Can't decide: Kawasaki KDX200 or Honda XR250R
Velveeta Whore
I'm an experienced mountain biker who is looking to switch to something
with an enigne in it! I want a trail bike around 250cc and I have no idea
what is good and what sux. I have been looking at a 1991 Honda XR 250R and
a 1992 Kawasaki KDX 250. They are both $2,500 and in good shape. Does
anyone know if there are certain years that were bad for these bikes, and
also pros and cons for each of these bikes. I want a bike mainly for trail
riding, but I also want to be able to get some air. Any input would be
great.
Andy
David Condrey
In article <01bc44ad$c9d14f60$cd3aa3cd@ahunt>, ah...@olywa.net says...
Welcome to the dirt bike community.
I've ridden both, but if I were buying a play/trail bike today, I'd get the
Kawasaki KDX220. The KDX220 new for 1997, although they still make the 200.
So, if you are looking at a used bike, the KDX200 is it.
As for pros and cons. The KDX is a 2 stroke, so the power is a little
snappier. The XR is a 4 stroke so you don't have to mix gas. The KDX feels
lighter and more agile when you are riding it. The XR is probably the
tougher of the two as far as neglecting maintenance goes. 2stroke guys
will make fun of the XR, although it sounds cool.
I'm sure you would be happy with either bike.
-David
'97 RM250 #131
Steve
On 9 Apr 1997 21:32:27 GMT, "David Wray" <dave...@vnet.ibm.com>
wrote:
>
>bike to grow with. The XR-250 is just kind of dull (woops, watch out for
>those XR-250 lovers out there!).
>
I love a good flame war, so I'll fire the first shot. The XR250 is a
pretty good package it's just that to get it to work you've got to rev
it like a two stroke. It requires a lot of shifting and throttle to
make it go fast. If I'm going to do all that work I might as well be
on a 125 two stroke and shed the 25 pounds. Anything less than a well
tuned 350cc's in a four stroke is pointless. Go with the KDX 200 if
you like to rip. Go with the XR250 if you are a trail rider.
aged and lazy CRE250 pilot
David Wray
Velveeta Whore <ah...@olywa.net> wrote in article
<01bc44ad$c9d14f60$cd3aa3cd@ahunt>...
> I'm an experienced mountain biker who is looking to switch to something
> with an enigne in it! I want a trail bike around 250cc and I have no
idea
> what is good and what sux. I have been looking at a 1991 Honda XR 250R
and
> a 1992 Kawasaki KDX 250. They are both $2,500 and in good shape. Does
> anyone know if there are certain years that were bad for these bikes, and
> also pros and cons for each of these bikes. I want a bike mainly for
trail
> riding, but I also want to be able to get some air. Any input would be
> great.
>
> Andy
In your subject you mention KDX-200 but in the text you mention a KDX-250
... I would pass on the 250. I would recommend a KDX-200. I'm guessing
that you might get bored with the XR-250. Also, do you know any guys that
ride dirt bikes (with engines, that is!)? Getting to take a ride or two on
some bikes would really help you decide what to get.
The KDX-200 is easy to ride, fairly quiet (in stock form) but still pretty
zippy. With some small modifications it can be really improved. A good
bike to grow with. The XR-250 is just kind of dull (woops, watch out for
those XR-250 lovers out there!).
Be sure and take it easy your first rides ... you might try to do mountain
bike stuff on the motorcycle and get in trouble. I started with years of
dirt bikes (w/engines) and then also got into mountain bikes ... there were
several times on the mountain bike that I would click into dirt bike mode
and get hurt! Ok ok, I'll give you an example ... I was on this single
track trail that was pretty smooth and somewhat downhill ... that allowed
me to carry quite a bit of speed ... the bicycle could handle so quick it
was great ... so I kind of clicked into dirt bike mode ... towards the
bottom of this hill the trail crossed a creek about 4-5 feet wide with
rocks in it ... I can't believe I did this, but I just keep booking along,
pulled back on the bars and even twisted the right grip thinking I was
going to loft the front end and wheelie thru the creek ala dirt bike mode
... instead the front wheel came up about 4 inches I quickly remember I was
on a bicycle and not a motorcycle the front wheel came down in the middle
of the creek and it wasn't a pretty sight. No serious injuries but I can't
believe I did it.
