Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Article in Dirt Bike

Recommended Posts

The outcome was pretty even. The big knock on the WR was lack of low end torque which I see mentioned in this forum. The WR suspension was rated much better than the KLX at higher trail speeds as was its high RPM power.

With a top speed of 90+, I would think re-gearing the WR would increase "grunt" with very little speed loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The outcome was pretty even. The big knock on the WR was lack of low end torque which I see mentioned in this forum. The WR suspension was rated much better than the KLX at higher trail speeds as was its high RPM power.

With a top speed of 90+, I would think re-gearing the WR would increase "grunt" with very little speed loss.

I have thought to myself that most reported top speeds are in the 90s and with a rough average of 10-15% speedo error, 95 mph indicated translates into 80-85 mph actual top speed. For those reports with larger than stock rear sprockets, the indicated speed will be higher at the same actual speed.

But maybe they got it to go faster:D Sounds like I need to buy a copy:)

/dh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only question that makes the comparison debatable is the price difference and if the WR is "worth it" imo

What do you mean by it was murder? Was it way biased one way or another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only question that makes the comparison debatable is the price difference and if the WR is "worth it" imo

What do you mean by it was murder? Was it way biased one way or another?

I have the mag and do not think it was murder on the WRR. They said they were both fine bikes for this market. They did say the WRR would be the bike for the more aggressive rider. They also mentioned anyone race related, would not want either bikes. NO SHIT IMO. Its not a race bike. In the end they favored the green because they think "it hit the mark perfectly" (price and level of entry bike)

My only complaint is that Dirt Bike Mag testers are not Dual Sport riders. So how do "they" know what is the best entry level bike? And since when are we testing "entry level bikes"? What about intermediate bikes? Why do all bikes have to be beginner or pro? And lastly, who set the mark anyway?

End of the day, from their article, reading between the lines the WRR was the better bike, just with a higher price tag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like if you take it in context, they gave about the right view. I mean, look at the title of the magazine - they compared it against what they are used to.

If we can get a review from "Cruiser World", they will also have their comments:)

We could predict them, if we cared to:

- Dirt Bike: done, predictable

- Motorcyclist:

- MCN:

- Cycle World:

- Custom Chopper:

...

Riff away!👍

/dh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This month's issue of Dirt Bike has a "shootout" between the WR250R and the KLX250 Kawasaki.

Last time I read Dirt Bike was probably about 30 years ago and some guy who went by the name "Super Hunky" seemed to be most of the writing staff all by himself and was always good for a couple of laughs. Given their rather irreverent style of the times, I'm surprised they're still around.

I don't know where I'd find that magazine around here, but I am curious to see the article. I got a decent test ride on both bikes on the same day. Although I am probably somewhat biased from being on this WR on the truck-for-bike exchange the last few weeks, I really didn't think there was any comparison the day I rode both. I'd give the Kawi better marks for being easier to get a leg over when mounting up, and a better seat height for my short little legs, and that's about it. I didn't try and rail the berms down at the local track or anything like that, but the single track and old dirt roads that I did go on, the WR felt a lot more nimble and sure footed than the Kawasaki. However, it is also quite possible that the dealership setup on the suspension was much closer for my weight on the Yamaha than the Kawi - one hour on each bike on one day isn't the same as really getting to mess around with the bikes.

For those who think the WR's seat is nasty (I personally haven't had any complaints so far), go sit on one of those KLX250S's - man, that seat is like sitting on a railroad tie (and I have straddled one or two of those while working on the track gang as a kid).

I mentioned that I thought the KLX was way behind compared to the WR (in a really nice way) at the Kawi dealership. Their response was that yeah, it was kind of dated technology, but the advantage was all the kinks were out of it by now and there was all kinds of big bore jugs that I could plunk on the KLX to enable me to really haul ass.

Hmmm... that's interesting, and I can kind of see what they're getting at. But all in all I thought I'd rather have a stock bike that already is where they are with replacing the jug. However, they don't seem to have a problem selling those Kawasakis either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me.

I don't buy that magazine and don't plan to start.

Did they dyno both bikes? What was the result?

Did they race both bikes head to head? What was the result?

OR . . .

Did they just dream up an arbitrary standard, like: "Beginner bikes like this should go 70 mph and cost $5k," and then decide the KLX "hit the mark" - that they set?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Last time I read Dirt Bike was probably about 30 years ago and some guy who went by the name "Super Hunky" seemed to be most of the writing staff all by himself and was always good for a couple of laughs. Given their rather irreverent style of the times, I'm surprised they're still around.

I don't know where I'd find that magazine around here, but I am curious to see the article. I got a decent test ride on both bikes on the same day. Although I am probably somewhat biased from being on this WR on the truck-for-bike exchange the last few weeks, I really didn't think there was any comparison the day I rode both. I'd give the Kawi better marks for being easier to get a leg over when mounting up, and a better seat height for my short little legs, and that's about it. I didn't try and rail the berms down at the local track or anything like that, but the single track and old dirt roads that I did go on, the WR felt a lot more nimble and sure footed than the Kawasaki. However, it is also quite possible that the dealership setup on the suspension was much closer for my weight on the Yamaha than the Kawi - one hour on each bike on one day isn't the same as really getting to mess around with the bikes.

