This question should probably be asked on the KLR subforum, but there seems to be more activity over here, and I know a couple of guys here have ridden both bikes, so here goes.

I know the KLR is supposed to give around 36 hp stock, but it's heavier than the KLX so the power to weight ratio isn't much more. For guys that have ridden both, does it feel apreciably more powerful on the road? Particularly long graded ascents, the bane of lower hp bikes. I dont want to be stuck climbing hwy 50 with people riding my butt because I'm out of power and can't accelerate. I had that problem on the stock KLX on some of the steeper Sierra roads, downshifting and holding the throttle all the way open to hold 50mph on the steeper parts.

Reason I ask is my local Kawi dealer has a 2010 KLR on the floor since last October - 14 months. The other two sold but this one is still sitting. He even added a 2 Bros exhaust and rejetting to sweeten the deal. I think he's desperate to get rid of it and might be willing to cut a deal, but I'm on the fence. I think it might be a better road trip bike for longer rides on pavement.

 

Man oh man, there are tons of variables to consider between these two bikes. I've had 4 KLR600/650's over the years, and now I've ridden just about all the same places on my '06 KLX(300S). I retired from the KLR ranks because the bike is heavy for any rugged off road use...and I don't mean just gnarly singletrack and such. Many Moab and Colorado 2-tracks are rough as heck on any bike, and a KLR makes it a real wrestling match. Was I able to do it?...yes. Will I do it again?...no. Unless you're really slabbing some big pavement miles or actually touring on the bike, the KLX will be superior in most aspects. When I go cross-country to travel, camp, and ride, I tote my bike on a trailer. I wonder now why I rode KLR650's for so long. A smaller, lighter, more nimble bike was always the answer. For what it does, the KLR650 is very good. Ideally one would have a KLX and a KLR, but even gnarly 2-track on the KLR is a chore. It will depend on what you're trying to do most of the time as to whether it's a good choice for you.

On horsepower, the general range for a stock KLR is about 36-38. The stock KLX is about 18-20. But there's so much more involved here that just static HP figures.

 

depends what you want to do, more dirt, the klx, more pavement, the klr.

 

Yep, these bikes are both duel sports but they are different beasts.

And this dilemma is one faced by many.
So how do you get around it?
Multiple bikes.

The klx is a great woods bike thats very reliable and easy/cheap to maintain.
But a 500 mile day on the slab isn't much fun at all.
The KLR is way better for the long haul but IMO too big and heavy for any serious dirt action.

Both meet their intended use very well. And are good value for $$.

The DR650 sits in between these bikes and so does the DRZ400 (S or E).
If your committed to team green, get hold of a KLX400.

 

Good advice given above. I have a KLR650 that is my long-trip bike. I CAN ride it almost anywhere, although, not always as quickly as on my KLX331.

I don't know which one would win a drag race, I'm thinking it would be close, due to the weight difference...but, realize I have the Bill Blue 331 overbore.

Both bikes have completely redone suspensions, the KLR suspension is technologically superior, and the ride quality is nothing short of fantastic. The KLX suspension is much better than stock, but, it's just another example of very good conventional technology, so, it doesn't "wow" me.

The KLX is much better over whoops, the KLR is better over rough terrain. The KLR is tough to handle at slower speeds in sand....get up to about 40 mph or higher, and the KLR is actually easier to ride in the sand due to the suspension technology soaking up the shock of the inevitable submerged rocks. The KLX is much easier to pick up...or, not to drop in the first place. The KLR can haul things, if you do standard subframe hardened bolt replacement. The KLX will need some subframe work to allow it to haul things around. The KLR has more aftermarket parts, I think...but, that doesn't matter if whatever bike you choose has the aftermarket part(s) you need.

They are just very, very different bikes in my opinion. The KLX is like a paring knife, and the KLR is like a steak knife. Either will cut, but, neither is a fillet knife...if that makes any sense.

 

BIG bore on the KLX. It makes ahellofa bike.

500 mile day? BMW.

David

 

Even on the street there are places other than the hill climbs where I'd rather be on the klx, I can really over cook a turn, grab both brakes hard and throw the little bike into the apex and it look and seem like I ment to do that. The bigger the bike the less easy that is to do.

 

Not to mention that the KLR front brakes (on the pre-08 models) are very anemic!

 

This is applied mathematics KLX = 80% dirt and 20% street, KLR = 20%dirt and 80% street. Ratios are approximate lol.

 

Ohhhh now why did you have to go and do that? I was told there would be no math.