Good luck,
David
Pat n Cin
I own each one of these bikes,and im trying to decide which one to
sell,but I think I
made my decision on the kdx.I had one a while ago,I just baught a
89'KDX200
for $850.00.I also have a 95'XR250 that I will be selling for
$2400.00.These bikes
are totally different ones a tractor the others a sports car.I put a
suppertrapp on
the XR sounds good,but the bike has no power,but I like to drive it on
snow covered trails.The KDX has a full pipe and a bunch of other
performance mods,go
super,im glad to have one again (can you say wheelie machine):) this bike
is almost as fast as a stock KX250 not as fast just almost.I like both
bikes so if the
XR doesn't sell I guess i'll have to drive both,can I have the best of
both worlds.
Good Luck!!!!!!
Mark Klein
>I love a good flame war, so I'll fire the first shot. The XR250 is a
>pretty good package it's just that to get it to work you've got to rev
>it like a two stroke. It requires a lot of shifting and throttle to
>make it go fast. If I'm going to do all that work I might as well be
>on a 125 two stroke and shed the 25 pounds. Anything less than a well
>tuned 350cc's in a four stroke is pointless. Go with the KDX 200 if
>you like to rip. Go with the XR250 if you are a trail rider.
Steve,
You realize, of course, when you make sense, this is NOT good ammo for
a flame war. Thanks for peeing on my match.
>aged and lazy and no fun CRE250 pilot
MX Tuner
Kenneth Murphy
Steve (xspa...@webspan.net) wrote:
: tuned 350cc's in a four stroke is pointless. Go with the KDX 200 if
: you like to rip. Go with the XR250 if you are a trail rider.
I disagree (that's ok right?) and here's why. The original poster sounded
like someone who is just getting started riding. The powerband on an XR250
is very becoming to a newbie, I agree. What I disagree with is that it
make a good, even adequate, trail bike for a beginner, for one simple reason:
Drop it (which you will, LOTS) and its a bitch to start. Drop a KDX and
it'll fire right up. How do I know this? My wife's first bike was an
XR250. She learned to ride, on trails, and absolutely got sick of kicking
the XR after two or three sessions. I was told to buy a new bike, she
wanted my 87 KDX.
: aged and lazy CRE250 pilot
--
O aka Ken Murphy (kmur...@ford.com) Owner/Operator: 94YZ250
<M>erfMan Supported by: Jen, Erin, Acerbis, DNA Racing, Boysen, Twin Air,
_/ \_ FMF, Sprocket Specialists, and Slavens Racing
Disclaimer: Don't even pretend you thought I spoke for the Ford Motor Company
Chuck Smillie
HONDA.
They are better made and you can find TONS of parts in salvage yards
since the design is much the same.
--
Smillie
Silver Eagle Racing
Shocks Rebuilt $35
Joe Blow
In article <5iiq5p$a7...@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>
kmur...@chip1.uucp (Kenneth Murphy) wrote:
> Steve (xspa...@webspan.net) wrote:
> : tuned 350cc's in a four stroke is pointless. Go with the KDX 200 if
> : you like to rip. Go with the XR250 if you are a trail rider.
>
> I disagree (that's ok right?) and here's why. The original poster sounded
> like someone who is just getting started riding. The powerband on an XR250
> is very becoming to a newbie, I agree. What I disagree with is that it
> make a good, even adequate, trail bike for a beginner, for one simple reason:
> Drop it (which you will, LOTS) and its a bitch to start. Drop a KDX and
> it'll fire right up. How do I know this? My wife's first bike was an
> XR250. She learned to ride, on trails, and absolutely got sick of kicking
> the XR after two or three sessions. I was told to buy a new bike, she
> wanted my 87 KDX.
>
i had an 87 XR 80 and that thing was Mr. Reliable. that thing would start 1st
or 2nd kick after being stored over the whole winter. and when i fell, it would
start right up . maybe because its only an 80?
Victor Johnson
David Wray (dave...@vnet.ibm.com) sez:
: Velveeta Whore <ah...@olywa.net> wrote in article
: <01bc44ad$c9d14f60$cd3aa3cd@ahunt>...
