Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

RM versus RMX

597 views
Skip to first unread message

Stewart Hutcheon

unread,
Feb 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/15/99
to
Hi,
I want a light 2 stroke (a few years old e.g. 94) for mainly enduro's
(hare and hounds).
Does anyone know the differences between the RM and RMX, e.g. weight, h.p.
suspension.
Thanks
Stewart

Leftduke

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to
I cant provide exact statistics regarding hp, but in terms of evaluating which
would be better a lot is based on your skill level and type of terriain. If
what your going to ride is tight twisty, east coast or your have yet to race,
the RMX would be better. The power is easy to control and the bike is light.
It always did well in bike tests. I have seen a few being raced by begginers
in local MX and do ok. I would purchase the RMX
sex

Laquetist

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to
the crank is heavier in the rmx
the flywheel is heavier
the gear ratio's of the tranny is set up for the woods on the rmx
the bike comes set up for the off-road riding
if you like night riding , the lighting is a plus.

ever notice you can ride a trail for years , but at night is a new thrill
.everything has changed in the dark.....

john.th...@adtran.com

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to
In article <36c82...@glitch.nildram.co.uk>,

I own a '96 RM250 and have ridden a '94 RM250 and a '90 RMX250. I don't think
the RMX changed much between '90 and '94 but I may be wrong. I would have to
say I liked the RM a lot better. The '90 RMX is a heavy feeling bike and I
hated the ergos (personal choice there). The RMX made sliding around in the
saddle difficult because of the severe seat slope towards the tank. If you
are advanced enough that you stand up a lot while you ride and you don't
mind a good powerband hit I would go with the RM. With minor modifications
only (bars, hand guards, pipe, spark arrestor, flywheel weight and maybe 5W
oil in the forks) the '94 RM makes a great woods bike for someone that
really likes to rip. In fact I think it has a better powerband for the woods
than my '96. If you prefer sitting down most of the time and letting the
suspension soak up the bumps instead of your legs then I would opt for the
RMX. Just my humble opinion. The '94 RMX may be much better than the '90
model but I can't say.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

spod...@rubicon.off-road.com

unread,
Feb 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM2/17/99
to
In article <36c82...@glitch.nildram.co.uk>,
"Stewart Hutcheon" <dr...@oasis.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> I want a light 2 stroke (a few years old e.g. 94) for mainly enduro's
> (hare and hounds).
> Does anyone know the differences between the RM and RMX, e.g. weight, h.p.

OK - here you go! Specs do change from year to year but use this as a general
guide. I personally like my '98 RM, I will post back with my impression after
the first Enduro of the season. I found the RMX to be generally more trail
ready with plusher suspension, solid bottom power with a power band tempered
with a little heavier flywheel.

The RM has decent bottom then switches over into "go like hell" mode. I like
the way it takes big hits.

'98 RM 250 SPECIFICATIONS http://www.suzukicycles.com/sr_98/rm250.htm

Engine: 249cc, two-stroke, single cylinder, liquid cooled, AETC+P, piston reed
Bore/Stroke: 66.4 x 72.0mm
Compression Ratio: 10.9:1 low RPM/9.0:1 high RPM
Carburetor: Keihin PWK38 w/PowerJet
Ignition: Suzuki PEI
Transmission: 5-speed
Final Drive: #525 chain
Overall Length: 2185mm (86.0 in.)
Overall Width: 815mm (32.1 in.)
Overall Height: 1245mm (49.0 in.)
Seat Height: 950mm (37.4 in.)
Ground Clearance: 350mm (13.8 in.)
Wheelbase: 1480mm (58.3 in.)
Dry Weight: 97kg (213 lbs.)
Suspension:
FRONT: New conventional twin chamber, oil-damped, 18 compression/18 rebound
settings, 11.4 inches (290mm) of travel
REAR: Link-type, spring preload fully adjustable, 20 compression & 21 rebound
settings, 12.6 inches (320mm) of travel
Brakes:
FRONT: Single hydraulic disc
REAR: Single hydraulic disc
Tires:
FRONT: 80/100-21-51M
REAR: 110/90-19-62M
Fuel Tank Capacity: 8.5 liter (2.2 gal.)
Color: Yellow

'98 RMX 250 SPECIFICATIONS http://www.suzukicycles.com/sr_98/rmx250.htm

Engine: 249cc, two-stroke, single cylinder, liquid-cooled, AETC, crankcase
reed Bore/Stroke: 67 x 70.8mm Compression Ratio: 9.8:1 low RPM/8.0:1 high RPM
Carburetor: Keihin PJ38 Ignition: Suzuki PEI Starter: kick Transmission:
5-speed Final Drive: #520 chain Overall Length: 2185mm (86.0 in.) Overall
Width: 895mm (35.2 in.) Overall Height: 1275mm (50.2 in.) Seat Height: 955mm
(37.6 in.) Ground Clearance: 340mm (13.4 in.) Wheelbase: 1485mm (58.5 in.)
Dry Weight: 108kg (238 lbs.) Suspension: FRONT: New Conventional cartridge,
oil-damped, 18 compression/ 14 rebound settings, 11.8 inches (300mm) of wheel
travel REAR: Link-type, fully adjustable spring preload, 21 compression/ 21
rebound damping setting, 12.8 inches (324mm) of wheel travel Brakes: FRONT:
Single hydraulic disc REAR: Single hydraulic disc Tires: FRONT: 80/100-21-51M
REAR: 110/100-18-64M Fuel Tank Capacity: 11 liter (3.0 gal.) Color: Yellow

_________________________________________________________
William "Spodeboy" Perry '98 RM 250 '90 RM 250 (for Sale)
http://www.off-road.com/~spodeboy/ 
Thanks to: Fay Myers Motorcycle World (I gotta sponsor!)

0 new messages