I have found a sweet deal on a 1991 RMX250. The bike is in great shape and has just had the top end done. I have been looking to get back in to trail riding and this looks like "the deal" I have been waiting for. I've searched around but can't find much info on the RMX series. It looks like they were introduced in the late '80's and remained pretty much unchanged until the late '90's. I have heard this bike is somewhat similar to the KDX as far as power delivery and that they are pretty reliable bikes? How well would this bike be for a 235lb rider? Won't be doing anything too extreme, just some aggressive trail riding but nothing too tight or technical.
Tell me about the RMX250
- Thread starter bord
- Start date
A friend of mine has the '91 and the only biggest complaint is that the kickstarter bolt keeps loosening up. Keep an eye on that and you'll be happy. He weighs 215 or so and has no problem at all with power...very smooth and lots of torque. He added a flywheel weight but I'd wait to do it until you see if you need it for the type of riding you do.
Check this out -- http://www.patmanracing.com/PatmansRMX.htm
The RMX was introduced into the states in '89. The first year was said to have water pump problems, but two friends with that year did not for their 4-5 years of neglected use.
My son had a '90; I still have a '97. I had a lower rod bearing go out, but heard it coming and figured it out too late, though reasoned I got my monies' worth over the last six years of racing and trail riding. Other than that there have been no problems. My son's even had the original piston (in spec) since this spring!
Over the years they chaged a few things here and there, but no drastic moves. Suzuki decided to not import in after '98 due to the EPA/CARB thing, but they were still exported to Europe and the Pacific rim in an updated form.
There's not much difference between the two years, albeit notable; mine has more power and the suspension is slightly stiffer. Most parts interchange, even with the early '90s RMs. You can still get aftermarket parts, pipes, etc., but not in the variety and number of sources found with newer bikes. Plastics, graphics, seat covers, and hard parts are available. If you are 5’8” or taller, I’d recommend Ceet’s tall seat foam.
I am storing a friend’s KDX that I have ridden, and can compare it with the RMXes. The KDX has a linear and unexciting power delivery, the RMXes have a more pronounced hit and certainly more power overall, although not as brutal as an MXer. They both need and benefit tremendously from aftermarket exhausts to wake up and expose hidden power.
(I have two cylinders for mine, both ported by Eric Gorr: one for more power everywhere, and the other for bottom- to mid-response; I am happy with the results of either. The last one resembles the KDX but with more boost throughout.)
If I were to ride tight, survivalist-type, first- and second-gear trails, ie: riding just for the fun of it, the KDX would be it being easier to manage with less weight and power. Performance and potential-wise, it is one notch above the XR250 I had for a short while.
If conditions were more open, hilly, sandy or whooped out, or for going fast with friends, where 3/4th gear was used, then the RMX would be the preferred platform. It’s one or two more notches above the KDX, approaching KTM E/XC territory (let’s see how many posts we’ll hear on that =:-o
Each of these two bikes have their rightful place, and either one will require new springs for you weight, but in the long run I believe you'd be better served with the larger of the two. (Bonus: The RMX comes with superior suspension.)
If you want a copy of an article comparing the two, send me an e-mail with your snail-mail address, and I’ll send a copy to ya. millenniumdsj@hotmail.com.
My son had a '90; I still have a '97. I had a lower rod bearing go out, but heard it coming and figured it out too late, though reasoned I got my monies' worth over the last six years of racing and trail riding. Other than that there have been no problems. My son's even had the original piston (in spec) since this spring!
Over the years they chaged a few things here and there, but no drastic moves. Suzuki decided to not import in after '98 due to the EPA/CARB thing, but they were still exported to Europe and the Pacific rim in an updated form.
There's not much difference between the two years, albeit notable; mine has more power and the suspension is slightly stiffer. Most parts interchange, even with the early '90s RMs. You can still get aftermarket parts, pipes, etc., but not in the variety and number of sources found with newer bikes. Plastics, graphics, seat covers, and hard parts are available. If you are 5’8” or taller, I’d recommend Ceet’s tall seat foam.
I am storing a friend’s KDX that I have ridden, and can compare it with the RMXes. The KDX has a linear and unexciting power delivery, the RMXes have a more pronounced hit and certainly more power overall, although not as brutal as an MXer. They both need and benefit tremendously from aftermarket exhausts to wake up and expose hidden power.