: > I'm an experienced mountain biker who is looking to switch to something
: > with an enigne in it! I want a trail bike around 250cc and I have no
: idea
: > what is good and what sux. I have been looking at a 1991 Honda XR 250R
: and
: > a 1992 Kawasaki KDX 250. They are both $2,500 and in good shape. Does
: > anyone know if there are certain years that were bad for these bikes, and
: > also pros and cons for each of these bikes. I want a bike mainly for
: trail
: > riding, but I also want to be able to get some air. Any input would be
: > great.
: >
: > Andy
<snip>
: The KDX-200 is easy to ride, fairly quiet (in stock form) but still pretty
: zippy. With some small modifications it can be really improved. A good
: bike to grow with. The XR-250 is just kind of dull (woops, watch out for
: those XR-250 lovers out there!).
Hey, I resemble that remark! I ride a '93 XR250R and, yes, the
thing is a wheezer when it comes to torque/power. A few teeth
on the rear to up it to 50-52 helps a bit.
However, there are sundry times when this is an advantage since
being able to put controllable power to the ground is a good thing -
especially when you are climbing a wet rock 'n root strewn snotty
uphill ... pretty good in snow too.
In addition, with the IMS 4.7 gal. tank, I can get a range of over
220 miles in the backcountry. I haven't seen a 2-smoke that comes
close yet to that range yet. :-)
On the XR, if the suspension is stock, it could use some help on
stiffening things up. I put some Eibach spring in my forks, a
Progressive spring on the rear and had Moose revalve the back shock.
I don't bottom on jumps/whoops anymore and it still has that soft
touch for technical work.
Cheers,
Victor "Dances with Hawks" Johnson
_______________________________________________________________________
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to '89 Hawk 650
the accidental opinion of a day. But a series '75 Goldwing
of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, '93 XR250R
and pursued unalterably through every change of '97 KX60
@ ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate '94 KTM SX50
...#%\ systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." -Thomas Jefferson
____O^_O_______________________________________________________________
Steve
On 10 Apr 1997 13:32:41 GMT, kmur...@chip1.uucp (Kenneth Murphy)
wrote:
>Steve (xspa...@webspan.net) wrote:
>: tuned 350cc's in a four stroke is pointless. Go with the KDX 200 if
>: you like to rip. Go with the XR250 if you are a trail rider.
>
>I disagree (that's ok right?) and here's why. The original poster sounded
>like someone who is just getting started riding. The powerband on an XR250
>is very becoming to a newbie, I agree. What I disagree with is that it
>make a good, even adequate, trail bike for a beginner, for one simple reason:
>Drop it (which you will, LOTS) and its a bitch to start. Drop a KDX and
>it'll fire right up. How do I know this? My wife's first bike was an
>XR250. She learned to ride, on trails, and absolutely got sick of kicking
>the XR after two or three sessions. I was told to buy a new bike, she
>wanted my 87 KDX.
>
I have never owned an XR250 but I do have an XR600. Yes, if you drop
it, it is difficult to start. It usually takes 8 or so kicks with the
compression release in, but then it will usually fire up. I've ridden
two XR250's and neither were difficult to start even though both had
the compression release wired shut. (In fact, when I first got on an
XR250 after riding my CG DR400 I thought the compression release was
stuck open.) Your observations about the KDX are correct. Mine would
light in two or three kicks even after being upside down and
hemmoraging fuel from every crevice. Trail riding for a newbie will be
poking along on well worn trails. I've taken newbies on some pretty
rough first rides, (at their insistence, some of them were in tears
after only 15 miles) and the starting of their XR250L's never seemed
to be an issue. The missing signals, smashed light, and hammered
plastic was, though. Ooooops!
aged and sadistic CRE250 pilot
fidler
Velveeta Whore wrote:
>
> I'm an experienced mountain biker who is looking to switch to something
> with an enigne in it! I want a trail bike around 250cc and I have no idea
> what is good and what sux. I have been looking at a 1991 Honda XR 250R and
> a 1992 Kawasaki KDX 250. They are both $2,500 and in good shape. Does
> anyone know if there are certain years that were bad for these bikes, and
> also pros and cons for each of these bikes. I want a bike mainly for trail
> riding, but I also want to be able to get some air. Any input would be
> great.
