WR250R vs. KLX250S HP and Torque Comparison
#31
01-06-2008, 11:13 PM
RE: WR250R vs. KLX250S HP and Torque Comparison
ORIGINAL: 2k1w=no$
I doesn't matter how much hp the wr. puts out because as soon as IG gets an 09 klx there won't be a better looking, better handling, better performing bike on the market.
I doesn't matter how much hp the wr. puts out because as soon as IG gets an 09 klx there won't be a better looking, better handling, better performing bike on the market.
#33
01-06-2008, 11:27 PM
RE: WR250R vs. KLX250S HP and Torque Comparison
ORIGINAL: HeavyFuel
Only until he trades up to something else. Then the '09 will be relegated to the same role as his former KLX. "The '09 KLX was okay, but the new 2010 Yamazuki 350 comes in a beatiful shade of periwinkle, and has all of the highly anticipated upgrades that the old '09 KLX always needed."
ORIGINAL: 2k1w=no$
I doesn't matter how much hp the wr. puts out because as soon as IG gets an 09 klx there won't be a better looking, better handling, better performing bike on the market.
I doesn't matter how much hp the wr. puts out because as soon as IG gets an 09 klx there won't be a better looking, better handling, better performing bike on the market.
#34
01-06-2008, 11:38 PM
RE: WR250R vs. KLX250S HP and Torque Comparison
ORIGINAL: Nobrakes
You can say what you want, but the fact is that deep down you want one, too, even if you won't admit it.
You can say what you want, but the fact is that deep down you want one, too, even if you won't admit it.
#36
01-07-2008, 12:55 AM
RE: WR250R vs. KLX250S HP and Torque Comparison
ORIGINAL: Nobrakes
You can say what you want, but the fact is that deep down you want one, too, even if you won't admit it.
ORIGINAL: HeavyFuel
Only until he trades up to something else. Then the '09 will be relegated to the same role as his former KLX. "The '09 KLX was okay, but the new 2010 Yamazuki 350 comes in a beatiful shade of periwinkle, and has all of the highly anticipated upgrades that the old '09 KLX always needed."
ORIGINAL: 2k1w=no$
I doesn't matter how much hp the wr. puts out because as soon as IG gets an 09 klx there won't be a better looking, better handling, better performing bike on the market.
I doesn't matter how much hp the wr. puts out because as soon as IG gets an 09 klx there won't be a better looking, better handling, better performing bike on the market.
#37
01-07-2008, 01:07 AM
RE: WR250R vs. KLX250S HP and Torque Comparison
KLX Vs WR ? KLX everytime, whilethe WR is a nice bike to ride it just didnt do it for me. I actually had some guy throw an empty beer can at me while test driving the WR beforeI purchased the KLX. WhenI took the KLX for a test ride people just seemed to stare at me likeI was riding some wild green beast (and no one threw anything at me LOL) Everywhere I go people come up the bike and touch it, stroke it and take photo's of it, I've even had a dog try to mate with it, it must be a green thing! If you like attention then the KLX will get you plenty, if you like a good all round reliable bike with a bit of mongrel hidden away for that rainy day then the KLX is the machine!
Cheers!
Cheers!
#39
01-07-2008, 01:44 AM
RE: WR250R vs. KLX250S HP and Torque Comparison
I'd like to understand more how that EXUP valve works power wise. I understand the principle of it it, similar to large bore vs small bore header...I think? However, does it really make an appreciable difference on a bike that is tuned to make peak power at 11,000 rpm. Can it be lugged down around 3500-4000 rpm like the KLX in the sloppy stuff or are you forced to clutch it and keep it spinning like a more race oriented small bore?
#40
01-08-2008, 06:16 AM
RE: WR250R vs. KLX250S HP and Torque Comparison
Just how much of a difference it makes I can't tell you. I owned a YZF1000R Thunderace for a couple of years; it hadanEXUP valve, but I can't really sayhow much effect the valve had, because I never ran it with anaftermarket header.
On the WR, I think it's more for compesation than anything else, because you will get a noticable dropoff in low end torque running a 250 with stock compression and those peaky cams.That's why I chose to change my cams and bump-up thedisplacementto 300cc at the same time.I've seen dyno curves ofa 250cc KLX engine withthe aftermarket camsI'm using andthe low-end torque drop off is prettydrastic. With 300cc, it shows that you would more that breakeven on the low end while having biggains on thetop.
On the WR, I think it's more for compesation than anything else, because you will get a noticable dropoff in low end torque running a 250 with stock compression and those peaky cams.That's why I chose to change my cams and bump-up thedisplacementto 300cc at the same time.I've seen dyno curves ofa 250cc KLX engine withthe aftermarket camsI'm using andthe low-end torque drop off is prettydrastic. With 300cc, it shows that you would more that breakeven on the low end while having biggains on thetop.
ORIGINAL: bryantjt
I'd like to understand more how that EXUP valve works power wise. I understand the principle of it it, similar to large bore vs small bore header...I think? However, does it really make an appreciable difference on a bike that is tuned to make peak power at 11,000 rpm. Can it be lugged down around 3500-4000 rpm like the KLX in the sloppy stuff or are you forced to clutch it and keep it spinning like a more race oriented small bore?
I'd like to understand more how that EXUP valve works power wise. I understand the principle of it it, similar to large bore vs small bore header...I think? However, does it really make an appreciable difference on a bike that is tuned to make peak power at 11,000 rpm. Can it be lugged down around 3500-4000 rpm like the KLX in the sloppy stuff or are you forced to clutch it and keep it spinning like a more race oriented small bore?