Can a CR 250 1993 model make decent woods/trail bike ? im thinking of a heavier flywheel maybe a "torque" pipe & revalve front & rear shocks for trail conditions my real concern is getting the power down low without fouling plugs etc....do you think this project is worth it ? or maybe just look for the tried & true KDX 200
93 cr 250 woods bike
- Thread starter Sharko
- Start date
It's a matter of what type of riding you're goingto do.
Yes, the 93 CR250 can be a good woods mount. While it won’t feel like it has the grunt of a KDX200 and doesn’t have the low first gear that most woods bikes do, it can be very effective. It won’t have the forgiving, “lazy bike” feel that a lot of trail bikes have but it will be capable of a lot more without putting you on your head.
The biggest change I made on mine, and is probably out of the realm of feasibility for most people, was to graft the front end off an 89 KX500 onto it. These were the last year conventional forks on that model and are similar to the ones on the new XR650. It transformed the front end from a nervous, darting, spooky handful to feeling like the bike was on rails. A good suspension tuner may be able to do a lot with the stock front forks, though.
Other mods: 15 oz FWW, Gnarly or Dyno Port torque pipe, steel clutch plates. Eric Gorr can port it to take the big hit out and make the power much more linear, like the 95 and 96 models. I ran Honda HP2 oil with 93 octane mixed at 32:1 and NEVER fouled plugs. The bike was always rock reliable.
I would assess my riding ability and where I would be riding. If you’re more on the novice end, not competing or ride a lot of tight, nasty stuff, the KDX would be a better choice, IMO. I’ve owned both and both are great bikes and very reliable. You wouldn’t go wrong with either one.
All that said, for my type of riding, if I had to do it again, I’d buy the KDX and live happily ever after. The shorter wheelbase lets it turn tighter, the good low end without a massive hit make it easier to ride and it won’t tire you out as quickly from fighting it.
Jeff Fredette has shown what they’re capable of as your riding ability improves.
If it was more open terrain, higher speed and not as technical, I’d get a CR. It has lots more HP and is much quicker in a straight line.
Which one suits you best?
Hope it helps.
Yes, the 93 CR250 can be a good woods mount. While it won’t feel like it has the grunt of a KDX200 and doesn’t have the low first gear that most woods bikes do, it can be very effective. It won’t have the forgiving, “lazy bike” feel that a lot of trail bikes have but it will be capable of a lot more without putting you on your head.
The biggest change I made on mine, and is probably out of the realm of feasibility for most people, was to graft the front end off an 89 KX500 onto it. These were the last year conventional forks on that model and are similar to the ones on the new XR650. It transformed the front end from a nervous, darting, spooky handful to feeling like the bike was on rails. A good suspension tuner may be able to do a lot with the stock front forks, though.
Other mods: 15 oz FWW, Gnarly or Dyno Port torque pipe, steel clutch plates. Eric Gorr can port it to take the big hit out and make the power much more linear, like the 95 and 96 models. I ran Honda HP2 oil with 93 octane mixed at 32:1 and NEVER fouled plugs. The bike was always rock reliable.
I would assess my riding ability and where I would be riding. If you’re more on the novice end, not competing or ride a lot of tight, nasty stuff, the KDX would be a better choice, IMO. I’ve owned both and both are great bikes and very reliable. You wouldn’t go wrong with either one.
All that said, for my type of riding, if I had to do it again, I’d buy the KDX and live happily ever after. The shorter wheelbase lets it turn tighter, the good low end without a massive hit make it easier to ride and it won’t tire you out as quickly from fighting it.
Jeff Fredette has shown what they’re capable of as your riding ability improves.
If it was more open terrain, higher speed and not as technical, I’d get a CR. It has lots more HP and is much quicker in a straight line.
Which one suits you best?
Hope it helps.
TexKDX
~SPONSOR~
- Aug 8, 1999
- 747
- 0
The KDX having "grunt" is a myth. truth is they come on the pipe at lower RPM than a 125, but true grunt they do not have. The '93 CR will have more true grunt (off pipe torque). You can gear a KDX way down enough so that 1st gear can be used at low speed up on the pipe, but the bikes really don't have grunt per se. The KTM 200 is a different story - good grunt off the pipe and revs to the moon with about 10 more top end HP than the KDX. Totally different bike than the KDX.
I have been comtemplating a steel-framed Honda mxer-turned-woods bike project, and the bike would be based on - you guessed it - a '93 CR250. Mcgrath raced a '93 until he left Honda in late '96 over the ALU-framed '97 model. Mid-90's CR 250 motors were noted for crappy power - the '93 is a better overall motor from all I know about them.
I have been comtemplating a steel-framed Honda mxer-turned-woods bike project, and the bike would be based on - you guessed it - a '93 CR250. Mcgrath raced a '93 until he left Honda in late '96 over the ALU-framed '97 model. Mid-90's CR 250 motors were noted for crappy power - the '93 is a better overall motor from all I know about them.
jaction125
~SPONSOR~
- Jan 30, 2003
- 605
- 0
I have a 95 cr250 loosely set up for the woods, and it is a pretty good mount. It has great power for the more open stuff, but in the tight twisties it's a little hard to keep it running. But i've never gotten around to a flywheel weight or a torque pipe. If I threw about $500 at the bike, I don't think I would be any happier on a KDX.
A quick question, do KDX's have the same(comparable) fit and finish as a KX motocrosser? :think:
A quick question, do KDX's have the same(comparable) fit and finish as a KX motocrosser? :think:
Jaction - No, the KDX has lower quality shifter, brake pedal, linkage pieces, etc. These pieces are made out of a lower quality steel as opposed to aluminum on the KX. As far as reliability goes though, mine were as solid as anvils.
Tex - depends on how you define "better motor". I had two 93 models and both had a very pronounced mid-range hit. Not the best power delivery for technical trails and/or lower skilled riders, both of which applied to me. I also had two 95 models. The power came on much lower, so low that you had to really roll it on from low revs to feel it start to build. Very linear, easy to use delivery, but still very fast. I found myself correcting less on these than from the hard hit of the 93's.
I sent the jug on the last 95 I had to Eric Gorr and he made it a 265 and ported it for low-to-mid power. Very, very strong and it needed a talented hand to keep it from being too much of a handful in the tight woods.
The 93's had what I termed "two-stage" power. They could be worked on the lower end of the rev range to pull hills and nasty suff without stalling, but if the rear wheel broke loose and let the revs rise, they would hit and become a handul. My 95's were much easier to control off-road.
Your results may differ. :)
Tex - depends on how you define "better motor". I had two 93 models and both had a very pronounced mid-range hit. Not the best power delivery for technical trails and/or lower skilled riders, both of which applied to me. I also had two 95 models. The power came on much lower, so low that you had to really roll it on from low revs to feel it start to build. Very linear, easy to use delivery, but still very fast. I found myself correcting less on these than from the hard hit of the 93's.
I sent the jug on the last 95 I had to Eric Gorr and he made it a 265 and ported it for low-to-mid power. Very, very strong and it needed a talented hand to keep it from being too much of a handful in the tight woods.
The 93's had what I termed "two-stage" power. They could be worked on the lower end of the rev range to pull hills and nasty suff without stalling, but if the rear wheel broke loose and let the revs rise, they would hit and become a handul. My 95's were much easier to control off-road.
Your results may differ. :)
