Woods riding KDX200 vs XR200
Gregory Starr
Currently I have an XR200 which I really enjoy in the woods but lacks
top end snap. I have been considering a KDX200 but I really love the
thumper low end. Is there anyone out there that has owned both? The low
end is more important but if I could have both I would be set. I'm 5'5"
and 140 lbs so these bikes are about as big as I need. Please don't
respond if you haven't riden both. Thanks in advance.
Gregory Starr
Michael King
Gregory,
I don't own either bike, but I have ridden them both. The KDX 200 will
have more low end power than the XR200. It has more mid range and top end
power too. I ride a 250 two stroke, but I love trading places with my KDX
buddies once in a while. The KDX has much better suspension, especially
if you get one of the ones with the upside down forks, or one of the
newer ones that have returned to the conventional forks. The forks before
they changed to upside down just weren't in the same league, but they are
still way better than the XR forks.
The KDX will be taller than the XR, but unless you are very short, it
won't be a problem; the KDX is still a small-ish bike. I can have fun on
the XR at very slow speeds and moderate trails, but it is not half the
bike the KDX is.
Most XR riders remove the baffle from the muffler to get a little more
power. Even with the stock exhaust on the KDX, it will have more power
everywhere, and will be quieter than the XR with the baffle removed.
Get the KDX.
Mike King
RMX 250
Neal L Davis
Gregory Starr (gst...@corp.atl.com) wrote:
: Currently I have an XR200 which I really enjoy in the woods but lacks
: top end snap. I have been considering a KDX200 but I really love the
: thumper low end. Is there anyone out there that has owned both? The low
: end is more important but if I could have both I would be set. I'm 5'5"
: and 140 lbs so these bikes are about as big as I need. Please don't
: respond if you haven't riden both. Thanks in advance.
: Gregory Starr
i have ridden both and i once owned a kdx200 about 5 years ago. i'm about
5'8" 150# (or was at the time anyway) and i loved the kdx, except for very
tight trail riding areas. my brother owns an xr350 and each time i had
problems trail riding mine in these cramped areas, he could just power out
of it with his botton-end grunt - which a 4-stroke has much more of.
please note that this was a '91 kdx200 and maybe the newer ones are better
in the low-end region, but this one wasn't even close to a 4-stroke. on
the other hand, i could easily whip him in a speed race. the power to
weight ratio is much much higher and i always enjoyed playing with the
power band. you may be a better 2-stroke trail rider than i am (was) and
if so, you'll probably do better. but if i had the choice i would
probably take the xr200. if you have any questions, email me or post
something here. good luck.
-neal
pat...@erols.com
On 10/7/96 8:34PM, in message <3259A1...@omserver3.cv.hp.com>, Michael King
<"Michael King"@omserver3.cv.hp.com> wrote:
> Gregory Starr wrote:
> >
> > Currently I have an XR200 which I really enjoy in the woods but lacks
> > top end snap. I have been considering a KDX200 but I really love the
> > thumper low end. Is there anyone out there that has owned both? The low
> > end is more important but if I could have both I would be set. I'm 5'5"
> > and 140 lbs so these bikes are about as big as I need. Please don't
> > respond if you haven't riden both. Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Gregory Starr
>
> Gregory,
> I don't own either bike, but I have ridden them both. The KDX 200 will
> have more low end power than the XR200. It has more mid range and top end
> power too. I ride a 250 two stroke, but I love trading places with my KDX
> buddies once in a while. The KDX has much better suspension, especially
> if you get one of the ones with the upside down forks, or one of the
> newer ones that have returned to the conventional forks. The forks before
> they changed to upside down just weren't in the same league, but they are
> still way better than the XR forks.
>
> The KDX will be taller than the XR, but unless you are very short, it
> won't be a problem; the KDX is still a small-ish bike. I can have fun on
> the XR at very slow speeds and moderate trails, but it is not half the
> bike the KDX is.
>
> Most XR riders remove the baffle from the muffler to get a little more
> power. Even with the stock exhaust on the KDX, it will have more power
> everywhere, and will be quieter than the XR with the baffle removed.
>
> Get the KDX.
>
> Mike King
> RMX 250
I've not ridden the XR 200 but have ridden the XR250 ( much better bike) and
the KDX smokes the XR hands down... that's why I bought one. Being only 5'5"
the kdx will be a little tall for you, I'm 5'7" and I have trouble with the
height, but I'm not all that good of a rider eigher... take into consideration
that the KDX is a 2 stroke as opposed to the XR's add gas and go..... joey
kx 125 kdx200
Tim Simmons
In article <1996Oct7.1...@atl.com>,
Gregory Starr <gst...@corp.atl.com> wrote:
>top end snap. I have been considering a KDX200 but I really love the
>
>Gregory Starr
>
doors on the XR, bottom end, mid, top, handling, everything.
|
|
|
|
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Tim Simmons - Opinions expressed above are mine, not my employer's
Auspex Systems - The World's Best NFS Servers
Steve Sherman
!!!...That bike is faster than most can handle both top and bottom end
of the power...and it can't be beat in the woods. The only thing that
it lacks is if you take it on a motocross track...it seems "top-heavy"
for jumping...but thats what the kx is for !!!!
Steve Sherman
Roger Little
pat...@erols.com wrote:
>
> On 10/7/96 8:34PM, in message <3259A1...@omserver3.cv.hp.com>, Michael King
> <"Michael King"@omserver3.cv.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > Gregory Starr wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently I have an XR200 which I really enjoy in the woods but lacks
> > > end is more important but if I could have both I would be set. I'm 5'5"
> > > and 140 lbs so these bikes are about as big as I need. Please don't
> > >
> > > Gregory Starr
> >
Get the KDX. You'll love it. With a little practice, you should be
able to go much faster on it than on an XR200. The KDX is also as
reliable as a bucket of dirt.
AdamB5593
Gregory Starr wrote:
>Currently I have an XR200 which I really enjoy in the woods but lacks
>top end snap. I have been considering a KDX200 but I really love the
>thumper low end. Is there anyone out there that has owned both? The low
>end is more important but if I could have both I would be set. I'm 5'5"
>and 140 lbs so these bikes are about as big as I need. Please don't
>respond if you haven't riden both. Thanks in advance.
Up until about three years ago, my two riding buddies and I all rode XR's.
Two of us on XR250's and one on an XR185. Now my two buddies ride KDX
200's ('92 & '95) and I'm on a '92 RMX 250. Without a doubt the two
strokes are far superior. There just is no arguing with the power to
weight advantage of a two stroke. There are hill climbs and gnarly trails
that we wouldn't even attempt on the thumpers that we have no problems
with on our current bikes. With regard to your low end concerns, the KDX
(and RMX) have plenty, but it will take you a little while to find it. If
you switch to a two stroke, be prepared to be stalling the motor alot your
first few rides. Both of my friends and I went through this phase. On a
two stroke, you
don't control the speed of the bike on tight sections with the throttle
like you would on a thumper, it's all clutch work. Give it some time, and
I guarantee you'll be happier in the end. The bottom end the KDX is not
like on the XR where you'll be trucking up a hill and be able to roll on
the throttle and start to accelerate. There's a point a little above idle
that you'll want to maintain by partially holding in or feathering the
clutch on gnarly uphills where the KDX will kind of tractor along without
accelerating. Once your clear of the worst part, feather the clutch, hold
it wide open and you'll blast clear.
Have fun,
Adam ('92 RMX 250)