So let's hear 'em. I think I'll end up buying a 200 (new or used) this year. I've heard a few random comments regarding the XC-W tranny, and I want to hear more input. I am aware that the 2011 and 2012 bikes only offer the 200 in a XC-W package, but I found a brand new (never owned) '09 200 XC for sale.

So, what are the opinions of both trannys and the differences in the years? I have typically been a 90% single tracker, but I really hope to start riding some tracks more often this year.

Any opinions / experience is welcome!

XCs have the CC forks, better for bigger hits/jumps. XC-W OC forks are plusher. Happy w/my revalved XC in technocal ST & occasional DT. Have never topped it out in sixth yet.

I have a 2008 200XC bought brand new a year ago. I ride trails, hare scrambles and practice at the moto track. I have never ridden a 200 XC-W so can't comment on the tranny. The 200 XC tranny is closely spaced and tops out around 60 MPH maybe even slower. The XC tranny is perfect for single track or moto. That brand new 2009 200 XC is probably one of the last new ones on the planet and you should definitely buy it. If I knew where it was, it wouldn't be available any longer. Don't get a W if you ride moto.

I have never owned a 200. But I have had a 525mxc and now a 300xc. I have always preferred the close ratio gearing compared to the xc-w. I dont really like the spacing on the non xc bikes.

I have detailed the differences many times. They are minimal, but important.

Tranny: The W tranny is a very nice tranny. Breaks down like this, W has a lower first, they share almost identical 2nd, SAME 3rd and 4th(where you spend most of your time), W has a taller 5th/6th. What this means is that the W has a granny 1st for bailouts, and a taller upper end for transfer sections during enduros. You can cruise along with the W tranny and relax. There is no "relax" gear with the XC/SX tranny. I am on a converted 144 SX now, which shares just about the same tranny as the XC200, if sprockets are the same. Then, if you try to change the gearing to accommodate the tall 1st/2nd or short 5th/6th, you hurt one or the other. It's a compromise either way with the XC. grrr.

I like the this tranny most of the time, but definitely miss the taller gearing on the transfer sections, and miss the lower 1st/2nd in the W. The last enduro I did had us running some pavement to get to the next restart and I simply couldn't push the speed like I wanted as the bike was buzzing at about 40. In the woods, the XC tranny gives the bike a more aggressive feel as it is always in the revs, as I said, there is no relax gear. haha I spend a lot more time in 5th now than I ever did and have been in 6th a lot as well. 6th in this bike feels like 5th in my other, maybe slightly shorter...

Suspension: I have had both and can tell you that the TC forks are a little more supportive on jumps and big hits, but if setup right, both work the same with the OC forks still being a little more forgiving on the trail trash. Suspension can be made into whatever you want. You can buy other forks if you desire, so I would put more thought into the tranny than anything else.

Also, the W comes with the Odometer, the XC doesn't. But, then again, you can add a TrailTech or the like.

Personally, I would rather have the W as the tranny is just plain more versatile. I can live with the short tranny, but it's not my first choice. I can see why KTM dropped the XC.

Thanks gmoss. That may be the best explanation I could ask for! Your description of the W actually sounds a bit more appealing to me than I initially thought of it.

I've ridden the 300xc & 300xc-w, not the 200. 200 seems a bit small for a grown-up male over 150lbs.
I ride vertical single track in the Rocky Mountains, slick-rock in Moab and various deserts (Hare Scrambles).
I found the 'W' tranny to have gaps, especially when climbing steep trails, I'd be winding up and go to shift then find myself in a too low RPM situation.
I want the gear to be there when I need it so I went with the semi-close ratio of the XC tranny.

First is low enough on the XC, even for vertical single track. 5th and 6th are tall enough for me, actually I don't think I have even used 6th yet. Already going fast enough in 5th, even in the open desert.

Suspension...like gmoss said, you can adjust it for whatever you want. I find it easier to take a more race-like suspension (like that of the XC) and make it more trail-able, than the reverse (making a trail suspension like the XC-W more race-able).

DrThumper, on 10 February 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

Ouch! That hurts a little. Wish we could ride together. Bet I could change your mind.

DrThumper, on 10 February 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

haha, it's ok, my manlihood is not at risk. If you ego can't handle it, just say so. jk. as I am sure you are. haha

The 200 W and XC trannies are completely different animals compared to the 250/300 trannies.

BTW, it is a fact that our hills here in the Appalachians are just as steep, or steeper than the hills out west, just not as tall. wink wink not sure the relevance, though. haha

as far as susp, my tuner took care of the setup, all I have to do is ride it. So it hasn't been an issue either way.

i have the same bike..pop a 45/46 sprocket on the xc if you get it up to 6th gear often. thats what i did, works great

ftr rida28, on 10 February 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

That works as long as you are a lighter rider, or ride relatively flat ground. For me, it was simply too tall for 2nd gear climbing. I liked how it spread the power out, but for the hills, it sucked with my butt on it. I also don't like HAVING to use 1st gear as I end up with misshifts to neutral.

gmoss, on 10 February 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

your probly right. im light and florida is pretty flat lol. i didnt think it lost any power though. but my bike never sees first, or very rarely second other than the first 5 seconds of a race

2009 200xc is a six speed and can be found new for around $5400. I purchased a new 2009 250 xc this year for $5900. Great bike.

rolliew, on 11 February 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

A very short 6 speed. what's your point?

ftr rida28, on 11 February 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

It's all good. I like the 46 and wish I could make it work for me. I couldn't even make it work in my EXC (W), almost burnt up my clutch in a race with it, which I had never done prior.

I have a 2010 200 XC-W and it is darn near the perfect bike for me. Dr. Thumper up in Utah is probably right on for his area=I find it easier to take a more race-like suspension (like that of the XC) and make it more trail-able, than the reverse (making a trail suspension like the XC-W more race-able).
,. The OP said he wants to ride tracks also, so there is the the deal. I'd say get that XC 200 brand new never owned bike. It'll be a fantastic bike.

Thanks for bringing that up again Pit. It is true, I really plan on putting this on a track going forward, but will still be using it mostly (70%) for woods riding, simply due to proximity. Honestly, I think I will be fine with either. It sounds to me like the difference is rather subtle, and easily adaptable with proper seat time. I don't think I'm hearing anyone say that one is definitely better than the other, or that they couldn't easily adapt to the other if that's what was available. I think the main thing is that the 200 is a great bike, period. Hopefully I get to learn that firsthand soon.

So, here is a question.... Why would KTM drop the 200XC from the offering? It doesn't sound like there is a lack of LOVE for the bike, so what gives? Was the 200 XC-W supposed to be the XC and more?

you will have to ask KTM that.

I think I will actually do that gmoss! I'm just soooo curious, becuase I've been doing alot of reading on this site and others and I've read more opinions stating the XC is better than the XC-W, even from XC-W owners wishing they would have bought the XC. If it's that damn popular..... why did KTM stop making it in the 200 class, but kept it for the 150 and the 250? KTM... do you have an answer for me?

BTW, thanks, gmoss, for starting the 200 Club thread. That's a wealth of information, and one of the main reasons I'm still thinking the XC is edging the XC-W in my opinion.