I never rode a xr, please try to describe it..

Joined
Jun 25, 2000
Messages
378
Likes
0
#1
because im planing a crx like project.

How would a xr 100-400cc, about that range, compare to 2-stroke 80,125,250. Which xr cc is closest to the 2-stroke cc's in engine performance. I would like to have a xr engine with performance better than a 2-stroke 80 but not necessarily more peak power than a 125 but torque closer to a 250.

Just describe the xr you have riden compared to the 2-strokes, please.

XR are very rare here so i dont have the opportunity to ride one. So help me out decide what to look for.

------------------
The best thing in life isn't free.
'93 cr250
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=1522289
pyromaniac@linuxmail.org
ICQ: 3455880

Feel free to contact me.
 

smb_racing

Master of None
Joined
Jul 31, 2000
Messages
2,085
Likes
0
#4
I don't know if you've seen it or not but here is an article that you might find interesting considering the bike you're currently working on.
http://www.off-road.com/dirtbike/jhcrx.html

------------------
Jeff-
'84 Can-Am ASE 250 (brutally fast rat bike)
'93 Kawasaki KDX200 (big bore kit, A-Loop suspension, FMF pipe)
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2000
Messages
2,379
Likes
0
#5
An XR200R has roughly the same power as the CR80R, maybe a bit more. I think the XR400R has around the same hp as the CR125 but has way more torque, and the XR650R has about the same or maybe a few more ponies than the CR250, but again, tons more torque. I would suggest either XR250R or XR400R engine for a CRX. If you use a 250, get it tuned to a 280.

------------------
The Original Speedster
1985 XR100R
1978 XL250S
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2000
Messages
516
Likes
0
#6
A XR 200 has less power than an 80 I'm pretty sure. You can make a XR 400 competitive with a CR 250 with engine work. In stock form it makes about as much HP as a 125. The XR 250 is a little less than a 125, but very easy, fun to ride and easily hopped up.

------------------
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2000
Messages
998
Likes
3
Location
lost in the deserts of NM
#7
I think a good rule of thumb would be:
It takes double the displacement in a 4 stroke to equall the power of a given 2 stroke.
?????
Although it's the delivery of that power that is the most different.
On most thumpers there is no "hit" in the powerband.
Unless it's really "cammed" up!

Imagine your doing a big hillclimb on a 125 2 stroke.
If suddenly you lose your speed and drop out of the powerband, thats usually the end.
If that happens on a thumper (250cc to equall the power) you just gear down and crank on it!!

Although actually 4 strokes DO make more power than 2 strokes.
2strokes just make that power twice as fast.
But that's another story.........
And one that someone like Rich could better explain than i. :)


------------------
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2000
Messages
249
Likes
0
#8
XR250=CR80 or CR 125 if modified
XR200=good girls bike
XR400=CR250 with mods and a good rider
XR650=too damn heavy


------------------
2001 XR250R
2001 XR400R
 
Joined
Feb 25, 2001
Messages
25
Likes
0
#9
I have a xr200 and my bro has a cr80 and the xr IS faster and has much better torque. also it is much more forgiving if u mess up. The only disatvantage it the suspension which is soft but nice for trails. The xr250 is a little higher tech and has better suspention but u pay for it. my xr200 was $3000 new and the xr250 is like $4800. get the 200 its a good bike.

------------------
 
Joined
Oct 28, 1999
Messages
61
Likes
0
#10
Originally posted by xrsforever:
XR250=CR80 or CR 125 if modified
XR200=good girls bike
XR400=CR250 with mods and a good rider
XR650=too damn heavy


this is not really a fair,or accurate comparison. its like apples to potatoes.
an XR250 does not = a cr80 or 125. perhaps HP, but that is not how they ride. both of the CRs require a huge amount of clutch work and throttle to keep producing power, an XR250 will chug from idle to its peak RPM range, producing much more useable power for a broader range of riding conditions.
an XR200 is NOT a girls bike. these bike produce very useable power and can go anywhere.
I can't speak for the XR400, as I haven't been around any, but I imagine that the riding characteristic do not = a CR250 either. the XRs are not motocross bikes, yet they are difficult to beat in the woods.
yes, XR650s are heavy. is this a drawback? on a motocross track,sure. in the woods, sure. but if you are strong and want serious torque, are an adrenaline addict fiend, the XR650 is NOT a girls bike, either.
Pyro, the XRs shouldn't be compared to the CR bikes. if you want a great bike that will run forever, produce as much power as you can possibly use, great handling, and will hold its value, the XR is hard to beat. check out most 10 yr. old CRs and you will find that they are a dime a dozen and if you are lucky, a good one won't be a borderline rat bike. a 10 yr. old XR, even in the rare instance of rattiness will command a much higher resale value.

