KDX 200 or 220? Engine characters...

[river251]

I'm interested in a 200 (post 95) or 220. I have searched for discussion comparing the 200 and 220, clearly each has its fans. I wasn't able to find very much objective, calm explanation or description of the different engine performance characteristics however.

Anybody who has experience with both who might be willing to compare and contrast would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[julien_d]

It's not that complicated really. The bike itself, and the bottom end of the engine is the same. The difference is in the cylinder, obviously. The 220 has more mellow porting, a larger bore size, and a smaller carb. This gives it some incredible low end grunt, but makes it slower revving with less top end.

Make sense?

J.

 

[river251]

It's not that complicated really. The bike itself, and the bottom end of the engine is the same. The difference is in the cylinder, obviously. The 220 has more mellow porting, a larger bore size, and a smaller carb. This gives it some incredible low end grunt, but makes it slower revving with less top end.

Make sense?

J.

Thanks, yes. I found some more threads and they generally say the same thing. I think to have any fuller understanding would require riding them both. Since I found a good deal on a 200 with fatty, bars, and desert tank, think I'll just get that as a start. Thanks.

 

[julien_d]

It's my own personal opinion that the 200 has much more potential without major mods than the 220 does.

 

[river251]

Thanks Julien. The one I am looking at seems like a good start. I've read that with enough mods the 220 can gain the top end of the 200, and keep its bottom, but the trouble with putting a lot of money into mods is you usually don't get a chance to try the finished product, so don't know what you are really getting for all your money. And it defeats a reason to get the old KDX, that it's a pretty cheap trail bike. All those mods might compromise ease of maintenance or reliability as well.

Thanks.

 

[reepicheep]

I have (long story, two belong to other people) the following bikes sitting out in the garage as I type:

1) Stock KDX-200 (even has the tool bag still intact!).
2) KDX-200 with the Eric Gorr "more better everywhere) 225 boring and porting, and an FMF Gnarly expansion chamber, and stock silencer.
3) KDX-220 with Boyesen RAD reed cage, pro circuit silencer and exhuast.

The best of the three is the 220... down low and up top. Mine (the 225) is a very close second, but I am still chasing down some sort of high RPM choppyness. The stock 200 isn't that bad, but we are still trying to chase down a "whack the throttle" bogging.

The real issue with the 220 is the stock piston. They blow up. If you get one that hasn't yet, replace the piston before riding it more then a few hundred yards for the test ride.

 

[julien_d]

Sounds like you have tuning issues with both your 200's, and not with your 220. Not to try and discount what you're saying in any way. Well, maybe in a little way.

The 200 is a faster bike. It's quicker revving, and has more throttle response and power in the upper RPM range. The 220 obviously lugs better. The 200 lugs plenty well enough for me. I can't imagine needing any more grunt than what my 200 gives me. Any less top end and I'd find myself struggling to keep up with the faster bikes when we get into the wide open stuff. Not very often, but we do ride some fire roads and such from time to time.

If the 220 has more up top, you might wanna check the power valves in those 200's. That simply should not happen.

 

[mechanos]

My son and I have a 200 and a 220 respectively. The 200 feels like it hits harder on the top, but I believe it's because the bottom isn't as good. The 200 is stock, the 220 has a Pro-Circuit pipe and 607 reeds. Believe it or not I can lug through stuff the 200 will stall in, and it will beat the 200 in a drag race, hands down. I agree that my sons 200 will rev higher/faster, but I just shift sooner. For woods/enduro riding the 220 has more useable power.

Speaking of drag racing...
My riding buddies all have YZ 250f's and Wr 250's. Out of curiosity we had a drag race to see who was fastest. My 220 took the 250's until about 5th gear.

I hear people discounting the 220 on a couple of forums, but I wouldn't trade mine for any 200 I have ridin.

 

[julien_d]

Don't get me wrong, I don't discount the 220. It's an awesome bike. The fact remains, if a 220 beats a 200 in a drag, there is something wrong with the 200. Sorry, but it's true. You are correct though, for really tight and gnarly, a 220 is hard to beat. That's mostly what I ride too. But being more accustomed to MX 2 strokes, the 200's power delivery suits me much better. When I ride a 220, I keep wanting to rev it further than it wants to go.

All else aside, I love KDX's. You really can't go wrong with either bike. There are tuning options and mods to make either bike perform better on the low end or the top end depending on what suits you. If you like a snappier power band, the 200 has more of this in stock form than a similarly equipped 220.

Everyone I know with a 220 loves it. Everyone I know with a 200 loves it. They are just great woods bikes, period.

 

[mechanos]

Well said. Honestly, were lucky to have these bikes, I'm not sure what I would have bought if they were not available. They are so versitle, and as you said can be taylored to fit a riders needs. My 13 year old came off of a TTR 125 to the 200 this year and it was an easy transition for him. He's now ready for more power, and I'm pretty sure Santa's bringing him a Gnarly pipe and reeds for Xmas, which will be a nice boost for the $. As you stated, if you ask my son which bike he would rather ride it would be his 200, and me, my 220 (he says mine feels flat) "Different strokes for different folks" :laugh:

 

[reepicheep]

Julian, you are wrong. I don't have tuning issues with the 200's...

I have tuning issues with the 200's *and* the 220. :) The 220 is running great, but is a bear to start cold now.

That's actually why the three are in my garage, all three have "bright spots" and issues. I'm trying to get all three to have just the bright spots.

Bottom line, I think a 200 or 220 will serve you well, and whatever you get will probably have to be tuned. I'd be choosing a good bike in good shape at a good price (which would factor in the mandatory new piston on the 220). I wouldn't be choosing based on if it is a 200 or a 220.

 

[julien_d]

I hear ya. I suppose that's part of the game, yeah? My 200 was running better than ever, and now I've sheared both the darn sub valves again. Grrrr. Well, cylinder is going off for re-plating, and the valves will have to be replaced, AGAIN.

 

[river251]

Hm...

What's a sub-valve? And why do you need to replate the cylinder? I know they have moly-steel platying or something...

Is this a frequent need, and who does it?

Thanks.

 

[reepicheep]

Stock they use some sort of tungsten plasma deposition or something. Not bad for a factory setup, but it ain't nickisil.

Most big bore shops will do the nickisil (which is state of the art for high performance motorcycles of all types these days) as part of the package.

Eric Gorr re-did my stock jug, 225 kit, porting, piston, and all parts with nickisil plating for around $500

 

[julien_d]

Unfortunately I do not have the option to bore over, unless I loose the power valves. Actually, that may not be a bad option seeing as how I'm getting sick of breaking them. This will be the last time I put valves in this engine. Next time they break, I'm probably jb welding the sub ports in closed position, and just allow the center valve to operate.

 

[mudpack]

If you like a snappier power band, the 200 has more of this in stock form than a similarly equipped 220

I hear that a lot on the forums, but I'm wondering if ol' mechanos hasn't nailed it:

The 200 feels like it hits harder on the top, but I believe it's because the bottom isn't as good.

We humans are prone to subjective conclusions, and the urban legend that the 200 hits harder on top just might be one of them. :cool: ...notice I say "might".
I.e. the old butt-dyno can be very misleading.

Hmmmm...now I've got my eyes open for a like-new 220. :rotfl:

 

[julien_d]

Cool Mudd. Try it out and give us another subjective review. I've only been around a couple 220's. Nice bikes, but not quite my cup of tea. Maybe in a couple more years ;). Of course, if it was my bike, it would be set up differently suspension and power wise and I'm sure I'd be in love with it just like I am with my 200.

