'90 CR250 reviews/opinions ???

[bultokid]

'90 CR250 reviews/opinions/thoughts ???

looking at picking up a '90 CR250 for the decade class was wandering if anyone knew of site with reviews and /or had personal experince with this bike...thanks

 

[CR3999]

I had one, the forks sucked, the motor was nice but had those funky power valves that I could never figure out. That was the year honda really change the bike. A 93 is a better choice.

 

[christopher in tam]

Yeah the 90 was in the years that Honda was making change from the 80's style bikes to the 90's style bikes. I personally think the 91 would be better, as that was the first year of a flatter more modern feel in the saddle. You can ride a 91 and feel almost at home (compared to a modern bike) except the suspension will need some attention to tuning.

The 90 CR250 has a smooth but powerful engine. Extreme relieability, but the powervalves needed alot of attention and cleaning. If you buy it, I would clean and powervalves and check thier operation before even taking the bike out.

 

[bultokid]

thanks for the replys, would love the '91 but in our evo/vintage club we have a Disco Class (80-90) but would defintely prefer the flatter '91 style was checking out some pixs and figured could have seat made to emulate flatter layout. BTW how did the '91 compare to the '90 ? thanks have a great day

 

[christopher in tam]

I dont know exactly how they compared but I have rode both of them and know how they felt. The 90 felt more like a 88 in the fashion that it kinda had a 80's feel in the handling and stuff. The 91 had a flatter feel and a steeper head angle, so it would carve corners much like a suzuki. To be honist, the 91 CR's were the most modern feeling bikes of the early 90's, they really were ahead of thier times.

 

[munster]

I found an old Dirt Bike mag with the 250 shootout in and the honda came in first. (April 1990) I had one and did have problems with the power valve hitting the piston.I also had clutch problems and if I can remember it was a really stiff clutch to pull.Good luck.

 

[crazybeef]

I had a 91 model. The 91 engine is the same as the 90. The 90 and 91 are pretty much the same. The colors changed a little. In fact i still have the honda sales brochures for both years.
These bikes are reliable and powerful, but the HPP valve sucks. It has too many parts and the square valves get stuck in the square guides. Chamfering the edge of the valves was popular. I also hated the copper sealing ring that went on the exhaust manifold to seal the pipe. Lots of high temp silicone was needed. The bike would barely run with the stock overly rich jetting. Some guys had problems with plugs fouling when the bike was cold even with good jetting. Some guys said the head needed the sparkpug lug cut down, others ran Champion plugs and some guys said it was the carb. I don't know because I never had a fouling problem once i sorted the jetting out.
The forks on these bikes are horrible. 89-91 Honda inverted forks are junk. The 87-88 conventional forks were way better. At the least, you have to run the compression clickers all the way out. I don't know what a shop could do with them now,but back then much couldn't be done. I had mine revalved with heavier springs by PC and it didn't help much. The harshness of these forks is unbelievable. The forks ate seals and bushings. The shock was okay.
Headshake was nasty at speed. Not so bad on the mx track, but scary on high speed offroad stuff. I rode several bikes with different set ups and none were very good.
The 92 model was all new. It had a new engine and exhaust valve, chasis, suspension and color. The 92 was awesome. It is still sort of modern like, even today. The 92-96 Honda 250s are all great bikes.
My dad had a 1987 and still says it's his favorite bike of all time.
If I had to buy a 90 model for the Evo. class I would buy the RM 250 or YZ 250.