Should I buy this 95 RM250?

[river251]

How will a 95 RM250 ride compared to the KDX I just got? Will it have power across the RPM range like the KDX? How is riding it different than the KDX?

One just appeared on Craigs, completely rebuilt, for a low price.

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[mudpack]

Without knowing exactly which KDX you have, or the state of tune of either it or the RM, it's impossible to give you a comparison.

 

[reepicheep]

LOL. Ask me about "great shape", "ready to ride", and "completely rebuilt" with regards to craigs list listings :/

 

[river251]

My KDX is a 200, with FMF fatty and Boyesen reeds. I don't know if the head or carb has been worked on. I just got it.

I know what you mean bout Craigs ads, but this one is for sale by the Yamaha sales manager here, who I know, and he told me which dealer mechanics rebuilt the bike, so it's good.

 

[sr5bidder]

with the kdx your smoking pot (happy, friendly, easy to get along with)

On an RM, KX, CR 250 your hitting crack pipe ( snappy, on the edge, and will hurt you the second you lose your focus)

comparitively of course and my view of it..I don't think fast enough for the 250's

 

[Joburble]

I rode a 99 or 2000 RM250 for a day a few years ago, sure it was reasonably quick, but probably a better fit if you are riding motocross, not so good for trail riding. I can't say about the pot or the crack, but the RM doesn't have the bottom end of a KDX. Put simply, no, it doesn't have power across the RPM range like the KDX, but on an MX track it would smoke the KDX.

However.

You haven't told us:
The year of your KDX
The type of riding you do (tight stuff, steep hilly country, woods, predominantly open trails, mud etc.)
Your weight
Your experience
Your preferred maintenance budget and schedule (I would think the RM would cost more to run regarding maintenance)
And anything else you can tell us to help give you the best advice we can.

 

[sr5bidder]

I was comparing the bikes.... I no nothing of what crack actually does to me

river251
you just got a kdx what do you need with another bike anyhow?

if you got money burning a hole in your pocket check out the kdx real good (clean, inspect replace linkage bearings, steering bearings and topend ), set up the suspension for you, and buy some good protective gear..

 

[river251]

Well, it sold. Probably for the best, doesn't sound like what I need, it just sounded so good, completely rebuilt front to back for 1000, 51 hp, 220 lbs. But, I just got my first two dirt bikes in 30 years, an XR650R (2000) and 96 KDX 200. I think I'm set...just got carried away.

 

[Joburble]

But, I just got my first two dirt bikes in 30 years, an XR650R (2000) and 96 KDX 200. I think I'm set...just got carried away.

With those two bikes you should be well happy. Two great bikes!

 

[mudpack]

You are better off without it.

 

[mudpack]

it just sounded so good... 51 hp.

Don't believe everything you're told.
It may have made 31hp when it was new......
You are lucky someone else got it; if they'll lie to you about the power output, they'll lie to you about being "completely rebuilt"..... :cool:

 

[julien_d]

Don't believe everything you're told.
It may have made 31hp when it was new......
You are lucky someone else got it; if they'll lie to you about the power output, they'll lie to you about being "completely rebuilt"..... :cool:

Maybe Suzuki lied about it too?

RM 250 S 1995
Overall Length: 2 167 mm (85.3 in)
Overall Width: 815 mm (32.1 in)
Overall Height: 1 250 mm (49.2 in)
Seat Height: 955 mm (37.6 in)
Ground Clearance: 360 mm (14.2 in)
Wheelbase: 1 467 mm (57.8 in)
Dry Weight: 98 kg (215 lbs)
Engine type: Water-cooled 249 cc single-cylinder 2-stroke, AETC. 51 hp (37,5 kW)/ 8,000 rpm, 47,5 Nm/ 7,000 rpm. 5-speed transmission.

 

[reepicheep]

51 BHP (Brochure Horse Power). ;)

 

[mudpack]

Maybe Suzuki lied about it too?

You may be certain that the 51bhp cited in that list of specifications is not factual.

 

[Rich Rohrich]

You may be certain that the 51bhp cited in that list of specifications is not factual.

Have you considered the possibility that the OEMs measure horsepower differently than some yokel with a Dynojet in the back of a warehouse, and the numbers they publish are accurate but not useful for simplistic comparison? ;)

 

[river251]

Well, some more data points, going both ways:

http://www.suzukicycles.org/RM-RMX-series/index.html?RM250-RMX250.shtml~isoraami

http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/downloads/dynocharts/Dyno-Suzuki2004RMZ250.gif



http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/honda_cr_500_1999.php
Model: Honda CR 500
Year: 1999
Engine and transmission
Displacement: 491.00 ccm (29.96 cubic inches)
Engine type: Single cylinder
Stroke: 2
Power: 69.00 HP (50.4 kW)) @ 8500 RPM


http://www.thumpertalk.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-408554.html

http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/downloads/dynocharts/dynocharts-suzuki-2004SuzukiRMZ250.htm

 

[Joburble]

I see you have mentioned the CR500. Regardless of the numbers, when you turn the handle it simply has enough to make you smile for a week (well, me anyway). On an easy open trail or in the dunes I can't think of a bike I would rather ride. Mmmmmmmmm..... :nod:

 

[julien_d]

You may be certain that the 51bhp cited in that list of specifications is not factual.

Perhaps, but not quite as certain as I am that the 31hp you cited is not factual.

http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/down...i2004RMZ250.gif

And THAT ^ is a 4 stroke. No wonder it's wimpy! 50hp is pretty close for a 250 2 stroke MX bike.