250sx vs. 125sx--why the "techno" discrepancy?

[nephron]

Sure, KTM made some headway this year, I hear, with the 250sx. My question is technical. For those of you who understand 2 stroke design/porting, I would assume even a small percentage of you have wondered how KTM has created a 125 with a great 250 powerband & yet can't get similar results with their 250. Of course, knowing plenty about V8's, I can obviously understand that "doubling" the contents ain't gonna make a good 250 recipe.

BUT--if they did not end up with that great 125 motor by chance, why would they have so much of a struggle getting their 250 to perform well? Is their 125 "peaked" at a design point of diminishing returns & they have nowhere to go with the 250, or what? Where is their "250" knowledge/technology lacking? Anybody on the inside of this, or looked into this? I'm just curious. Thanks.

 

[marcusgunby]

They are the opposite to Kawasaki great 250/not so fast 125:p

 

[Guaryzzzpode]

The story is that KTM put all its R&D into the 125 getting the results we all know. Now they have put all their minds into the 250 and we'll have a complete redesign for 2002 racing prototypes (to be used in the FIM Enduros and in the US MX) and production in 2003. I hope they get the same 125 results.

 

[SFO]

Funny...

The first modern ktm 250 in '90 was a copy of the '89 cr.
Case reed and all. Now Honda went back to case reed?
The ktm has had it all along. The ktm 250's have consistently made great #'s on the dyno but the mags have bitched about lazy power delivery. Now they make mediocre #'s on the dyno and have a bright power delivery.
My '90 250 was a jetting nightmare but once I dialed in the power valve and the jetting it made 43hp on a dynojet.
I could pull any cr 250 of the era on that bike and laugh in my enduro jacket.
Forgive my bravado. I think the 250's have gotten a bad rap. They will rip when set up.
I also love the NEW Cr250, like 89?:(

 

[marcusgunby]

I have ridden a 93 and 94 KTM 250sx and those things pulled hard-too hard for my 170lb.I think the mags a full of BS and the KTM makes more power than anyone below Grant can handle.

 

[marcusgunby]

If you go to www.race-tech.com and then to 250 evaluation,they test all the 250s and conclude the KTM is one of the most powerful of the group and the KX has one of the worst engines:p

 

[morlock]

I dont think KTM has to be classified as an "underdog"in the mx world.It is very simple to understand why a racing team focusing so much on a small bore has put on the market this great bike(125sx).Give it time and you'll see the two fifty at its full potential.So far they are doing their homeworks.

 

[IDkTm]

I've heard that KTM is going to have an all new 250 for the 2003 model year. We should be seeing prototypes of it raced in the European GP's next year, probably by James Dobb. I think that KTM wants to have the bike ready for Grant Langston to race in 2003 if he stays with KTM and decides to move up then.

 

[nephron]

Mags FOS? :scream: Really???
The first, I mean, 423rd time I picked up on that, was when I read one of the recent reviews of the 250sx. "oh....the motor was just TOO harsh...:o"...WTF guys? That's what I want! Why in the hell would anyone on an SX or MX track want a smooth motor? Hell, I'm almost bored with my 500. ;)

Sounds like a screamer this year, the way they describe it. Then they say, "uh, well, it's got a long way to go", without getting too specific. Suspension is fine, too, I'm sure. Funny how the longer they spend on the KTM's & get used to their outlay, the more they like them. KTM is obviously kissing no one's ass, & quietly making good bikes in the background. Makes the other name-brand's advertising and obvious buy-out antics all the more obvious & shameful.:silly: