520MXC -> Can you just putt one around?

[Buell]

Some firebreathers won't tolerate being trail ridden....my CR250 hates it...spoogies...loads up ect...my '97 CR500 would do "okay" at it and my YZ400F would do it fine!

(where I'm going with this....)
I've been looking at WR250F's for my wife. She's trail rider coming off a KDX, but rode my YZ400 and CR500 both ( if i started them for her) . She likes the big bikes fine and isn't afraid of them. I started thinking that, since I'd like a 520 for Desert racing and it has the E button maybe that would fill both needs? I've already heard about some of the gals riding and enjoying the 400 RFS...

520 owners...what do you think?:)

 

[Scoott]

520 mxc

If the weight doesn't bother her, the 520 Mxc with the stock muffler is a *****cat compared to a cr 500. When you want to wake it up, slap on a Pro Circuit T-4 muffler and rip! If adjusting for weight difference is not a problem, the 520 would be a good choice. It will put around all day without a whimper and rip on command when ordered. It's the most amazing motorcycle I've rode in the last 20 years.



01 520 Mxc
98 200 Mxc

 

[Buell]

Thanks Scoott,

I don't think the 520 weighs anymore than the CR500 or the YZ400, but I'll look at that. The 520 has a 3 inch lower seat height than the yz if memory serves..... For all the hype about the CR500, other than needing a firm boot to start, it was an easy bike to ride as long as you controlled your right wrist:confused: The YZ400 did fine with her as long as it got enough air for cooling. I managed to overheat it a few times in the summer in rough, slow going:think It's not like she'd be trying to race it, it's pretty wide open country...

Anybody else?:)

 

[TBob]

Originally posted by kalitude
Chris, I think the KTM's are about 10 pounds heavier than the Yamaha 400's, which is because of the button/battery. So they are not a light bike, a light big bore e-start thumper to be sure...but not an incredibly light bike in itself.

One thing I do have to give props to KTM for is the balance of the weight, which makes it much easier for me to sit on and balance the bike than the Yamahas. It's a tough compramise really between weight and kicking!

Not sure were it is your getting your info from - A 520 EXC weighs in at 246.8
lbs - Yamaha is to chicken sh$t to put a weight on their spec sheet but in the
latest issue of Dirt Rider they claim that the KTM is lighter than the Yamaha...
I would tend to believe them - they have their own scales.

 

[TBob]

Originally posted by kalitude
I am getting my info from the Yamaha website:
WR426F Dry Weight 240 lbs.
YZ426F Dry Weight 231 lbs.

The WR/YZ400's are supposed to be a little heavier than the 2001 426's.

KTMusa website
520exc Dry weight 112 kg / 246.8 lbs
520mxc Dry weight 112 kg / 246.8 lbs

But like I mentioned, to me the KTM certainly feels lighter because of the height/weight distribution of the KTM vs the Yamaha. Some also think the "claimed" KTM weight is more accurate then the "claimed" Yamaha weight.

Were are you finding the Yamaha weights??? - I can never find them :(

Never mind I found them! :o

 

[Bob Brooks]

"Claimed" weights from the manufacturers are generally garbage and should be disregarded. The concensus from most is that the KTM's are a little lighter, even with the e-start. I'm not sure where the information about the Yamaha's being "taller" is coming from, however. I've ridden Yamaha thumpers, owned a '99 YZ400 last year, and have ridden the new KTM RFS's and currently own an '01 300 MXC and my belief is that the KTM's feel taller and longer than the Yamaha thumpers. The Yamaha has more of a low-slung feel and distance from the seat to the pegs feels shorter. To my way of thinking, the ergonomics of the Yamaha is better suited to shorter individuals than the KTM's.

 

[Buell]

Having owned a YZ400F in the past...the weights from the Yamaha site are OPTIMISTIC at best (or a bold face lie) :confused: You be the judge... mine was a LOT closer to 250 than 230 "Dry" as in no fuel. I guess if you drained all the fluids...built the bike up with no grease...Filled the tires with helium...

