mx547

Ortho doc's wet dream
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Nov 24, 2000
4,787
103
i'm not saying it was the best but my favorite was the '98 cr250. i like motors that scream.
 

MXP1MP

Member
Nov 14, 2000
1,845
0
to hard to pin it down consistantly it's been CR, YZ's having the best overall motors.
I vote for the 1980 YZ 250G last yz 250 with a 6 speed tranny.
 

Rcannon

~SPONSOR~
Nov 17, 2001
1,886
0
Yz 250....00-06.

Great power everywhere stock. No need for pipes or mods.

The 98 KX 250 would be my second favorite. The bike was fun to ride.
 

Britt Boyette

Member
Aug 16, 2004
280
0
Most any 02 and newer KTM. KTM stands for "Keep The Motor". The rear suspension isn't my cup of tea. I would like to have a 05 KTM250SX motor in a 05 CR250 or KX250 chassis. That isn't too much to ask is it?
 

KX02

Member
Jan 19, 2004
781
0
I heard KTM meant kick til monday, just saying what I heard LOL! :laugh:

I really love my 05 KX250. Pulls strong from the bottom to the top. Very smooth and very fast, no nasty spikes in the power. Don't see any need for pipes, rad valves, porting. Just a steady diet of 110 octane! :aj:
 

steve125

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Oct 19, 2000
1,252
0
True that 98 KX 250 was a tractor that hooked up real well and was really crisp feeling and fast. Had a great sound to it to, very meaty!
good suspension, but was top heavy and did not turn at all!!!
 

OTHG_DAVE_858

Member
Feb 18, 2005
193
0
I know alot of you wont remember this but the 1982 RM 250 was the king of the 250's. That motor started it all, and we never looked back , oh, until now.
 

oldfrt613

Feeble Sponsoring Member
Member
Jun 29, 2005
443
0
For moto - 2001 CR250R, but don't take my word for it, check out Eric Gorrs latest tuning book. Fast ( too fast for most ), powerful and reliable.
 

Malinois

Member
Jun 8, 2004
18
0
For moto - 2001 CR250R, but don't take my word for it, check out Eric Gorrs latest tuning book. Fast ( too fast for most ), powerful and reliable.


Exactly, cannot argue wit Eric. I loved the motor so much I put it in my 04 CR250.
 

Kawi4life

Member
Feb 21, 2005
105
0
I like different years for different reasons.

99 KX250 for a very smooth/broad power (that was still real strong) that wouldn't wear me out on track and let me ride harder/longer/smoother without getting armpump (my choice for at the track/race).

97 CR250 for wicked top-end power drag racing fun.


Worst year:

97 KX250 - Although it had great power and won just about every review for the year, I know many people including me that had problems with this bike popping into false neutrals inbetween gears to the point I know people that where hardcore KX riders their whole life that switched brands because of this. Very bad bottom end durability. I've always been a hardcore KX rider so I gave them another chance and moved on to my all time favorite bike - the 99 KX250.
 

BMWPower

Member
Jul 7, 2005
75
0
Eric Gorr wrote in his book this about the 1997-2000 CR250. "The 1997 model was the first generation of advanced ignition systems. The traction control concept of monitoring rpm changes versus time is good, but Honda missed the mark on the 1997 model, It needs a steeper advance curve in order to give the powerband a hard-hitting mid-range, like previous models were famous for." So what I am asking is does the 1997-2000 really have a "soft" poweband hit, or am I just mistaken?
Also I heard that the 93 and 94 CR250 had really good motors, is this true?
 

mx547

Ortho doc's wet dream
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Nov 24, 2000
4,787
103
BMWPower said:
Also I heard that the 93 and 94 CR250 had really good motors, is this true?

it depends on how you define good. i said before that i like top-end motors. my '93 didn't have one so i didn't like it much.
 

steve125

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Oct 19, 2000
1,252
0
Kawi4life said:
Worst year:

97 KX250 - Although it had great power and won just about every review for the year, I know many people including me that had problems with this bike popping into false neutrals inbetween gears to the point I know people that where hardcore KX riders their whole life that switched brands because of this. Very bad bottom end durability. I've always been a hardcore KX rider so I gave them another chance and moved on to my all time favorite bike - the 99 KX250.

You missed it by one year, the 99 was real good but the 98 was the best!!

The 99 was a de-tuned 98:(
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
BMWPower said:
So how were the 97-00 CR250's and how were the 93 and 94's

All the years you mentioned have the same engine/cylinder design but vary in porting, carb, ignition and exhaust. Many parts are interchangeable between '92 and' 01 CR250s (pipes vary by frame design).

The '99 is noted for more mild porting & better low end than the '97 and '98. It does not have the powerjet carb and has different electronics. An advantage of this motor is longer piston & ring life and better fuel mileage compared to others with more wild porting such as the '01. In Eric's older books he touts the '99 as better for most riders than the '97-'98.

I have a '99 with a '97 carb & electronics, e-line lighting coil (acts like a flywheel weight) V force reed block, stock pipe and FMF TC spark arrestor. This is an excellent motor for offroad, with a strong, smooth low end power delivery and it goes 70+ miles on a 3.2 gallon Clarke tank.

One good thing about the '92-'01 CR250 is the powervalve seems to stay clean and is easy to service.
 

dirt bike dave

Sponsoring Member
May 3, 2000
5,349
3
FWIW, carb tuning and pipes can play a part in how hard a motor hits, so different bikes of the same year might vary alot depending on tuning.

Of the year's mentioned I have only ridden my modified '99 and an '01 so I don't have the experience to say. My modded '99 has a upper mid hit but I would not say it is a strong hit (not totally subtle, either). I don't remember the '01 as having a particularly violent hit, but the one I rode had like a 13 oz flywheel weight. The overall bike did feel noticeably ligther than my '99, though.
 
Top Bottom