>
> Andy
the subject sez kdx 200 and your post says 250. if its the 250, i'd
probably pass. i have heard too many horror stories of exploded engines
and busted parts about them. if its the 200 i would snag it quick. it
is a great trail bike and is very reliable. as for the honda, i'm a
little biased(i'm an official honda hater) if the Kawasaki was the 250
and i HAD to choose one of these i would take the XR. but i'd stick to
pedaling before i buy a honda....yukkkkkkkk!!
luke fidler
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arcade/5594/index.html
go here to find out why you should find a suzuki to ride!
faster till i crash
Steve
On 10 Apr 1997 17:29:50 GMT, v...@fc.hp.com (Victor Johnson) wrote:
>
> Hey, I resemble that remark! I ride a '93 XR250R and, yes, the
> thing is a wheezer when it comes to torque/power. A few teeth
> on the rear to up it to 50-52 helps a bit.
>
> However, there are sundry times when this is an advantage since
> being able to put controllable power to the ground is a good thing -
> especially when you are climbing a wet rock 'n root strewn snotty
> uphill ... pretty good in snow too.
I can tell you from experience. The KDX will drag your tired,
worthless ass up anything a 4 stroke will. I raced the DR, and I
raced the KDX. The KDX has low tractable power as good as most 4
strokes. I have taken more than one hill literally dragging off the
back of the KDX on some pretty slick surfaces. (I hope my riding
buddies don't read this.)
aged and embarrassed CRE250 pilot
Rob Larsen
> >with an enigne in it! I want a trail bike around 250cc and I have no idea
> >what is good and what sux. I have been looking at a 1991 Honda XR 250R and
> >a 1992 Kawasaki KDX 250. They are both $2,500 and in good shape. Does
> >anyone know if there are certain years that were bad for these bikes, and
> >also pros and cons for each of these bikes. I want a bike mainly for trail
> >riding, but I also want to be able to get some air. Any input would be
> >great.
>
>
> I've ridden both, but if I were buying a play/trail bike today, I'd get the
> Kawasaki KDX220. The KDX220 new for 1997, although they still make the 200.
> So, if you are looking at a used bike, the KDX200 is it.
>
> As for pros and cons. The KDX is a 2 stroke, so the power is a little
> snappier. The XR is a 4 stroke so you don't have to mix gas. The KDX feels
> lighter and more agile when you are riding it. The XR is probably the
> tougher of the two as far as neglecting maintenance goes. 2stroke guys
> will make fun of the XR, although it sounds cool.
>
> I'm sure you would be happy with either bike.
> -David
> '97 RM250 #131
except change the oil, clean the filter and keep it lubed. I have
replaced the rear tire, both sprockets, and chain each once. I have a
supertrapp on it and last weekend I outran my buddy on his '92 RM in a
desert type duel. If you want something that will last and is still
faster than _____, then get the XR. Oh, by the way, I have a KDX 175 in
my garage that is in pieces. When I get it put back to gether I will
let you know what I think of the difference. My XR is completely stock
except the Supertrapp. Just my 2 cents........
--
Rob Larsen
lar...@micron.net
2 Honda FL400R Pilots, Honda XR250R, & 10 Akitas
http://netnow.micron.net/~ctnwood
Pat n Cin
Sounds like you need two bikes,but I could be wrong?
Pat
95XR250R(mine)
89KDX200(mine)
Kenneth Murphy
Joe Blow (gear...@interactive.net) wrote:
: In article <5iiq5p$a7...@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>
: kmur...@chip1.uucp (Kenneth Murphy) wrote:
: i had an 87 XR 80 and that thing was Mr. Reliable. that thing would start 1st
: or 2nd kick after being stored over the whole winter. and when i fell, it would
: start right up . maybe because its only an 80?
Could be. (?) I don't think the 200's suffer this affliction either. Hers
was a double carb 250 and was a STONE BITCH to start after it was dropped.
As always, YMMV.
Kenneth Murphy
Steve (xspa...@webspan.net) wrote:
: On 10 Apr 1997 13:32:41 GMT, kmur...@chip1.uucp (Kenneth Murphy)
: wrote:
: I have never owned an XR250 but I do have an XR600. Yes, if you drop
: it, it is difficult to start. It usually takes 8 or so kicks with the
: compression release in, but then it will usually fire up. I've ridden
As I said in a previous post: The XR200's don't seem to suffer this
affliction either. That damn 250 would take 10 kicks minimum to light.