Anyway I think it would be fair to say the difference in weights is negligible;)

 

[BCR-Bob]

Buell, I think your wife would be fine on a 520. the button would make the rides far more pleasant for her than kicking her day away on a flammed out bike. The bikes are very docile (sp?) in stock form and require very little set up to go as fast as you want.

 

[DougRoost]

I tried to get SpodeKill (aka ZeroGravity) to post on this as he recently got a 520 M/XC (couldn't find a 400 E/XC else he would have gotten that). Unfortunately he's swamped right now.

He says the KTM 520 is quite possibly the best dirt bike ever built and it feels way lighter than it is due to the balance and slimness of it. He can ride it all day without being tired and says it's made a better rider out of him. As Kali pointed out, seat height compared to the blue bikes is also significant.

SpodeKill was riding a KLX365 prior to this that he had built up (was stolen). He loved the KLX but didn't want to go through it all again, so he bought the KTM. Pretty much ready to go out of the box. Only real mod he made was to get the 2 degree different triple clamps to improve the steering geometry. Says the power is not an issue since you're in control with your right hand -- and it's always nice to have some in reserve. Amazingly the weight is the same between the 400 and 520, so what the heck!

Bottom line, I don't know anyone who has ever bought a KTM and had buyer's remorse. The same can't be said on some of the other makes. So why buy a WRF, dump all the money in it, have too tall a seat, and still not have electric start? Geez, I should go to work for KTM!:cool:

 

[Shaw520]

Originally posted by Buell
Anyway I think it would be fair to say the difference in weights is negligible;)

Comparing the weights of MX bikes to enduro bike isnt real fair,...WRF is in the ballpark of 257 pounds, compared to the EXC at 246#'s , thats a significant difference considering the EXC has 15 pounds of e-start equipment on board.
Not sure what the YZF is, but the SX520 is 236 pnds.
I have ridden slow with my 520 when riding with my six year old son, and I cant say that the bike does this well, its also prone to overheating at a slow poke pace.

 

[DougRoost]

Good clarification on weights of MX vs enduro bikes.

Not sure what year your 520 is or if they shared the problem of the 400 (but I'd guess they do). I understand that the '00 400's had overheating problems. KTM fixed it in '01 with larger water pump impeller, larger radiator, etc.:cool:

 

[Hick]

MXC weight

Originally posted by TBob
Not sure were it is your getting your info from - A 520 EXC weighs in at 246.8
lbs - Yamaha is to chicken sh$t to put a weight on their spec sheet but in the
latest issue of Dirt Rider they claim that the KTM is lighter than the Yamaha...
I would tend to believe them - they have their own scales.

My alter ego, Captain Nitpick, has this to add:

I read the 520 MXC test in the March Dirt Rider, there is no mention of weight. The latest issue I have is June, they only test is minis and trials bikes (speaking of light...). In the 24 hour torture test (May) they don’t mention weights either.

In last years Dirt Bike (June ’00) they have the 400 EXC weighing 257 w/out gas. In the Jan ’01 MXA they have the YZ 426 weighing 251 w/out gas.

The e-start RFS bikes are NOT lighter than a YZ, I have personally confirmed this w/ my ’00 YZF and two ’01 KTMs (400 EXC & 520 MXC).

In short, there is NO WAY that a 520 EXC weighs 246 lbs. (unless you take some parts off).

They definitely do not feel heavier than my bike when riding them, though.

 

[TBob]

Re: MXC weight

Originally posted by Hick


My alter ego, Captain Nitpick, has this to add:

I read the 520 MXC test in the March Dirt Rider, there is no mention of weight. The latest issue I have is June, they only test is minis and trials bikes (speaking of light...). In the 24 hour torture test (May) they don’t mention weights either.

In last years Dirt Bike (June ’00) they have the 400 EXC weighing 257 w/out gas. In the Jan ’01 MXA they have the YZ 426 weighing 251 w/out gas.

The e-start RFS bikes are NOT lighter than a YZ, I have personally confirmed this w/ my ’00 YZF and two ’01 KTMs (400 EXC & 520 MXC).