(I have two cylinders for mine, both ported by Eric Gorr: one for more power everywhere, and the other for bottom- to mid-response; I am happy with the results of either. The last one resembles the KDX but with more boost throughout.)
If I were to ride tight, survivalist-type, first- and second-gear trails, ie: riding just for the fun of it, the KDX would be it being easier to manage with less weight and power. Performance and potential-wise, it is one notch above the XR250 I had for a short while.
If conditions were more open, hilly, sandy or whooped out, or for going fast with friends, where 3/4th gear was used, then the RMX would be the preferred platform. It’s one or two more notches above the KDX, approaching KTM E/XC territory (let’s see how many posts we’ll hear on that =:-o
Each of these two bikes have their rightful place, and either one will require new springs for you weight, but in the long run I believe you'd be better served with the larger of the two. (Bonus: The RMX comes with superior suspension.)
If you want a copy of an article comparing the two, send me an e-mail with your snail-mail address, and I’ll send a copy to ya. millenniumdsj@hotmail.com.
The PC pipe is a good one; I want to try one on mine someday. My son had one on his, along with a PWK carb I put on, and was one good running bike.
By all means Eric's porting is a must do. He doesn't do anything radical, and the results do not produce rocket acceleration like one would think, but that's okay as I wasn't looking for those kinds of results.
Sooooooo, it depends upon what you want in the end, although, again, the difference even between the two, moreover compared to stock is not radical. Though both are a bargain and come highly recommended by me.
For the open desert and wider trails, I like the mo-everywhere, as the stock mid-hit needs to be tamed a bit but not lost for sand, whoops and hills; in those situation where you want snappy power. Eric's work on this jug smooted out the transition to the mid hit somewhat and improved the over rev. With this porting I can pull a higher gear or just rev it higher when goining uphill in an alluvial fan (sand wash). This effect was most noticable in 3rd, 4th and 5th gear, although the benefits were felt in others as well - these I remember the most because during one enduro I could not pull 5th uphill. This barrel is my favorite for racing and going fast in the desert.
For slick and tight conditions, where *not* a lot of engine RPM is needed nor desired, the low- to mid- porting is preferred. With this one I can lug it in a higher gear, and wacking the throttle produces more of a grunty feel with resultant traction/pull, front-end lofting capacity - I do not mean it becomes an instant wheelie machine, but the front can come up with more ease if I want to do so. This barrel is my favorite for playriding and plonking in the mountains.
The '91 RMX ('89-'92 for that matter) has a larger exhaust port than the '93-'98, so your results may vary buy should be similar.
For '91 Suzuki relaxed the head/steering angle so it would headshake less, but I do not know if they were sucessful. I do know my son's will turn inside mine, and mine is a good turner for the overweight pig it is.
On a side note, the '93-'95 jug is different that the '96-'98 on the intake side; that may make some difference (the latter years have a broader deposit of aluminum there), but I'm not the right kind of rocket scientist to figure that out - perhaps it has something to do with primary crankcase volume-pressure.
I spent some time around a '95.
Stock pipe and silencer are pitiful...the fmf system works very well.
It wouldn't ever foul a plug. We're talking, let it idle for a half hour in your driveway-the plug would last years if you let it.
Stock jetting was pretty rich, don't remember details. Between the jetting and the pipe/silencer (and maybe a throttle limiter removal??) it felt like double the horsepower!
The suspension is good enough to do some good sized jumps if you turn up the clickers. I believe the KDX series is softer.
Started like a champ, always.
Nice flywheel effect, wouldn't kill near as easy at low rpms compared to a 250 mxer.
This bike eventually had the crank let go, but it had many, many hours on it by that time!
Stock pipe and silencer are pitiful...the fmf system works very well.
It wouldn't ever foul a plug. We're talking, let it idle for a half hour in your driveway-the plug would last years if you let it.
Stock jetting was pretty rich, don't remember details. Between the jetting and the pipe/silencer (and maybe a throttle limiter removal??) it felt like double the horsepower!
The suspension is good enough to do some good sized jumps if you turn up the clickers. I believe the KDX series is softer.
Started like a champ, always.
Nice flywheel effect, wouldn't kill near as easy at low rpms compared to a 250 mxer.
This bike eventually had the crank let go, but it had many, many hours on it by that time!
Similar Topics