For those who think the WR's seat is nasty (I personally haven't had any complaints so far), go sit on one of those KLX250S's - man, that seat is like sitting on a railroad tie (and I have straddled one or two of those while working on the track gang as a kid).

I mentioned that I thought the KLX was way behind compared to the WR (in a really nice way) at the Kawi dealership. Their response was that yeah, it was kind of dated technology, but the advantage was all the kinks were out of it by now and there was all kinds of big bore jugs that I could plunk on the KLX to enable me to really haul ass.

Hmmm... that's interesting, and I can kind of see what they're getting at. But all in all I thought I'd rather have a stock bike that already is where they are with replacing the jug. However, they don't seem to have a problem selling those Kawasakis either.

I felt the same way,, I would pay about half for the klx after I rode both. I say the bottom end on the wr is better than the klx in stock form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kawasaki makes a good living off of building bikes that work well and cost less. Their KDX200/220 line was a classic (I have a heavily modified one), their $5500 KLR650 is also a good example...many prefer it over the 10K BMWS and KTM's. I have one of those too. For the average guy, the majority of purchasers, the KLX250X is a great deal. How many on this forum are going to push either to the limits? I think that's where Dirt Bike is coming from.

Many here have gotten the WRR for the same OTD price as the KLX, in that case, there is no comparison.

For me 6-7 HP, the FI, and the front forks are worth 500 bucks, no sweat. Oh yeah, and the seat too, it isn't nearly as bad as most out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a murder. The Wr is better than the KLX almost everywhere. Though in some areas, only marginally. Where the KLX is better than the WR, the difference is marginal as well. Overall, the WR is hands-down better. I don't know if it's $1,300.00 better, but if you're your happy without the extra $$$ in your pocket, you're better off with the WR. At least it will keep up with traffic on the interstate. Also, remember these guys are used to riding race bikes. Both of these bikes look exactly the same to them when they ride them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaeger,

I bought a copy of the mag at an Albertson's store, if there are any of those in your neighborhood.

I thought the article was pretty balanced, actually kind of encouraging in the sense that neither bike was rated as a dog. They tried to give Kawai credit for what it got right with their bike. But if you like things like the EFI and the ti valves on the WRR, etc., then the Yamaha is the better bike.

I do remember reading on this forum - a lot - that the WRR likes to be revved, that's low-end is not a strong point. I think the article was pretty fair on that. IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes it a pretty easy bike to live with. Newbie friendly if you will you can burble it along commuting find or you can grab a handeful at high rpms and zoom off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've ridden both (owned neither) and see it a bit differently. I don't think the KLX has more bottom end. I think it gives that impression cause the WR's top end is so much better than it's bottom that it really showcases the difference. By comparison, the KLX doesn't have the better topend to showcase the poor bottom end so it feels better to the assometer. Bottom line - the WR has it over the KLX in almost (and I find them to be very small things) all regards.

I, too, wish the rags wouldn't try to weigh the factors (i.e. relative prices) for me. I can do that. "Just the facts, maam - please" for those old enough to remember Joe Friday and Dragnet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many on this forum are going to push either to the limits?

Damn near every time I raise the kick-stand and hit the go button, the limit is near, always very near, they're 250's for crying out loud.

I have an 07 KLX250S in the garage with 5,600 miles on the clock and my WRR is no doubt a superior and more refined machine.

The KLX advantages (IMHO) are as follows:

More comfortable seat.

Tachometer.

Price.

There are so many modifications that I had to do to the KLX just to make it a decent mount it wasn't even funny and my WRR will still run away and hide from it in stock form.

I like the KLX but I rarely ride it any more since the WRR came home and every time I do I appreciate the WRR even more.

KLX.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damn near every time I raise the kick-stand and hit the go button, the limit is near, always very near, they're 250's for crying out loud.

I have an 07 KLX250S in the garage with 5,600 miles on the clock KLX.jpg

That KLX doesn't look like its been ridden hard to me. Has it ever been off-roaded? It still looks new. Buzz'n an engine isn't riding it hard, IMO. Point is, most folks won't push the suspensions on either bike to the limits...nor will they be grasping for some front-end air over obstructions, or frying the clutch to get up some godawful single track. Those that do will appreciate the WRR more, I think, but most people who buy the bike for around-town pavement with the idea they'll occasionally go off-roading on non-technical trails and fireroads won't notice much difference between the two bikes. Heck, most people that ride off-road around my parts don't push their off-road only bikes very hard; most just putt-putt around on managed trails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That photo was taken last year when the bike had few miles.

And yeah, it has had the hell flogged out of it both on and off the pavement and IMHO the suspension (especially on the KLX) are the bikes weakest link.

Don't kid yourself; running those little mills with the throttle constantly pinned is taxing regardless.

The limits of the engine are easy to hit, the limits of the suspension are very easy to hit and the group of guys I ride the desert with are constantly pinned and restricted by them, but we don't have to haul the bikes in a trailer to get to ride like we do our MX machines.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...