!

TWMX ~ April 08.

Now, because I forgot to buy it, does anyone want to sell their old copy. Or how about a scanned copy of just that article?

  • Uncle Alpo

Posted April 25, 2008 - 07:19 PM

#6

How about posting the chart, so we can all enjoy it?

  • willyd465

Posted April 25, 2008 - 09:26 PM

#7

next time im home i'll see if i can remember to scan it for all of you, it was a great artical, and there wasn't much of a difference in lap times between the 3 bikes

  • Michael N

Posted April 25, 2008 - 11:04 PM

#8

Why is it that horsepower is never under the specs. And you always have to go through a whole lot of effort to find it out. And even then it's usually BS or you don't know if the bike is stock or not. Or whether or not its measured at the back wheel or crank! GRRR

  • DRZ400Squid

Posted April 26, 2008 - 09:47 AM

#9

Or whether or not its measured at the back wheel or crank! GRRR


On the rare occasion you might come across a factory or high end engine builder's press release where dyno results were acheived on the bench, but otherwise it's pretty much always at the rear wheel. Crank dyno's are more expensive and harder to come by and the time and effort involved with the whole affair is just kinda silly when you can test on a standard dyno in a couple minutes. And results from crank dynos can often be drasticly different, especialy on smaller engines, and are usualy mathematicly corrected to account for the theoretical mechanical advantage of the final drive...... in the attempt to give "real world" numbers.

But, I still have no idea why manufacturer's don't just put these numbers, either way, in thier spec info. It'd be way cooler if they did.

  • Ttoks

Posted April 27, 2008 - 03:35 AM

#10

so, anyone wanna post up this graph, or at least what the peak numbers were?

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

Posted April 27, 2008 - 11:13 PM

#11

yeah i would love to know too. im figuring maybe 450 has 3 more hp than 2 smoker and 250f about 9 hp less than 2 smoke. justa guesstimate :eek:

  • zig06

Posted April 28, 2008 - 05:39 AM

#12

Ok, a friend brought the article into work today. I'll scan it and post the entire article tonight.

But for those of you that have to know right now, here's how it played out:

Max HP:
450f 49.39
250 46.06
250f 34.62

Max Torque:
450f 32.96
250 29.99
250f 18.83

The real deal is that the thumpers have a very wide power range. The latest 250 2 stroke really isn't that bad, but the 450 beats the 250 2 stroke by about 3 or more hp through out the entire range.

The real deal is the lap times. All three test riders were with a second or 2 for all 3 bikes. Which really shows that the rider counts way more than the bike that they are riding.

  • zig06

Posted April 28, 2008 - 02:18 PM

#13

Ok, I just got the entire artical in an email. The file size is huge, so until I can cut it down, all I can post is the dyno charts.

Posted Image

A new RM250 vs. a 450 really doesn't seem to be that far off... :eek:

  • Michael N

Posted April 28, 2008 - 03:26 PM

#14

Man the 250F is behind a lot in every aspect.

  • DRZ400Squid

Posted April 28, 2008 - 05:10 PM

#15

Thanks zig :eek:

  • mxer201

Posted April 29, 2008 - 07:50 AM

#16

That graph is very interesting. And it would be alot easier to raise the lines for the RM250 than it would be for the RMZ450? I would also like the see the lines for the RM125.

  • zig06

Posted April 29, 2008 - 08:28 AM

#17

Man the 250F is behind a lot in every aspect.


I have to admit that it's farther behind than what I thought it would be. At the same time, this is why I orginally agreed with giving the thumpers a cc break to make them competitive with the 2 strokes.

Even so, I have to believe that the factory thumpers (ie the YZ-400) had even more power than a current production 450. And that's why they never should have given them so much of an advantage.

  • acroy1986

Posted April 30, 2008 - 08:48 PM

#18

Awesome, thanks for the chart. Very helpful

  • dirtbikersa

Posted May 01, 2008 - 11:31 PM

#19

Which bikes where used in the shoot out??

  • zig06

Posted May 02, 2008 - 08:15 AM

#20

Which bikes where used in the shoot out??


They were all stock '08 Suzuki's.




 
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.