In short, there is NO WAY that a 520 EXC weighs 246 lbs. (unless you take some parts off).

They definitely do not feel heavier than my bike when riding them, though.

o.k. Mr nit pick - I will go home tonight and find the exact qoute that I read from Dirt Rider.... there's always one.

 

[Buell]

Shaw520, Point taken...I wasn't clear, but EXC to WR and YZ to SX, I belive the weights are close, with an advantage to the KTM. Remarkable in fact that they can build an E button bike with lights for close to the same weight as the YZ. :)

With feel being as important as the actual weight ( IMHO ) I remember my YZ felt very heavy on the track...not so bad on the trail...except when you dropped it on a hill. I haven't heard anything but good about the feel of the KTM's:cool:

 

[TexKDX]

I've owned the 400 yammie and have ridden the 400 and 520 EXCs. No question she'll be more comfortable on either KTM than that Yamaha. "Friendlier" is the one word I've kinda centered on when describing the EXC RFSs. Lower compression, feel lighter and nimbler, sit lower. Oh and the button-thingie.

BTW Kali, Yamaha is notorious for lying about weight. Burly himself told me the WR400 weighed in at an honest 283 pounds with a full tank of gas when they did the '00 Dirt Bike 4 stroke Shootout. The July 2000 Trailrider Magazine shows the '00 400 EXC with hand guards and a few other accessories weighing in at 273 pounds.

The 520 does have "oh my God" power on tap if you hold the loud handle open long enough, kinda like the CR500, but is very friendly when short shifted and torqued around. The 400 is somehwat sedate in comparison, but in the tighter conditions can be ridden up in the rev range. It still pulls well on top, just not the "oh my God" well the 520 has on tap.

Get 'em both I say - His and Hers RFS's. Or, wait until next year when all you can get is the 450 :scream: . Argument settled. Oops, forgot about the 250...

 

[bud]

Maybe this has been discussed, but how does the 520 compare to a yz426 in terms of power?

There are no ktm dealers within 100 miles of where I am, and so very few on the local trails. Huskys outnumber ktm's here by about 20:1 :). I've ridden a 426, and been impressed with the smooth pull, but my chances of riding a 520 for comparison are pretty small.

 

[Shaw520]

my impression

Bud, I'm sure you'll get different opinions on that question, I have ridden both and my impression is that the 520's power is more electric (linear) than the YZ, with a bit more snot on the top end. The 520 feels alot lighter, the YZ turns a little quicker due to its shorter wheel base. I'm sure the suspension can be dialed to ones likings on either. I had to increase spring rates alot on my 520 to get it to perform for me. In MX, personal preference will play a big roll between these two bikes, but when it comes to offroad racing,...The EXC has too many advantages over the WRF.

 

[Buell]

Kalitude - Just get him somewhere that Buell is having demo rides, check the Buell web site. Once he rides one, it's just a matter of time;) I had a Road King Classic, road the X1 at a Laughlin in '99, came home a sold the Road King bought a Buell....There's a guy at the local Hog chapter with about 5K in his motor...he was very disappointed to learn that in "informal straight line testing" the stock Buell would run away and hide!:cool:

TexKDX, Your right about the power, my CR500 was an easy bike to ride if you kept it off the pipe...I'll bet ( about $7,000 ) that the 520 is easy as well with no hit, just linear power...and more power:eek:

Bud, my understanding is the 520 is less "violent" in it power delivery...longer stroke, lower compression. I haven't ridden the 520, but I owned a 400 and have ridden the 426....

 

[Hick]

520 vs 426 power

I’ve ridden both, recently. I own a 426 and have two friends with 520s (one EXC one MXC, both ’01). The 520 is faster, and WAAAAAAAY smoother than a 426. It is electric, so smooth it almost doesn’t feel faster than a YZ. Almost.

I think the KTM would be noticeably easier to handle in tight, unfriendly conditions when compared to the YZ, mainly because of the very smooth power but also because it is much harder to stall (and if you do, well, you know...).

