I bought a used 2012 KLX250S last October. It is my first bike and I like it a lot. However, I am finding that my skills are increasing quickly and it is time to consider power and suspension upgrades. I had pretty much figured that as I got better I would do a Moto Pro suspension upgrade, FMF Q4 and 351 BB. Before I drop a lot of money into it I am wondering if upgrading the 2012 is the best approach. I know I will not get much return on investment if I sell it. For reference I use the bike for a 50/50 road/trail mix and the trails in AZ get quite rough and rocky.

The 2012 KLX250 has 10 inches of front travel and 9 inches of rear travel. The '06 has 11 inches front and back. I wonder if I should pick up a used '06 and start upgrading that instead. My understanding that the 2012 suspension travel can't really be increased.

I also see plenty of plated KLX450Rs on craigslist. They have more power and fully adjustable 12" suspension. I probably would have very little to upgrade.

Anyway, just debating whether I upgrade the 2012, pick up an '06 KLX to upgrade, or just look for a bike that has more power and better suspension in stock form. Any advice is appreciated!

 

Sell your KLX and buy a DRz400

Out of the box the DRZ has more displacement, more power, better suspension (forks have preload, compression and rebound adjustment) If you want to upgrade the DRZ there is more on the aftermarket for the bike.

 

If you are serious get a plated KLX450 or a KTM. DRZ not worlds better than a klx with the mods you are planning and heavier. Either way have fun and ride.

 

I have to take it that being in AZ puts you in an area where extra power can be a definitely good thing. In the east here, size and power can become an enemy for a smaller/shorter rider mostly due to added weight up high and power that is harder to control. Not so much true in the west. In the east the trick would be a full on plated enduro 250-350 size for the lower weight and maneuverability. In the west the 450+ is much more useable.

That is what you need to take into account. In the east all the upgrades could be all that is needed, in the west not so true. Only you can decide what is economically correct for you. One factor to consider though is the maintenance when switching models and brands. Do the research. You may not want to have an extreme maintenance intensive engine. That makes the 351 a good choice since the 250 is clearly under stressed and low maintenance.

I had a friend who went from a Honda XR650L to a KTM450, then to a DRz400. He figured the KTM would be better off road, which it was, but it was harder to live with than the Honda, so he went to the durable DRz to get lighter weight and easier ride here in the eastern US. Trails are just so tight that a big bore is usually overkill and not as much fun to ride. We saw that over the years in sales and at races. The open class was always small and the winners usually generated in the 250 class. We sold way more of the 250s. I am pretty sure this isn't so true in the west where the running is more open and the power of the big bores can be used. Not so sure of how it is now, I've been out of sales for about 7 years.

Have fun with whatever you do.

 

I don’t get the whole East Coast West Coast thing. I have never ridden in the East so I cant really say that it is more aggressive. But what I can say is the trails in the mountains here are no walk in the park. I use to have a Plated WR426 and thing had all the suspension and power you would want. It ran great flat out, but take it on some nasty twisty trails and it was a handful. I can ride my KLX so much better in the tight stuff here then I could have with the WR. I would rather have Quality Wheel travel over Quantity. I like the shorter seat height of the 09+. If you ride a lot of open country then the longer travel is great.
I am sure if I was a better ride the WR would be a great trail machine, just not for me.

 

The east is typically more forest oriented, and the west is typically more open desert oriented.

 

Not where I am from. I think it should be East coast, Western Desert, and West Coast.

 

My comments come from the fact that the west in general is more wide open. No doubt there are areas of tight trails, no argument there. But in the east it is almost all tight trails. There are very few trails that you could run your 426 flat out - even on most dirt/gravel roads don't have many straights that long. It is mainly due to the way the land developed. The Appalachians are older than the Rockies making them more worn down - lower in altitude. You don't see snow covered peaks in the winter. You don't see all the sheer drop offs like the Rockies.

Many of the roads developed by livestock movement and wagon travel over the years from the mid-1700s, making many passable pathways versus the tougher lesser traveled paths over the Rockies. Pure geography and age at work. There is one road near where I lived that was called "the winding stairs" near Port Washington Ohio. It is a very short tight winding gravel road going up the face of a somewhat steep hill, developed by farmers bringing wagons and livestock down the hill in a switch back pattern. Going up the hill is probably only about a quarter mile, but there are about 10-12 turns in that quarter mile. Many motorcycle trails developed in similar fashion by animal paths or the motorcycles themselves. Not so steep as to require much distance between the turn as the trail is made and the hills aren't that drastic so the straights are usually very short. That and some of us who used to cut trails a bit found what seemed really wide open and long when on foot turned out to be really short and low speed in reality. Such was life.

It isn't about one being harder than the other, it is more about the proper tool to ride whatever is there. It would be like saying harescrambles here are easier than desert racing. I think that is a false statement. Now if you said harescrambles are on a tighter track requiring quick maneuvering at lower speed now you've got it. I have no doubt trying to weave quickly through the pucker bushes, rocks and washes at high speed in the desert is just as demanding as what it takes to do the weaving between trees and roots.

Different tools. The lighter quicker handling bike does better in the east in general. In fact 125 could win over-all in a tight harescramble. In the west in general it is more wide open in general. Higher speeds, bigger bikes. I found it interesting to find that the majority of the KLX650 riders I had sold parts to were on the west coast, mainly Washington area. Lots of fire roads and such. I do a lot of KLX250 here in the east. Not totally coincidence. The 250s work well here, where the 650s don't. It's a choice, do I want to try to fight a top heavy 650 around in a bunch of 1st-2nd gear stuff while trying not to hit the throttle too hard (that can also be applied to a 450) or would I rather enjoy tossing around a lighter 250 with less concern for the throttle application, allowing more attention to the trail?

Don't take it as any comment on how easy either place is to ride. I'm sure a narrow trail is easy if you putt along in first gear, almost regardless of size with the bike geared down a fair amount or the bike used is a trials bike, but clearly - as riders, if we can go faster we do go faster and the actual ride increases in difficulty and energy expended. It's all relative. The only difference between the two is what is used to generate that relativity. In the east you can scare yourself silly on about any trail with a 250, seems in the west a lot of riders find it takes a 450.

 

It's probably impossible to denote one riding locale any tougher in one area of the country to another as there are brutal riding venues in nearly every corner of the country. About all one can do is stick to discussions about a specific route or riding location in a specific area.

And as far as the logic of modding the KLX goes, well, that's such a loaded question that it nearly defies possibility. There are so many of us on this forum with so many different perspectives of what we like, want, or can afford that the variables are almost endless. I modded mine fairly extensively. It has worked for the type of riding I do which is mainly hauling the bike out west to the mountains and canyons for many days or weeks at a time. It's not the perfect bike...but can any one bike fit that description. Everything's a compromise. The KLX is an extremely tough and relatively cheap bike. It gets less cheap after you start modding, but really...how many people who are serious about their bikes leave any bike alone. I raced high end enduro bikes for decades...high end for the time...and not one of them was left stock in very short order. Something about the suspension needed tweaking for my use...a bigger tank was needed...different gearing was often necessary...even a different carb on a full blown racing bike was sometimes desired. Most of us are going to put some money into our bike no matter how it came delivered. It's a tough decision with no clear answer.

 

Thank you for the responses so far.

As far as quality of suspension is concerned would not a resprung and revalved 11 inch '06 KLX250 suspension be as good as a resprung/revavled '12 suspension but with more travel?