WR400 ? or XR400?
Ray
Leftduke
a decent trail rider who occasionally indulges a hare scramble here and there,
the XR is more then adaquate. Both however are very reliable. I have seen a
few XR's left on the local MX scene, but they are few and far between.
leftduke
Jay C
>Just wanted to hear some views/commends on whether WR400 or XR400 is
better?
Overall, in MY totally unbiased opinion, the XR400 is better. Compared to
the XR, the WR is faster and makes more HP, slower turning, heavier, breaks
more, and is made by Yamaha (yuck). The Honda is more reliable due to it's
archaic mechanical heritage and is built better. For tight Northeastern
woods, the XR is the clear winner - for Western open stuff, the WR is
probably a better choice.
Jay
'98 XR400
Chukdilla
is just no comparison. The XR is a play bike. BTW - the buddy got so frustrated
that he went out and bought a CR250 to be able to keep up (he hates yamaha)
Chuck
MWeissen
image some guys are painting that the WR is somehow not as reliable isn't true
IMHO.
I find that my WR is great in every way except two - turning ability isn't as
good as an XR, and I'm still not used to the seat height, which gets to me in
off-camber situations and going downhill where I have to dab my feet for
whatever reason.
If these items might bother you too, get the XR. For speed and stability, it's
tough to beat the WR.
Mark
'99 WR400
'97 XR250
Remove "nospam" from e-mail for reply
VLJ
>Just wanted to hear some views/commends on whether WR400 or XR400 is
better?
As with most things, "It depends." If you want to race, get the WR. If you
want to trail ride, get the XR.
I know a guy who, for lack of a better description, is _quite_stressful_ on
his equipment. He tips the scales at some 240+ lbs. and rides with a binary
throttle (idle or WFO). When asked how he liked the Yammie, the reply was
"It ain't a Honda. I've had to fix so many damn things on this its pissin'
me off." He breaks Hondas too ... :-)
In addition to being more "robust" in design, the XR is also a simpler
machine which means that there are fewer points of failure like radiators
and coolant loss. The YZ/WR model line is just too new to really know what
their long term life is like but the XRs have an outstanding history of
going forever given frequent oil changes and basic maintenance. My wife
lets me buy a new dirt bike every 10 years whether I need one or not.
The XR will also go a longer distance than the WR given how thirsty the
Yammie is. From estimates on fuel consumption I've heard from WR riders, an
XR will go 50% farther on the same amount of fuel as the WR. My preferred
riding consists of 100-150+ mi. loops so range is a big deal to me.
The WR can take faster speeds better but the XR will out-turn it in the
tight stuff. Both of them are sprung waaaaay to stiff for trail work so
either one of them will need suspension work to be a good woods machine.
They are both nice machines, just narrow down what kind of riding you'll be
doing the most of and make your choice ...
Good ridin' to ya,
Victor Johnson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
'75 Goldwing "Big air. Kids today, that's all they want, big air.
'89 Hawk GT I say keep it on the dirt, that's where the fun is.
'98 XR400R You want big air kid? Pull my finger."
http://www.vlj.com - Smooth Johnson (master of the berm)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Uwe Hale
Jay C <stu...@tp.net> wrote in message
news:UvKg3.489$El3....@news15.ispnews.com...
> more, and is made by Yamaha (yuck). The Honda is more reliable due to
it's
> archaic mechanical heritage and is built better.
how tuff are those frames?<g>
Uwe Hale - 89 YZ250WR, 99 GasGas EC200
http://www.smackovermotorsports.com
Richard
was watching dust creep into his airbox while he was holding his airfilter
in his hand cleaning it. He was also having jetting problems. I on the other
hand had a YZ 400 with no problems at all. I know motocrossers that put more
stress on the YZ than that guy did . I must agree with him though on one
thing. It ain't no Honda. It is however, a superior machine in almost every
aspect. It is of new design, uses the latest technology in cylinder
coatings, and 5 head valve technology. I have found higher performance
machines are not as reliable as lower performance machines (like the XR) but
I do not think this is true with the Yamie. 2 years is not enough time to
tell but it is looking good so far.
Everyone has there opinion, some people prefer air cooling to water cooling.
Cars, newer motorcycles, most combustion engines that are designed for
longevity or high horse power use water. Some people prefer 15 hp less to
make a motorcycle easier to ride. Some people prefer flexible motorcycle
frames and outdated technology. Some people are afraid of new things. Some
people don't like blue. Not me, and even though I still love my 2 stroke
(KX500) there will always be a place in my heart for my YZ400. I have ridden
an XR400 and may do it again, but why?