It could have been the double carb setup, I don't know. Don't really
care, I won't be owning another double carb stroker unless I don't have
a choice. FWIW, I can't imagine a rank newbie on a 600. ;)
: poking along on well worn trails. I've taken newbies on some pretty
: rough first rides, (at their insistence, some of them were in tears
: after only 15 miles) and the starting of their XR250L's never seemed
: to be an issue. The missing signals, smashed light, and hammered
: plastic was, though. Ooooops!
Oh, yea, she busted lots of stuff. I always like to brag on her though,
she perservered through some pretty hard rides, and now she flat
smokes! Ask Baxter. ;) I think he was mildly surprised when he came
riding with us a couple years ago.
: aged and sadistic CRE250 pilot
Steve
On 11 Apr 1997 13:41:39 GMT, kmur...@chip1.uucp (Kenneth Murphy)
wrote:
>a choice. FWIW, I can't imagine a rank newbie on an XR 600. ;)
>
I think it would be a short trip. The bike literally tries to jump
out from under you. Which is far better than on top of you. I got
trapped under mine and it literally took 10 minutes of wiggling to
free my leg because I could get no leverage.
aged CRE250 pilot and glutton for punishment
SSmyers102
>Pat
>95XR250R(mine)
>89KDX200(mine)
looks like you have got the ultimate solution ! I have arrived at the
same conclusions
Scott
96KTM R/XC 620 ( 4 stroke)
92KTM 250 E/XC ( 2 stroke)
Victor Johnson
Kenneth Murphy (kmur...@chip1.uucp) sez:
: Joe Blow (gear...@interactive.net) wrote:
: : In article <5iiq5p$a7...@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>
: : kmur...@chip1.uucp (Kenneth Murphy) wrote:
: : i had an 87 XR 80 and that thing was Mr. Reliable. that thing would start 1st
: : or 2nd kick after being stored over the whole winter. and when i fell, it would
: : start right up . maybe because its only an 80?
: Could be. (?) I don't think the 200's suffer this affliction either. Hers
: was a double carb 250 and was a STONE BITCH to start after it was dropped.
: As always, YMMV.
Ya know, maybe I have an XR with unusually good karma (and probably
shot ta hell now that I'm braggin' on it :-) but my 250 lites up on
1-2 kicks cold or hot. If its been on the side, 3-4 kicks w/gas
WO and compression release on followed by 1-2 kicks with just a
crack of throttle does it every time.
Robert W Current
Steve (xspa...@webspan.net) wrote:
: On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:09:12 -0700, Rob Larsen <lar...@micron.net>
: wrote:
: >I have owned an XR250R for 15 years..... <SNIP>
: > <SNIP> ....and last weekend I outran my buddy on his '92 RM in a
: >desert type duel.
: >Rob Larsen
: Next time put gas in the RM.
: S Jamison
: aged incredulous CRE250 pilot
I think the loud and clear message here is, machinary is no substute for
skill. (if one rider was highly skilled in this case, or the other was
extreemly lacking in skill is the only real question)
Steve
>I have owned an XR250R for 15 years. I haven't done a thing to it
>except change the oil, clean the filter and keep it lubed. I have
>replaced the rear tire, both sprockets, and chain each once. I have a
>supertrapp on it and last weekend I outran my buddy on his '92 RM in a
Cam Mitchell
>>I have owned an XR250R for 15 years. I haven't done a thing to it
>>except change the oil, clean the filter and keep it lubed. I have
>>replaced the rear tire, both sprockets, and chain each once. I have a
>>supertrapp on it and last weekend I outran my buddy on his '92 RM in a
>>desert type duel.
>>Rob Larsen
>
>Next time put gas in the RM.
>S Jamison
>aged incredulous CRE250 pilot
Hahaha.. either taht or he forgot to mention that it was a '79 RM80.
>
--
--
/-------------------------------------\
| bcm...@bikerider.com |
>-------------------v-----------------<
| 94 Kawasaki KX500 | 96 GT Tequesta |
>-------------------^-----------------<
| http://users.uniserve.com/~cmitchel |
\-------------------------------------/
jeff dunham
David Wray <dave...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in article
<01bc452d$90da4600$5ea0...@barium.almaden.ibm.com>...
>
> The KDX-200 is easy to ride, fairly quiet (in stock form) but still
pretty
> zippy. With some small modifications it can be really improved. A good
> bike to grow with. The XR-250 is just kind of dull (woops, watch out for
> those XR-250 lovers out there!).
>
The only downside to the XR is the rather wimpy stock suspension.