I thoroughly enjoy this article, and have yet to see anyone else do such an informative and complete head to head between the 200 and the 220. If you haven't read it, you should.

http://justkdx.dirtrider.net/200vs220.html

 

[kytrailrider]

I have a 220 or so I thought. When I looked at the bike all the information said 220. The frame has a 220 serial # and it says it is a 220 on the sticker on the frame on the sterring stem. My suprise was when I went to replace the piston, I bought the 220 size piston and rings. But when I pulled the piston and went to replace it, itwas two big :yikes: . So my question is has anyone else run across a bike that is a 220 by name but 200 by engine :pissed:

 

[julien_d]

I have a 220 or so I thought. When I looked at the bike all the information said 220. The frame has a 220 serial # and it says it is a 220 on the sticker on the frame on the sterring stem. My suprise was when I went to replace the piston, I bought the 220 size piston and rings. But when I pulled the piston and went to replace it, itwas two big :yikes: . So my question is has anyone else run across a bike that is a 220 by name but 200 by engine :pissed:

Well, the 200 cylinder would be a direct bolt on. My guess would be that a PO destroyed the 220 cylinder when the stock 220 piston grenaded. purely speculation of course....

200 cylinders are a lot more common than 220 cylinders, so it would seem logical to bolt on a 200 top end as a means of quick and easy repair. Maybe?

Just to point out, that was entirely worthy of it's own thread having absolutely nothing to do with this one aside from the reference to BOTH 200's and 220's.

 

[kytrailrider]

Good point! it just came to me so I typed it. I will post to see what else! :coocoo:

 

[mechanos]

It would be interesting to ride a 220 with a 200 cyl/piston to see what the power characteristics were...220 carb & port timing, with a 200 cyl?...Interesting...

I'm picturing some mad scientist disecting the bike " I will replace the heart of this 220 with the heart of a 200" evil laugh muuhahaha, muhahaha. Hope somebody gets a visual like I am.

O.k., maybee it's too early in the morning for me to be communicting with the outside world :coocoo:

 

[julien_d]

The port timing lives in the cylinder, so for all accounts his bike would be a 200 with a smaller carb. Both bikes have the same bottom end to start with.

 

[Rollo]

I have just changed my KX/KDX hybrid from a 200 to a 220 but instead of replating the bore I had it resleeved and all the ports cleaned up.Gives me the option to bore it out to a 240 later on if need be. (I have still got a spare 220 and the orginal 200 jugs with all the power valves in them just in case) Anyway I need to rejet the KX/KDX but do not know where to start. At the moment it has the original 200 carb on it (bought the kdx 200 new in 2000) It has pro curcuit pipe (platnuim) with a FMF power core 2 muff. I am using carbon tech 2stage reeds in it. Sprocket set up is 47t rear 14f .After running it in I found it bogs down badly top end. Surges on the gas .Anyone have an idea of what jets I should be using?
Oh back onto the topic of 200 or 220 well my 200 I raced vets and didnt do 2 badly (in a kx125 frame) but legs was an issue. The only small bore out there against 450 lounge chairs and must admitt there were a few angry 4st riders spewing they spent money on their bikes .The 200/220 motor is ideal for the KX125 frame .It feels compact compared to the KDX frame and handles turns really well but as I said previous needs more legs mainly in open ground.Once I get the jetting right I will post the results of what I think of the difference between the 2.

 

[julien_d]

Um. The 200 has more "legs" than the 220. The 220 runs out of top end real quick. You'd have done better to bore the 200 jug over, since the porting on the 200 is more capable of top end power. I'm interested to see your take on it when you're finished though.

It would be interesting to ride a 220 with a 200 cyl/piston to see what the power characteristics were...220 carb & port timing, with a 200 cyl?...Interesting...

I know this is quoting an older post, but I must have missed it earlier. The ports are in the cylinder in a reed induction 2t, so if you switch the cylinder on a 220 with a 200 cylinder, you will have the porting of the 200. Can't have one without the other.

Take a 220 and switch the cylinder, head, piston, and carb, to 200 bits, and you have a 200. No other differences remain aside from the stock o-ring chain on the 220.

 

[reepicheep]

FWIW, I am still tuning my and a couple friends bikes... and I am hard pressed to tell the difference between my nikisil plated Eric Gorr 225 kit with FMF and my buddies sleeved 220 with the pro circuit... Both pull hard.

The biggest difference so far has been that the 220 has been easier to dial in the jetting...