The XR has advantages in the tight stuff but gear down a YZ/WR and it will
make a big difference. They say it is reliable, it is, but it produces
little hp which means greater tolerances and less stress. My opinion is it
is a better all around bike than the Honda. Honda makes good motorcycles but
when you sit back and watch others pass you by, you get left in the dust.
And Yamaha is flying by.
Richard
Ray wrote in message <7lvmpa$v3v$1...@mango.singnet.com.sg>...
Josh Harmon
VLJ wrote:
> The WR can take faster speeds better but the XR will out-turn it in the
> tight stuff. Both of them are sprung waaaaay to stiff for trail work so
> either one of them will need suspension work to ^^^ good woods machine.
Stiff? Vic is that a typo?
Josh Harmon
99 300EXC
gor...@hotmail.com
says...
> Just wanted to hear some views/commends on whether WR400 or XR400 is better?
>
>
>
This chap doesn't really go round and get his bike and pants dirty at
all. He's just tossing up the XR against the WR for normal road use,
travelling from maybe Bedok to Jurong on the highway. Tell u what Jay, go
ask the girls and just follow the Oohs and Ahhs. U should come pretty
close.
Regards,
Gore444
'93 Cagiva Freecia C12
'99 Suzuki TS200RK
MX Tuner
wrote:
>Just wanted to hear some views/commends on whether WR400 or XR400 is better?
Better for what?
MX Tuner
spam"@worldnet.att.net Flash
Jay C <stu...@tp.net> wrote in article
<UvKg3.489$El3....@news15.ispnews.com>...
> Ray wrote in message <7lvmpa$v3v$1...@mango.singnet.com.sg>...
> >Just wanted to hear some views/commends on whether WR400 or XR400 is
> better?
>
>
> Overall, in MY totally unbiased opinion, the XR400 is better. Compared
to
> the XR, the WR is faster and makes more HP, slower turning, heavier,
breaks
> more, and is made by Yamaha (yuck). The Honda is more reliable due to
it's
> archaic mechanical heritage and is built better. For tight Northeastern
> woods, the XR is the clear winner - for Western open stuff, the WR is
> probably a better choice.
>
> Jay
> '98 XR400
>
>
Unbiased? Hardly! Let's give the facts. You state the WR is heavier.
Wrong. They're pretty much even here. Slower turning? It depends on the
type of turn. In 80% of the terrain types out there, the WR is the better
handling bike. Breaks more? Wrong! The Yamaha is proving to be extremely
reliable. I've been bashing mine for a year with no break-downs. I haven't
had so much as a seal leak. My only repairs have been due to crashes. (a
broken clutch lever and a bent handlebar). Ridden hard, the WR will
probably hold together better than the XR. The fit and finish on the WR is
as good as the XR, maybe better. Yes, I'm biased, but I'm not brand loyal.
I simply bought what I though was the better all-around bike.
Flash, 98 WR400F
Rowdy
>
> Ray wrote in message <7lvmpa$v3v$1...@mango.singnet.com.sg>...
> >Just wanted to hear some views/commends on whether WR400 or XR400 is
> better?
>
> Overall, in MY totally unbiased opinion, the XR400 is better. Compared to
> the XR, the WR is faster and makes more HP, slower turning, heavier, breaks
> more, and is made by Yamaha (yuck). The Honda is more reliable due to it's
we hear ya!
> archaic mechanical heritage and is built better. For tight Northeastern
> woods, the XR is the clear winner - for Western open stuff, the WR is
> probably a better choice.
Heavier? no.
Breaks more? Hahaha, reading the Honda newsletter again?
Turning? depends. The WR has more limiting steering locks(sp?).
What about the flexy XR fork?
Did you rejet your XR today? (at least the first model year was a pain
to jet)
Jay, you forgot to mention the XRs "ease" of starting when hot. ;]
AND, the YAMAHAs do come with suspension and decent ergonomics!!
Any XR, be it the 400 or the 600 need stiffer springs, revalving, some
A-Loop kit, and so on. You have to bring them to this century's
engineering standards before you can compare those bikes at all.
It's unfair to compare them, no matter what mods. you did.
Different leagues, even for trail riding.
(But one has to admit the XR4 cost much less over here,
since the yamahas are out: like 75000öS vs. 92000öS)
HTH
Rowdy
WR400F
Tim (fusion1)
> My opinion is it is a better all around bike than the Honda. Honda makes
>good motorcycles but when you sit back and watch others pass you by, you
>get left in the dust.
>And Yamaha is flying by.
[snip]
I'm pretty much in agreement with this, although I own a 98 XR.