Another friend has a 400 EXC, and that bike is even more electric, just not as fast as a YZ. But it is plenty fast, probably right there with a YZ 400.

Also, the six speed is nice. I don’t know what the top speed is on my buddy’s EXC, but I think it is around 100.

 

[yarbonwick]

Weights and Measures

Of what I tracked down in 15 minutes.

• 2000 YAMAHA WR400F - TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 265 lb. PEAK HORSEPOWER: 43.5 hp @ 8900 rpm
• 2000 KTM 400EXC - TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 257 lb. - PEAK HORSEPOWER: 39.1 @ 7200 rpm
• 2000 KTM 520 EXC - TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 257 lb.
• 2001 YAMAHA WR426F - TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 260 lb.
• 2000 KTM 520SX - TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 240 lb. -PEAK HORSEPOWER: 53 hp @ 8000 rpm
• 2001 YAMAHA YZ426F -TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 248 lb. -PEAK HORSEPOWER: 47.0 @ 9600 rpm
• A Few More thrown in for good measure
• 2000 HONDA XR400R - TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 265 lb - PEAK HORSEPOWER: 30.1
• 2000 SUZUKI DRZ400 - TEST BIKE WEIGHT, ELECTRIC START MODEL: 277 lb. - KICK START MODEL: 268 lb. - PEAK HORSEPOWER: 38.4 @ 9800 rpm
• 2000 VOR 503 - TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 250 lb. - PEAK HORSEPOWER: 50.0 @ 9000 rpm
• 2001 KTM 520SX - TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 240 lb.
• 2001 VOR 503 MX -TEST BIKE WEIGHT: 247 lb. - PEAK HORSEPOWER: 50.3 hp @ 7500 rpm.
  [/list=1]
  
  ref: Dirtbike Mag.

 

[L_B_Z]

Gear boxes...

is the 4 speed G/B on the 520sx a dissadvantage? (in MX)

 

[NVR FNSH]

Regarding the 'puttability' of the 520 EXC:

Yesterday we rode Middle Creek, NorCal. Myself ('99 WR400), my wife ('92 XR250R), Ret Senior ('01 520 EXC), kx100 ('00 KX100). My wife is a beginner - she likes easy singletrack & fireroads, she set the pace & the trail selection. After about 10 miles of riding we stopped for a break & I noticied my bike was leaking - thought it was coolant just self-leveling since I had just changed it. I was wrong - turns out I lost my oil drain plug. Rider error, not a fault of the bike:) I've been carrying a buddy tow for 3 years & now I get to use it - on my own bike:( Ret Senior towed me with my wifes XR, she rode his EXC. If she got out of 2nd gear I'd be surprised - it was only a mile or two to the road but she didn't have any problem with the EXC. Luckily for me she still likes her XR.... although she did ask about adding an electric starter :p

Long story short - if my wife can ride a 520 anybody can w/o the bike acting like a pure bred race horse...

Brian

 

[Buell]

Great story Brian:)

XR100 to 520EXC, that's a big jump!:confused:

Kalitude, sounds like I need to plan a trip over to the coast for a little shopping! ;) ( If I could get the CR80 sold, I'd be set!)

 

[NVR FNSH]

Give her another 6 months to 1 year and we will looking for a new(er) bike for her. I really like the EXC's but after sitting on Ret Seniors I don't think I could ride it. It felt really, really small. I know most of you need/like that but I'm one of those guys that puts tall seat foam & bar risers on a WR400. A 3 inch lower seat just isn't gonna work when I want to ride HER bike:(

Brian

 

[Buell]

Kalitude, Okay XR250:confused: I saw KX100 above and my frazzled brain translated it to XR100:o I'm asking 2399 for the CR80 but for a DRN'er I'd take less, realistically I expect it to sell for around 2200...It is a cream puff.

Brian, man you must play in the NBA, I'm 6'4" and the Yamaha's are TALL, although I did put tall foam on my YZ400. More to keep the frame rails from brusing my butt, than for the extra height! :eek: