XR400 VS WR400F



9 replies to this topic
  • toolman_97222

Posted November 20, 2002 - 07:05 AM

#1

I recently went riding in some real tight and slimy woods with a buddy who owns a 98' or 99' XR400. I ride a 99' TC610 which is pretty high-strung. We swapped bikes for a bit and I noticed that his was very nimble in the tight woods and hooks up great. I was able to ride much faster on his than my own. Now I want to sell mine and get an XR400,WR400 or WR426. My question is how does the WR do in these conditions compared to an XR400. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. :) jsathorne@attbi.com


1999 Husqvarna TC610(For Sale), 55 HP rocket

  • sabin

Posted November 20, 2002 - 07:13 AM

#2

There is a big difference between XR4 and WR4. WR is very powerfully compared to the XR. WR is also with much better suspension. The XR is more bulletproofed. It does not have radiators (one less thing to brake) as the XR is air cooled. The XR also requires less maintains than the WR as the WR is race bike. The XR will live longer overall as the engine is less stressed.

Simply put if you want race bike get the yami.

The difference between them is HUGE!

  • Team_Oatmeal_Pie

Posted November 20, 2002 - 07:44 AM

#3

Toolman,
I have a xr350 and xr600 and a WR400. It true the xr is plush and tractor like in the woods. But the wr has better suspension and is still capable of lugging it down low in the woods. I added a few teeth to the rear sprocket and it goes anywhere. I find it to be more fun, since it has great power and can handle riding at higher speeds. It allows you to become a better rider. The design and technology are newer then the xrs. Todays xr400 is not all that different then my 85 xr350 think about that. I have found the wr to be no more maintenance then the xrs. I have 3 full cross country race seasons on the bike and the valves are still in check, I change the oil, keep a clean filter, lube the chain, and it runs great.
I ride the same trails you ride and have been completely happy with my purchase. Not to say the xr is a bad bike, it isnt, but the wr covers both ends of the scale quite well, where the xr only works well on one end.

  • Math

Posted November 20, 2002 - 09:05 AM

#4

My partner owns a XR4 and it does great in thight woods. I own a WR426F and it is as good as the XR in these conditions (my partner feeling) and even better sometimes (my opinion). It is true that the Wr is more powerful, no comparison possible. (We often swap bikes also and we both easily noticed that)

We also noticed that the rads are a little inconvinient not only because it is something more to break but because it tends to elevate the mass center (is this the correct word in english?) Because of that, even if the WR is supposed to be lighter, it feels as heavy as the XR when you are in trouble. But you got to be liquid cooled if you want that xtra power....

My partner is more concerned about the suspension than I am, he is not afraid of high speed in very bumpy trails and my WR makes him more confident than his own XR. My advantage over him might be on the jumps and we both agree that my Wr does lot better.

The real advantage of the xr is its past. Did somebody ever complained about his xr? This is an honnest bike in every domain. You can catch some xtras with the WR...

Hope my little experience helps

Math :)

  • Pete_Z

Posted November 20, 2002 - 09:50 AM

#5

If you find that the WR is a little too squirrelly in the tight bush, it is realatively easy and inexpensive to make a WR more like an XR, but he same cannot be said of the reverse. Both good bikes though. If I were you and going to keep the 610, I would probably buy the less expensive XR for a hassle-free second "bush beater" bike. If you are looking at one or the other as your only ride, go blue.

Peace Eh - P.Z.

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

Posted November 20, 2002 - 04:37 PM

#6

I have owned both. Unless you are begining pure rookie rider, get the WR and you will never look back. The WR is three times the bike 99.9% of the time.
As far as reliability and maintanence I can show you WRs with 6 to 8k miles on them without so much as a valve adjustment. Go Blue!!

  • toolman_97222

Posted November 20, 2002 - 11:03 PM

#7

Thanks to everyone for your opinions, they have provided me with a lot of peace of mind in making the choice of bikes. :)

  • Richard56

Posted November 21, 2002 - 04:22 AM

#8

Think blue bro... I never regreted buying the "blue monster"... and to think mind is just 400... if only we have the 426/450 in my country... :) :D :D
Things are never the same once you ride the "blue beast". :D :D

  • toolman_97222

Posted November 21, 2002 - 07:51 AM

#9

I have on one occasion ridden a YZ400 and thought that it was a fun bike to ride, that is after the complete HELL of starting it. Are they all that difficult to start? :)

  • pdx_drz400

Posted November 21, 2002 - 10:38 AM

#10

Last summer I was looking for a bike so I checked them all out. The Honda is underpowered and old technology. It would last a long time and be reliable, though. There is something to be said about the simplicity of air cooling. The WR and DRZ are more up to date. If you think you will be a serious rider, get one of these. The engine and suspension are awesome! I settled on the DRZ because it had e-start, which is nice (all the riding buddies groan when I hit that button). In retrospect, I wish I would have tried the WR250. I ride mostly tight single track and at 5'9", 170lbs, it can be a handful. But I like having the monster torque and it's set up the way I like it now so I will keep it.




 
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.