My personal bike is a bit old to do any comparison (1988 rm 250), but I do a lot of research and have been looking to upgrade myself. Below is what I have found to be a general consensus on the RMs in that time period (purely based on reading, not riding) Pretty good cosensus that the RMs are one of the better bikes on the low and mid range and they always seem to bode well on the handling side of things. The RMs have also always been known for having a good smooth shifting tranny, however I have heard that the clutch components like the basket and plates can be a bit fragile. Really can't say I've gotten a read on the suspension for the bikes of that time though. I know that as far as two strokes go, the new RMs are at the top of the heap from a magazine "shoot out" point of view. Don't know if any of this "theoretical" bantering helps you, but it reflects the research that I've done to this point. I have not seen or read anything that would discourage me from a 99 RM 250 at the right price, but I'm also just a novice so take it with a grain of salt. Good luck!!
Yea I've heard all those things from my research to. Theres a Hinsons kit that replaces the old basket and seems to work nicely. Suspension is supposed to be pretty good. Power is supposed to be fairly smooth for a 2 stroke. Good low-mid for hill climbing and nice top end for screamin ;) . I'm lookin at a 99' RM250, and a 2001 RM250.
I have a '97 RM250... I know that the '97 and '98's were supposed to be fairly similar, but I dont know how similar they are compared to the '99...
my '97 is an awesome bike, even more so after I had it bored out, but even in stock form it was awesome... great bottom, awesome midrange, and pretty good top end too... it also has a great chassis/suspension...
very good bike all around...
if the '99 is even close, I wouldnt be afraid to buy it... :cool:
I had a 99 and changed it for 2000, which is the last bike I bought new. There was nothing wrong with 99, and I wish i'd kept it as the 2000 has been nothing but trouble for the past year, though not all of it the fault of the manufacturer. ( I once left a piston too long before changing, and that seemed to start a succession of cylinder problems ). I think the 2001 might be a better bet, as that was the first year with the new motor. The 96 to 2000 motors were the ones with the internal waterpump. Though I've had plenty problems with my current bike ( and still have ) I'd still buy an RM.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
