2001 KTM 400SXC vs. EXC? difference

[thebackcountry]

Can anyone direct me to existing threads on this comparison? Curious what the differences are. My needs are 90% off road with CA street legal. Found an SXC for sale in great cond.

thanks!

[markit]

The sxc may not be the bike for road use but at only 10% maybe ok, its not going to be fun to ride above 40mph as you will be running way higher rpms as compaired to the exc that is a ver good road gearing.

[CHILLY]

I don't believe there is such a thing as a 2001 "SXC". Do you mean "MXC"?

There was a 400 SXC model in 2000(?), it was a parts bin bike that used the older style LC4 motor. If this is what you are looking at, I probably would not recomend it. This bike doesn't have anything in common with newer generation RFS models.

If you are looking at a 400 MXC, I had a 2001 model and really liked it. It has a close ratio gear box, so it isn't as great for highway. The stock gearing has a really tall first gear, so you almost have to go lower to get it suitable for tight conditions. But other than that, it was a great bike.

[thebackcountry]

Seller says it's a 2001 SXC model. He says it has KTM's factory street legal gear, no baja kit. I can't see it until thursday. I don't want the 2000 model from what I've read. I rode a friends EXC from early 2000 and the thing kicks ass. I'd like this bike for enduros, but also a short local ride on county roads to get to trails.

thanks for helping. Couldn't find any links to this year's model. Maybe he has the name wrong. MXC sounds more moto however.

[OldeDude]

CHILLY is right about the SXC, so I'd bet the guy has either the name or the year wrong. If it's the SXC with the LC4 engine, and you don't know how to tell the difference, the LC4s were left kick and the drive (chain and sprockets) were on the right side. If it's the MXC it will be the modern RFS engine, e-start, close ratio tranny, kick starter on the right, drive on the left, etc.

[dkwok]

maybe its a sx,

[Dave Hopkins]

Like stated above its either;

00 SXC, OK bike but old tech, low value, quick identification is chain on right kick on left side.

01 MXC, good bike, plan on gearing it down, 13x52? has a huge tank, spark arresstor & lights.

01 SX, almost the same as the MXC without spark arrestor, huge tank etc of the MXC, also had a smaller, lighter magneto, good piece!

I am betting its the 00 SXC

[thebackcountry]

thanks very much. Your right, it's a 2000 SXC 400. How does this compare to my DRZ 400 and 2000 WR400. I'm hoping for something a bit lighter and faster than a stock DRZ. I loved my WR, but it can't be CA street legal. I'm a bit bummed with my DRZ, although I'm going through all the mods thumpertalkers have shared.

This is going to be my second bike to ride with my employees. Hoping it's better than the DRZ. If not, I'd get another DRZ.

Thoughts on 2000 SXC 400 compared to these other bikes?

thanks for your time!

[OldeDude]

The SXC has the very reliable LC4 400 engine, which is a bit heavy, somewhat slow revving, and has a smooth powerband with decent bottom. They are known for putting out more vibration than you would expect from a 400 4-stroke. The bike will be as heavy as your DRZ, and like mentioned before it has left side kick, and right side drive. Aftermarket parts have become pretty rare since most companies quit supporting the LC4s several years ago.

I had a '98 400SC, which is virtually the same bike, except the '98 had the better 50mm WP conventional forks, and as much as I liked that bike I wouldn't buy one today. I'd stick with the DRZ. or better yet, try to find a 2000 or newer KTM 400 EXC.

[thebackcountry]

thanks. Can an EXC be CA street legal?

[OldeDude]

thanks. Can an EXC be CA street legal?

You might have to find one that is already plated. A lot of people say it can still be done, but I just saw a notice on the D36 site (I'll consider it rumor for now) that CARB is going to make DMV revoke lincence plates issued to what they consider illegal dual sport converted bikes issued after Feb 1 2004.