WORST 250 Motors Ever
- Thread starter Kevin003
- Start date
- Aug 29, 2004
- 2,958
- 0
evrybody has opinions, lots of people dont like late model cr's i love em and never feel underpowered against anyone, including against friends 450s, rode a buddies late model rm and felt it was twitchy 1/16th throttle and it was wheelying but beyond that it had no more, some people call that throttle response i guess, i call it uncontrollable or a light switch . it felt like a really sweet 125 ..........people rave over the late rm, to each his ownrodH said:
The 98 RM 250 was the dog. The 97 ran ok.
If you noticed the McGrath book, the guy was a bit self-centered. A complete a-hole for the most part.
"After Jimmy (Button) was hurt, I made a few of his house payments..until he got ion his feet again.""
Wow, the last of the big spenders. Did Jimmy ever get on his feet? He was damn near paralized.
Jeremy would have never blamed himself for poor performance. The bike got all of the blame as did team Suzuki.
If you noticed the McGrath book, the guy was a bit self-centered. A complete a-hole for the most part.
"After Jimmy (Button) was hurt, I made a few of his house payments..until he got ion his feet again.""
Wow, the last of the big spenders. Did Jimmy ever get on his feet? He was damn near paralized.
Jeremy would have never blamed himself for poor performance. The bike got all of the blame as did team Suzuki.
Peer Lovell
Member
- Nov 25, 1999
- 600
- 0
I would agree. I have a '98 and the bike is fast as hell under any conditions. Only rebuilt the bottom end once and totally reliable.
- Nov 24, 2000
- 4,784
- 103
Peer Lovell said:
the '98 was my all-time favorite engine.
i now have an '02. i agree that it is hard to ride--for most people. it has what i consider a race engine. if you want to putt around the trails, get something else. on the track, this thing rips. i'm very pleased with it.
mx547 said:
I agree....The late model CR's are anything but slow...The motor is upper mid and top heavy so it suits an agressive riding style....The CR is amoung the fastest and has the HP figures to prove it...Unfortunately most people are unable to ride it like it needs to be ridden....
If you like to ride casually and let off the gas between shifts it'll feel slow because you're riding around too low in the RPM....Hold the throttle open and reving it out produces different results....
CR Swade
~SPONSOR~
- Jan 18, 2001
- 1,764
- 5
Moto hit the nail on the head. My 02 CR was one of my least favorites until I switched carbs, then it really woke up.
My 01 CR250 once jetted correctly, had almost a perfect spread of power putting boht the 01 and my 97 at the tops of my fav 250 engines.
Worst for me? My 91 KX was pretty much a pooch. It ran ok, but never did hook up for starts very well and more than once bikes 7-9 years older could flat outpull it on long straights. Hey the bike looked cool though...
Tops in the dogturd pile though would have to be the 92 RM250. No low, no top...just a bubble of 40-someodd HP all at once then gone as quickly as it arrived.
My 01 CR250 once jetted correctly, had almost a perfect spread of power putting boht the 01 and my 97 at the tops of my fav 250 engines.
Worst for me? My 91 KX was pretty much a pooch. It ran ok, but never did hook up for starts very well and more than once bikes 7-9 years older could flat outpull it on long straights. Hey the bike looked cool though...
Tops in the dogturd pile though would have to be the 92 RM250. No low, no top...just a bubble of 40-someodd HP all at once then gone as quickly as it arrived.
04 Cr250
Well I have had my 2004 CR for almost a year now and it's mainly stock except a high compression base gasket and boyseen carbon reeds. The thing screams, and with more compression it really helped the low to mid transfer. I think the 04 has gotten a bad rap because of poor stock jetting, oh well to each his own :)
Well I have had my 2004 CR for almost a year now and it's mainly stock except a high compression base gasket and boyseen carbon reeds. The thing screams, and with more compression it really helped the low to mid transfer. I think the 04 has gotten a bad rap because of poor stock jetting, oh well to each his own :)
Peer Lovell
Member
- Nov 25, 1999
- 600
- 0
I've been riding 2 storkes for 40 years and the '98 CR250 is by far the best.
Curious why you had this experience.
Curious why you had this experience.
quote: out of all the bikes I had owned, and ridden, I would say the 2004 CR250 is the worst 250 motor, but I never really drove anything older then a 1998.
yeah they didnt have the ports right in the cylinder, and the carb was really hard to jet, i've seen people spend tons of money triing to get that bike running good. lots of racers used previous years, cause they were faster
yeah they didnt have the ports right in the cylinder, and the carb was really hard to jet, i've seen people spend tons of money triing to get that bike running good. lots of racers used previous years, cause they were faster
nick novice
Member
- Feb 15, 2005
- 12
- 0
i know it's not a 250, buti think i have you all beat. my friend had a cagiva deal in '88 and he talked me in to a nearly new wmx 125. that thing melted pistons like candles until somebody realized you needed to lengthen the expansion chamber. too bad i had already gone broke and got out of bikes for two years to recover. to the guy who thought any 250 w/o a powervalve was poop. try something smaller. much worse. it sucked being 17 and the size of an 80 rider. i was scared of 250s, so i clutched the tar out of 125s for a number of years. i read in here about dudes running atf in their trans. i was smoking plates blue from all of the heat. i was also a gay hare scrambles racer and a somewhat pathetic one at that. now i love the 250-2s and the 450-4s. i recently rode a '01 kx125 and it still felt an 80 big wheel. no thanks. i'd take a somewhat crappy 250 over a 125 any day.
What's wrong with hare scrambles? I was just going to try to start racing those.
A 2-stroke without a powervalve can make just as much horsepower as a 2-stroke with. A power valve just lets the manufacturer run two different port configurations to allow the bike to have a strong mid-range without sacrificing top end.
A 2-stroke without a powervalve can make just as much horsepower as a 2-stroke with. A power valve just lets the manufacturer run two different port configurations to allow the bike to have a strong mid-range without sacrificing top end.
nick novice
Member
- Feb 15, 2005
- 12
- 0
76GMC1500 said:
of course it does. but no powervalve is like a birthday cake with no icing or ice cream. you're losing power somewhere within the band. in my experience, the smaller the bike the more it sucks. at least a 250 has a little torque. hare scrambles are fine. but i've never met a kid that grew up on scrambles that didn't wish they'd been a motocrosser.