------------------
philb

92 XR280R
87 XR200R
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2001
Messages
141
Likes
0
#11
philb,
I definitely agree with you about the XR200. I love my bike and it can go places where guys with 250s and 125s just turn around, and I don't know how many 80s I've beaten out of turns like they were standing still. XR200 does not = girls bike. It may be very easy to ride, but put it on a trail with a 125, and wait and see how fast you pull away. While you're rolling the power on, he's grabbing for more clutch.

------------------
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2000
Messages
516
Likes
0
#12
The XR 200 vs. 125 or 80 depends on the rider. I've had both, a competent rider on an 80 or 125 can and will beat the 200. The 200 is a great bike, but it is not in the same league as the CR's. The suspension is very soft and lacks compression and rebound adjustment and it doesn't make much power, but the power it makes is very usable. They have a seat height about the same as a CR 80, but anyone over about 5'8" will probably feel cramped on one. They are a fine woods bike for small people. The XR 250 is a differnt animal than the 200, it has adjustable suspension, disk brakes, more power, higher seat, it is pretty much more of everything and is worth the extra price.

------------------
 

KWJams

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 22, 2000
Messages
1,167
Likes
4
#13
XR's or 4 strokes for that matter are like driving a truck in comparison to a sports car.
One is designed/engineered for utility while the other is for performance.

------------------

Ken & Diane James
AMA Field Reps #869
*AMA-Cycle.Org*
*PRO-Hillclimbers*
 

weimedog

Damn Yankees
Joined
Nov 21, 2000
Messages
959
Likes
2
#14
I have owned and riden CR's of all sizes from 1984 to 1991. Also have ridden XR100's, XR250's, and XR400's. My buddy has a new XR400. I also had a chance to ride a 2000 model CR250. (About 2 hours)

The XR100 and XR200 are in a different league that the XR250 and XR400. The smaller ones are short, old style geometry, with soft motors that work very well for beginners. I have a 10 year old girl on one and its a blast for her. With the nice low end power its easy for her to get started even with an uneducated clutch hand. Just dump the clutch in first and its moving. (thumping)Short suspension lets her feet plant on the ground. Its light enough to pitch around and pick up after a crash. Easy to start for her as well. Just sips gas. She goes until she runs out of suspension.

The XR250's are soft motors in a much more capable chassis. Motors have nice power where it will chug through anything. Up hills, mud, rocks. Kind of feels like a refined lawn tractor. Its controllable but adiquate enough to handle any trail situation. They feel heavy but still turn very well. Same with the 400's. The 400's have nice controlable power everywhere. Just ride along and dial on more speed. ( faster thups) They just start thumping more frequently with more throttle and pull along harder and faster. Soft suspension handles the rough trails very well. The nice handling and tighter geometry make tight corners easy. Nice brakes as well. When trail riding at an easy pace rolling off the throttle lets the engine braking feel like using the rear brakes, slows you down and you just turn throught the corners, and then just start thumping faster to gain speed. The power delivery is snappy on the bottom through midrange. They rev but make more noise than power on top. Short shifting allows for the best use of power in the tighter trails. Those XR's are awesome when you have things like tight corners before nasty hills. They don't need the clutch slipping small two strokes need. Just pick a gear and concentrate on riding up the hill. They hook up better as well as no fanning clutch technic is required. For trail riding the suspension is great. Soft or "plush" as some say.

All the larger XR's fell heavier than any of the CR's. When you pick up the pace and try to be aggressive, the very things that make them nice in the trails slow you down at the track. They feel like heavy unresponsive tractors on a MX track as compared to CR's.

------------------
2001 VOR503 V-Cross
1982 husqvarna XC430
1974 Bultaco Frontera 360
6 Kids, Four Ride, 3 race. (cr125, yz80, 2 KX125's)
Case 780, INT 1066, Ford LTL9000...and a Percheron

[This message has been edited by weimedog (edited 04-15-2001).]
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2000
Messages
378
Likes
0
#15
Suddenly this thread became interesting.

I think i have to explain what i want by the crx. I want a cheap 4-stroke motocrosser. The only ones i know of is from like 98 and cost a bunch. Why i dont want a xr is because i think they are somewhat ugly and does not fit my riding style. I want long travel suspension and a pretty high seet height. And a light bike that handles good.

The engine part i guiss a 200 or 250 xr will be nice after what i have read. I dont need a bunch of power and weight. I want a bike with just as much power to be funny and go fast and as light as possible. A easy to ride, fun playbike.