Husky WR250 vs Gas Gas EC250

[Cuz]

Could anyone tell me the "Pros and Cons" of each bike? I have done a lot of research on each bike and it is still hard to make a decision. I have a much easier time getting information about Gas Gas than I have about the Husky. I am leaning towards a Gas Gas at this point but wanted to get more information on the Husky before I make my decision. I haven't found any threads that compare these two bikes so I thought I would see what everyone has to say. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has owned or ridden both bikes.

Specific information I would be interested in would be:
- Quality
- Reliability
- Ergonomics
- Turning
- Suspension
- Power Characteristics
- Vibration
- Parts availability (Husky)
- Aftermarket Parts Availability (Husky)
- Husky Support (Information resources, Websites)
- etc.

Thanks for your help,
Mike

 

[DANIEL JOSEPH]

If you are looking to buy new, you won't find a WR250 in the states

 

[Cuz]

I am interested in picking up a used bike.

Thanks,
Mike

 

[john1216]

I'd say quality and parts yada, yada, yada are equal.

The main differences are cultural.

Spaniards seem to like to make tight turns and climb over obstacles. While Italians like to be WFO in fifth or sixth gear to impress the chicks.
Therefore GG's are better at technical and Huskies are more atable at speed.

Good luck!

 

[bud]

That's one way of putting it :). It may be true of the older huskies and especially the husky 4 strokes. I personally found my 00 wr250 to be an awesome tight woods bike, mainly because of the stability and low end power. My 02 wr250 is better yet since husky made the forks steeper in 01 and 02 which made tight turning easier without sacrificing stability - enough that I don't use my scotts damper any more because it doesn't improve anything.

 

[Enduro_Nut]

In the last year I've owned 2 GG(250/300) & 1 Husky(wr360) - I felt they were VERY close in all areas but GG won out just barely because of ergonimics are smaller and handling is a hair better for the tight stuff.

The beauty about it - you cant' go wrong!

 

[tigerowner]

Originally posted by Enduro_Nut
In the last year I've owned 2 GG(250/300) & 1 Husky(wr360

Enduro Nut you are making me drool riding so many nice bikes in a years time! Your comments pretty much seal my fate as a future Gas Gasser.

 

[Enduro_Nut]

Trust me - they have some hours on them, they certainly were not new! I started out w/3k and traded around(just don't call me a bike whore! :laugh: ) until I kept the GG 300. I have to admit though - the Husky had the best power - very subtle but hold on if you nailed it.

 

[Cuz]

Hi Enduro Nut,

Thanks for the information.

I would like to ask you a few questions about the WR360.
What year was it?
How is the WR360's power compared to to the GG300 and WR250?
What was it you liked about the 360's power?
Did you notice if it vibrated a lot?
Where does the 360 shine above the other 2 bikes? (Whats its element?)
Did the extra rotating mass make it feel heavier than the other bikes?
Whay did you get rid of it?
Any thing else you would like to add?

I am curious because you don't find many people with experience riding a 360. From what I have read they seem like a good all around bike.

Thanks again

 

[Enduro_Nut]

02', power was really no comparison, 360 is rather stout, more torque - more than my 02' 530 VOR. Lofting the front end at almost any speed/gear for 20'. Oddly enough vibration wasn't bad(keep in mind I'm used to open class Huskies). The 360 had one good thing - power and more power, period. You do get into mass as an issue - that's not to say it's bad(here agian I'm used to the big bores, I just sold my 87' 430). I got rid of it for 2 reasons - wear and the GG handles better in in the tight stuff - no doubt.

If the terrain is single track, bark busting trees,etc - GG
More open Cross Country - Husky

 

[john1216]

Maybe things have changed over the years or maybe I am just totaly inept at riding. But when I had a 94 Husky 360 it was terrible in technical terrain. No low end power, wouldn't turn etc...

The bike was insanely fast thats for sure. Given a wide and long trail, passing 250 2 strokes or 600 4 strokes was childs play.

I allways felt the bike was much more suited for desert riding or rolling hills and it just wasn't what I needed.

It sounds like "enduro nut" has a lot more exp with the newer bikes and comparisons with other 2 strokes, so I will gladly yield to him, here. But if it at all possible, ride a few of these at varying displacements in the terrain you will be riding in!

 

[Enduro_Nut]

John1216 - I agree the old Huskies were a distinct(and to some degree still are) Euro. bike handling(i.e. - slow handling), they are considerably better today because of American influences on the market place(My .02 :silly:).
What's interesting is how they have evolved, look @ GG with the KX copy frame and how they handle - finally they looked at the Japanese and copied them while improving the already good design. You wind up with tight handling while being very stable in the open. Then look @ power delivery - it used to be how big of a "hit" did it have, now the bike power is very deceptive in the power delivery while being faster than the old bikes with far less wheel spin - just very smooth controllable power that keeps your arms attached to your body!

I have been very lucky with bike ownership and riding everyone elses' newest and "best" bikes on the market. The only 2 bikes for me that felt stable enough to not require a steering damper while still being able to carve the trees are GG and VOR.

I think we as bike riders are VERY lucky - to me it's like splitting hairs - GG or Husky what else can we ask for!!

P.S. Regarding power delivery - did you read the @#$% Dirt Bike article - basicly they said the GG300 felt slow but yet we past everyone - that has to be the DUMBEST @$$ editorial to date - no more subscription for me(I recieved my first in 1972)!! RANT OFF!