Am I the only one wants something between an air cooled stone axe, and
a twin cam, 5 valve electronically-controlled everything?
I want a liquid cooled, SOHC 4 valve engine (this makes valve angles
less than optimal?) with a pumper carb.
No throttle position sensors, solenoids, or doo-dads that can
mysteriously and irreversibly deprive me of spark or fuel in the
middle of nowhere. I'm not a techno-phobe, but when I see wires going
to a carburetor, I know I'm not fixing it in the woods at dusk.
The new KTM looks like it strikes a nice balance between performance
and complexity, but that means nothing until it gets the real world
thrash test the WR/YZ got.
For me, a 4 stroke is a mount for long range riding, be it dual sport
or mega trail rides like Victor does.
Simplicity is a virtue in a situation like this, and I'd rather be on
a two stroke for everything else.
I'm going to keep the XR and see what happens with the KTM, and the
bikes in the rumor mill, like the new XR, KLX400, etc.
Tim
Rowdy
That, or he tips the scales at 140.
Rowdy
WRZ400F'92
Jay C
>
>Jay C <stu...@tp.net> wrote in message
>news:UvKg3.489$El3....@news15.ispnews.com...
>
>> more, and is made by Yamaha (yuck). The Honda is more reliable due to
>it's
>
Pthththththt. Shitty - I want aluminum! The XR IS flimsy, but mechanically
indestructable. However, I've examined the YZ4's frame and I expect that it
is the same or worse as far as being able to swallow a 40 MPH smack into
solid rock (God, I HATE when that happens). Have you seen the BBR
CR-chassied XR400 yet? Now THAT'S a bike!!
Jay
Jay C
>travelling from maybe Bedok to Jurong on the highway. Tell u what Jay, go
>ask the girls and just follow the Oohs and Ahhs. U should come pretty
>close.
I totally have no idea what this means.
Jay
DirtCrashr
This means Malaysia or Singapore or something...
> Tell u what Jay, go
>>ask the girls and just follow the Oohs and Ahhs. U should come pretty
>>close.
This means...poser?---hellifiknow ;-)
HOSEHEAD
>
> Just wanted to hear some views/commends on whether WR400 or XR400 is
> better?
Better than no bike, sure....<ducking behind large new england stone
wall>
VLJ
>Josh Harmon wrote:
>>
>> VLJ wrote:
>>
>> > The WR can take faster speeds better but the XR will out-turn it in the
>> > tight stuff. Both of them are sprung waaaaay to stiff for trail work
so
>> > either one of them will need suspension work to ^^^ good woods machine.
>>
>> Stiff? Vic is that a typo?
Lemme rephrase that. The high speed compression is too harsh and needs to
be softened up. In stock trim, it wants to kick and deflect off ledges,
logs, roots and rocks. Pretty ill behaved. After a re-valve, it'll now go
where I point it and not be all twitchy about it.
>That, or he tips the scales at 140.
More like 170 lb. nekkid and over 200 lb. all geared up with a full
camelback ...
Leav Home
>CR-chassied XR400 yet? Now THAT'S a bike!!
Jay, it's time to forget the XR/CR chassis deal. Just get the CR chassis with
the rocket engine that it comes with. Do you still remember that insane power
to weight ratio of the CR250 you rode? You know you want it, I know you want
it, so just get it!
-Franky
98 CR250 (It's good)
OffRoader
>>ask the girls and just follow the Oohs and Ahhs.
>I totally have no idea what this means.
Aha!! So you admit you've never gotten Oohs and Ahhs from girls!!
--
OffRoader
'96 XR400R
>gor...@hotmail.com wrote in message ...
>>travelling from maybe Bedok to Jurong on the highway. Tell u what Jay, go
U should come pretty
>>close.
>
>
>
>Jay
>
>
DirtCrashr
>be softened up. In stock trim, it wants to kick and deflect off ledges,
>logs, roots and rocks. Pretty ill behaved. After a re-valve, it'll now go
>where I point it and not be all twitchy about it.
You got that right ;-) It's sweet after a re-valve.
Say, what jetting should I run on my '97 up thar in Colo-rooty?
My airbox lid's off and there's a vor-tip in the exhaust - stock airfilter.
keith - '97xr400
Ride The Divide or Bust
Wesley Grass
|>
|>
|> keith - '97xr400
|> Ride The Divide or Bust
--
I'll take the "bust" please.
Wes
DirtCrashr
>|> Ride The Divide or Bust
>
>--
>I'll take the "bust" please.
>
>Wes
Just where will you take it? Dinner and a movie?
-keith