Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

250XCF vs CRF250x vs WR250

Recommended Posts

Any new 2007 250XCF owners/riders with experience riding a CRF250x/WR250, please compare in terms of power, handling and overall performance. I'm sure the magazines will have a shootout issue between these bikes but it may be months away. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would like to know actual wet weight ( Sans Gasoline ) and how much low end power they each have in comparison to each other and compared to a XR250R

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all 3 of them will absolutely BURY an XR250 in every way, shape, and form....except maybe longevity!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all 3 of them will absolutely BURY an XR250 in every way, shape, and form....except maybe longevity!!

I seriously doubt that they would bury MY XR250's. Mine had 315cc and probably about 33hp and tons more low end torque. My XRs topped 78-80mph.

I wish they still made them. But they don't so I went to KTM.

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwight.....

rode a 2007 250SXF with the '08 frame yesterday.

This bike will bury any 250F out there on the market today....if the motor was not putting out 42-43 ponies I would be suprised. The bike was super light...felt like a 125. The XCF's are only expected to weigh 8 lbs more.

The 250XCF will probably be the bike of the year IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRVT:

I was seriously considering the CRF250X. They're cheaper, but also feel MUCH heavier than the XCFs and XCF-Ws.

I know because I just picked up my brand new 07 250XCF-W and put it alongside a brand new CRF250X. The XCF feels 20 lbs lighter. Plus, read any review of the 06 SXF or any reviews on the K t M t a l k . c o m pages of the EXFs (which are their version of our XCFs) and you'll hear endless praise of the engine, both low and high rpms.

So, although I spent more, I believe I got more. Gobs of torque, probably more reliable, and it certainly stands out more in a crowd! Go KTM!

BZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the CRF250X is about 10 pounds heavier than the KTM EXC/XC's... it's also a few cm's taller which is where the extra weight feeling is most likely coming from.. drop a couple of CM's out of the suspension and they will feel similar...

42-43 horsepower.... sounds like it was measured at the broshure :thumbsup:

the sxf's biggest problem was that it was all above 10,000rpm where as the CRF's were a little more traditional power wise with more low end and midrange punch... hopefully the XC-F has a bit more midrange and doesnt need clutching as much.

the crf also carries more fuel which makes it feel a bit fatter...

on the plus side the crf has a more advanced carby as well as dual chamber forks and linkage rear suspension and excellent build quality (better than the kato anyway) and a seriously comfortable seat compared to kato's.

wait and see what happens with the 07 WR.. but it will still be a little top heavy with it's really high seat height...

as an all round enduro package off the floor the kato prob takes the nod... as far as the mx versions are concerns the crf takes the nod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the X and WR come detuned? The standard answer is to pass CARB but why doesnt KTM have to detune theirs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ktms don't come corked up because they are sold as competition models where as the CRF-X and WR's are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KTM's not corked up????? Try riding a brand new 4 stroke without having it pop, fart or overheat. My pitbike has more fuel running through it's carb than my new 450 did. Corked.....I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the KTM's may not be corked from factory, but they sure are plugged up.

ktm relies on the jetting to pass the emission stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too would like to know actual wet weight ( Sans Gasoline ) and how much low end power they each have in comparison to each other and compared to a XR250R

Dwight

Dwight, Ill have mine at the hair scramble tis weekend, look me up. Ill be racing my 400 till the 250 run in. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My '06 250SXF was jetted so rich from the factory that it would hardly run in the woods. And it wouldn't start very easily either once it got hot. Out on the MX track it ran fine except for a bog when landing sometimes. The stock muffler might as well have been a straight pipe, 106db's, leaks from the joints etc... I didn't even have to ride it know it was super rich, looking at the pipe go blue within 40 minutes of riding told the tale. Haven't seen another 250SXF do that, that quickly.

My '05 CRF250X is all stock, its corked up, but was jetted fine, never really gives me much problem with heat, sputtering, back fires etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A blue pipe is usually a symptom of leaner jetting and hotter running temps I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any real bike riding on a ktm would definatly take the cake as for your xr it isnt really a 250 if its been bored out to wat you say it is plus the ktm has twin cam not single so as for the torque lack i think your mistaken and the wr 250 has a few rebuild kits such as the 290 which would greatly increase the performance for wheelstanding out of corners and lifting the front wheel over loggs. but ktm offers the best alround package as a stock bike hondas are wat they say are red for your face trying to work on them with that fat alloy frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of jetting: We installed an FMF Titanium Powercore with SA, and rejetted the main from 165-177. Seems to run great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×