Are THe New Honda 250x's more reliable than the new xr650r's????

[skipn8r]

A friend of mine may be choosing between these 2 bikes for trail riding. Im thinkin the XR650r will be more reliable and require less maintenance. Do u guys know how the 650r will compare to the 250x in power? Any comments or opinions would be appreciated.

If you're limiting yourself to Hondas, it seems like the XR400 is the better comparison to the 250X. The 400 is more similar to the X in terms of weight, power and size than is the 650. If outright reliability and low maitenance are of prime importance, buy a used, unmodified '02 or '03 XR400 and go ride. If you can handle maintenance, aren't afraid of getting your hands dirty and put riding pleasure above absolutely maximum reliability, get the X. Once I got my X, my XR400 had to go...... just wasn't as fun to ride.

 

[CR Swade]

CR Swade and UD Luz do you guys just not like the CRF's? :think: I have an 04' CRF250R and other than the valves there is absolutely NO prob.! But thats the 04 for the 05's it's rumored that Honda has changed and redesigned the head already so now what would the problem be if they are not so reliable. So now the next topic
Power I hope the 650 has more power than the 250! But not to say the 250 is short of it in any why.
But I will agree with you guys that the KTM's are good, but I've always heard that the 250exc 4 stroke was gutless and you are saying the CRF250X is. I No Thinky So. :think:

No, I DON'T like the CRF250...at all, just so you are clear on that. It doesn't handle as well as the CR's, has crappy torque for woods work and questionable at best reliability. It doesn't have all of the traditional Honda traits that make me a Honda homer...handling, power, toughness. LOTS of people like them, they just don't trip my CR trigger at all. BTW, KTM is close but still no substitute for my beloved CR's

KTM250RFS has torque all over the CRF, any small bore 250 four is pretty much tame compared to a 250 two stroke. A woods bike needs torque plain and simple, if the little CRF had it then I might be singing a different tune. Revving at 11,000rpm just to get into the meat of the power is not good in woods. The big CRF is not a first choice for many either. Put them on a MX track and they are in heaven, go to snotty stuff w/ rock ledges, roots and off-camber and a KDX200 will smoke them, not to mention any variety of Katooms and of course my trusty ol' CR250's set up for woods work. Enjoy your 28hp and 58mph top end

 

[biglou]

CRF250R and 250X are two completely different animals. You don't like the "R" Wade? I thought all the 250F MX'ers were great bikes that I've ridden. Great torque, CR handling, etc. Not the greatest woods bikes, of course (like I know woods bikes...), but great bikes nonetheless.

 

[Rich Rohrich]

. Enjoy your 28hp and 58mph top end

Give it a rest.

 

[CR Swade]

CRF250R and 250X are two completely different animals. You don't like the "R" Wade? I thought all the 250F MX'ers were great bikes that I've ridden. Great torque, CR handling, etc. Not the greatest woods bikes, of course (like I know woods bikes...), but great bikes nonetheless.

naw, pretty much no fun unless slamming around an MX track, which is what it was designed to do...I get that.

They don't handle much like a two stroke CR at all, but most four strokes don't handles like the two's...they aren't my cup of tea at all. I just still prefer two stroke performance and handling. Its all in what you enjoy and are used to, that's why I went back to smokers.

Fact is if 05 comes in w/ the valvetrain problems alleviated, oil capacity/usage issues clarified and a clean track record for a couple of years, then the reliability rep should rightly follow along w/ it. Until then, I'll let other buyers beta test what Honda is putting out there.

Rich...is there some performance figures we should be aware of out there? Last I heard she was good for 28-31 hp in X and R tune respectively. R is good for just shy of 60mph. For MX it sounds like it would fit the bill...I don't think thats what the original question had in mind for intended use.