In tight woods without alot of whoops this isn't a real drawback and the
thing will run, and run, and run...
For the past 11 years, I have been riding and racing XR250s.
- I have experienced no boredom.
- The bikes have been ultra reliable.
- The power is smooth and controllable making it a blast to ride
when the going get's tight or slimey.
- BTW, Mr. Wray, I love riding with guys on KTMs, RMXs and
enduro-ized mx'ers. When you flat walk away from them
on an XR250, they are a bit stunned...
jeff dunham
1995 XR300R.
Bob Gronotte
--------------20B04D3705F39DE5E7367D97
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY>
David Condrey wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In article <01bc44ad$c9d14f60$cd3aa3cd@ahunt>,
ah...@olywa.net says...
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>>I'm an experienced mountain biker who is looking to switch to something</I>
<BR><I>>with an enigne in it! I want a trail bike around 250cc and I
have no idea</I>
<BR><I>>what is good and what sux. I have been looking at a 1991 Honda
XR 250R and</I>
<BR><I>>a 1992 Kawasaki KDX 250. They are both $2,500 and in good shape.
Does</I>
<BR><I>>anyone know if there are certain years that were bad for these bikes,
and</I>
<BR><I>>also pros and cons for each of these bikes. I want a bike mainly
for trail</I>
<BR><I>>riding, but I also want to be able to get some air. Any input
would be</I>
<BR><I>>great.</I>
<BR>
<BR>Welcome to the dirt bike community.
<BR>
<BR>I've ridden both, but if I were buying a play/trail bike today, I'd get
the
<BR>Kawasaki KDX220. The KDX220 new for 1997, although they still make the
200.
<BR>So, if you are looking at a used bike, the KDX200 is it.
<BR>
<BR>As for pros and cons. The KDX is a 2 stroke, so the power is a little
<BR>snappier. The XR is a 4 stroke so you don't have to mix gas. The KDX feels
<BR>lighter and more agile when you are riding it. The XR is probably the
<BR>tougher of the two as far as neglecting maintenance goes. 2stroke guys
<BR>will make fun of the XR, although it sounds cool.
<BR>
<BR>I'm sure you would be happy with either bike.
<BR>-David
<BR>'97 RM250 #131
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with David, I've had both bikes as well and
the KDX is decent on
<BR> both the track and trails.
<BR>
<BR> Bob 95RM 250 #63
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------20B04D3705F39DE5E7367D97
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><BODY>
David Condrey wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In article <01bc44ad$c9d14f60$cd3aa3cd@ahunt>,
ah...@olywa.net says...
<BR><I>></I>
<BR><I>>I'm an experienced mountain biker who is looking to switch to something</I>
<BR><I>>with an enigne in it! I want a trail bike around 250cc and I
have no idea</I>
<BR><I>>what is good and what sux. I have been looking at a 1991 Honda
XR 250R and</I>
<BR><I>>a 1992 Kawasaki KDX 250. They are both $2,500 and in good shape.
Does</I>
<BR><I>>anyone know if there are certain years that were bad for these bikes,
and</I>
<BR><I>>also pros and cons for each of these bikes. I want a bike mainly
for trail</I>
<BR><I>>riding, but I also want to be able to get some air. Any input
would be</I>
<BR><I>>great.</I>
<BR>
<BR>Welcome to the dirt bike community.
<BR>
<BR>I've ridden both, but if I were buying a play/trail bike today, I'd get
the
<BR>Kawasaki KDX220. The KDX220 new for 1997, although they still make the
200.
<BR>So, if you are looking at a used bike, the KDX200 is it.
<BR>
<BR>As for pros and cons. The KDX is a 2 stroke, so the power is a little
<BR>snappier. The XR is a 4 stroke so you don't have to mix gas. The KDX feels
<BR>lighter and more agile when you are riding it. The XR is probably the
<BR>tougher of the two as far as neglecting maintenance goes. 2stroke guys
<BR>will make fun of the XR, although it sounds cool.
<BR>
<BR>I'm sure you would be happy with either bike.
<BR>-David
<BR>'97 RM250 #131
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with David, I've had both bikes as well and
the KDX is decent on
<BR> both the track and trails.
<BR>
<BR> Bob 95RM 250 #63
</BODY>
</HTML>
--------------20B04D3705F39DE5E7367D97--