WORST 250 Motors Ever
- Thread starter Kevin003
- Start date
ruffryder19
Member
- Sep 14, 2005
- 33
- 0
out of all the bikes I had owned, and ridden, I would say the 2004 CR250 is the worst 250 motor, but I never really drove anything older then a 1998.
'97 and maybe '98 RM250 (can't remember for sure which year was the dog), and '02 CR 250. The RM had about 38 HP on the dyno, and both the '02 CRs I rode sure felt like no more than about 40 regardless of what they would actually pull on a dyno.
I'm talking just stock motors with no mods besides jetting. I'm sure there's all kinds of potential with hop ups, porting etc. I'm pretty sure for example the '03 (and possibly newer) cylinder fits on the '02 CR.
I'm talking just stock motors with no mods besides jetting. I'm sure there's all kinds of potential with hop ups, porting etc. I'm pretty sure for example the '03 (and possibly newer) cylinder fits on the '02 CR.
WhiskythrottleKeit
Member
- Sep 2, 2005
- 56
- 0
Ohh god someone said the 04 CR250 was a dud... Yeah i just rode a 04 CR250 today that has a total of 5 hours on the bike and it was the slowest 250 i have ever rode. theres no bottom no mid and it does rev but yet still no power up stairs. I dont know why honda let them roll out of japan. I think i have rode faster 125s no kiding. My brother had a old 83 YZ250 that would walk all over that 04 CR. No joke that 83 had better bottom mid and top.. WOW im still shocked on how bad that bike is. I was happy to jump back on my 01 YZ250
Pete Payne
MX-Tech Suspension Agent
- Nov 3, 2000
- 933
- 38
I would have to say the 2000 cr 125 ..
- Nov 24, 2000
- 4,787
- 102
Kevin003 said:
funny, that's my all-time favorite motor. i was the holeshot king on that bike. i bet i holeshot 80% of the motos i entered and i know i won over half of them. it was so good, i left it stock except for a pipe (after i dented the stock one). i wish i had that motor now on my current bike.
adrenaline420
Member
- Feb 17, 2005
- 68
- 0
Air Chunk said:
My last bike was the 2000 CR125, and I agree that bike was a slow piece of crap. I almost had 85's beating me in drag races :| . no bottom, mid, and dear god it may had some top end. Once you let of the throttle, it bogged, and needed feathering of the clutch.
Man the weakest POS I ever rode was 1995 KX 500! no bottom, no mid, no top, and I swear to god that the top speed was 20 mph, and people on friggin MOUNTAIN bikes were riding wheelies past me!
LOL j/k couldn't resist.
I haven't ridden anything good other than my 2002 kx 250, and it seems to have ALOT of power low mid AND high.
It wheelies awesome in all 5 gears (5th isn't that great though). Also, I did happen to ride an 04 RM 250, and my bike had ALOT more snap than that thing had. And my bike is all stock and the RM had a PC pipe. The RM wasn't that bad though, just not as snappy as my KX.
LOL j/k couldn't resist.
I haven't ridden anything good other than my 2002 kx 250, and it seems to have ALOT of power low mid AND high.
It wheelies awesome in all 5 gears (5th isn't that great though). Also, I did happen to ride an 04 RM 250, and my bike had ALOT more snap than that thing had. And my bike is all stock and the RM had a PC pipe. The RM wasn't that bad though, just not as snappy as my KX.
2-stroke diehard
Member
- Aug 26, 2005
- 93
- 0
For me, an engine would only truly be a turd if it would not respond to mods. I've heard people say the '03 CR250R wasn't so hot, but I bought my bike piped and jetted and consider it to be fantastic, so perhaps the bone stock package was strangled, but it cleans up very nicely with basic mods, so whatever. :nener:
Malinois said:
I don't know what happened. The 95 and 96 were decent enough, then the 97 was a pooch. Ran like a strong 125. The one sent to one of the mags for a shootout had like 38 hp while all the others had 43 or more (yes I know the magazines are full of it sometimes, I think this time they were right though)
motometal said:
Weird, so it was the 97 that was the bad one?? Interesting, from Gorr's book it doesn't sound like that is the case. Although, you guys are referring to stock engines, perhaps mine has just enough aftermarket parts to make it feel much faster.
I rode my buddies 05 YZ250 with FMF Silencer and pipe and my bike on the same day, I didn't notice much of a difference. I have played around on fireroads with my buddy on his CRF450 and another guy with his CRF250 with white bro exhaust and I hung with them just fine. The only mods my bike has is a Pro X piston, Bills pipe (and proper jetting for that pipe) and Bills short silencer, oh, also the exhaust valve was filed down a bit, something that Eric Gorr mentions to do in his book. Would those few mods be enough to put this "pooch" where it is supposed to be???
The other weird thing is that my mechanic had a 1997 RM250, he said he loved that bike, one of his all time favorites. He raced on it for a few year because he loved it so much and said that it was faster than the bikes a few years after. Is that just BS???
DLHamblin said:
The 86 and 87 motors were pretty much the same but didn't have the hit or pull of the 85 engine. In 88 the YZM inspired style was put into production and the engine was made more to mimic the 85, but with less breath. I rode a 86 for two years and loved that bike. Pulled a lot of holeshots and beat a lot Hondas that by the magazines had the better motor. :blah: :blah: :blah:
I guess its like one mans junk is another mans gold. ;)
Either the 1991 RM250, no bottom and no top, or the 2001 CR250, no bottom with loads of top end power. I think I will give it to the 1991 RM250, since the word handling could not be associated with the bike and the frames would not hold together. A complete dud. The last Suzuki I have ever owned.
