Mx Crucible
MX Crucible
CW COMPARISON
Honda CR250 vs. Kawasaki KX250 vs. KTM 250SX vs. Suzuki RM250 vs. Yamaha YZ250
MOTOCROSS IS A CUT-THROAT BUSINESS. ESPECIALLY THE 250cc class. For manufacturers, no other segment of the market demands an all-new model each year just to stay competitive. A lot is at stake. Build a sub-par machine and the grapevine knows it almost before the first bike is uncrated-kiss sales to Amateurs goodbye and put your Pro team behind an 8-ball of gigantic proportions. Bike-makers have to aim for the best handling, most powerful and perfectly suspended replica of a works machine that your dollar will buy, otherwise their bikes will sit in dealer showrooms until blowout prices clear the way for next year’s attempt.
Our five testbikes have gone through six months of moto testing. We tested at six different tracks-outdoor to supercross, sand to hard-pack-to find a winner in this shootout, the bike that is the best all-around for the most riders and the widest variety of conditions. We found that some of the bikes just didn't stack up, and in one case, a bike that was too good. How? Read on.
In motocross, getting the holeshot is a battle in itself. Motor is important here. The king's crown this year goes to the Honda CR250. It has a blend of strong power and smooth pull. There is zero hesitation, the CR showing ultra-crisp response at any throttle position. Stronger than the potent '94 model, the '95 roosts from right off idle well into the top end. But this is where we run flatnosed into a paradox: The CR is maybe too good in this respect. Novices and even Intermediates were often caught off-guard by the surge of the CR. If you hit a bump in a turn and your wrist Hinches even lightly on the throttle, the bike will jump ahead. Factor in a little fatigue, and the CR can be intimidating for all but in-shape Experts.
The Kawasaki has the best motor for everyone else. Its revised combustion chamber, new porting and longer expansion chamber have given the KX250 the bark of an Open bike. The midrange is steroid-strong and builds into an adequate top-end pull. This turns out to be a user-friendly powerband like all past KX's have had, but now with a boost that launches the bike out of berms like a top-fuel dragster. Jumps right after turns have never been so easy, and carrying the front end over stutter bumps is simple. Just twist and roost.
The Yamaha YZ25Ö has the sleeper motor of the bunch. Grunt would be a good way to describe the power of the YZ, as it pulls hard down low, relying on torque for quick lap times. A new powervalve and porting changes, plus a Keihin carburetor in place of the Mikuni from last year, boost the performance compared to the '94 engine; it anything, the YZ’s traction-grabbing characteristic has been intensified. In head-to-head starts on sloppy terrain, the YZ came out on top more often than any other bike, mostly because riders spent less time with the rear wheel spinning coming off the line. The disadvantage facing the YZ is its lack of snap compared to the other bikes, especially if supercross-style obstacles arc part of a track's layout.
KTM and Suzuki fight over the lowest powerplant ranking. The KTM 250SX has a totally new power spread. No longer is there just a low-end burst followed by an unimpressive midrange; now, its powerband is more mid-weighted, like the Yamaha’s. It doesn’t have as much poke as the YZ, but the KTM is not slow. This is a great lap-time motor that can grab a holeshot, too-it’s just up against stiff competition. Same for the RM250. Its strong low' end and midrange are outgunned by the KX250 and CR250. The '95 Suzook motor is a stellar improvement over the '94 model’s, though, and for supercross it ranked right at the top, but for all-around use, it’s still a year behind.
Right to set about up for the the time first you turn, grab every the other binders aspect and of start the bike comes into play. All of the bikes in the comparison have great brakes-the Honda and Kawasaki have the best. All the clutches work admirably, yet the Suzuki still has the lightest and best feel. Shiftingwise, only the KTM and Yamaha are notchy, but not enough to make missed shifts a problem. It is apparent that all five of the 250 MXers are refined to the point of excellence. The biggest differences show as tracks unfold. For instance, if all we tested on were smooth, jump-infested supercross courses with no long straights, we’d be raving about the RM. It has the lightest, most flickable feel of any 250, rivaling a 125 when it comes to the cut-andthrust of stadium-type racing. But go to a fast, choppy outdoor track and you'll shake your head as much as the RM does: it changes faces into an unstable and unpredictable handful that we never fully sorted out. Complicating matters are cramped rider accommodations that even taller bars couldn't help.
The Showa suspension feels as if it is doing its job. It is very plush, even if it bottomed a bit more than the bikes with KYB suspenders. The problem of the chassis doing one thing for four laps and another on the fifth was irritating, so we installed stiffer springs front and rear (about $160 for a 5.4kg rear spring and 0.42kg front springs from any suspension specialist). No luck. The suspension w;as better for faster or heavier riders, but the handling problems on outdoor tracks persisted, severely hurting the RM in overall results.
KTM made a major change to its bike by way of new suspension vendors. The Öhlins shock and Marzocchi conventional fork raise the KTM’s performance to new levels. Is the conventional fork on the way back? We experienced no significant performance advantages or disadvantages with the fork. On a maintenance note, the Marzocchi fork contaminated its oil rather quickly and we did encounter a leaky seal during testing. Still, the Katoom treats its rider to a very plush ride, both front and rear. And the Öhlins shock should never need revalving-its 40 clicks of compression and rebound adjustment will satisfy nearly all requirements.
Overall handling of the KTM is solid and predictable, middle-of-the-road in turning and stability compared to the other bikes. It is roomy and allows the rider to slide way forward in the turns. At times the bike feels heavy, an impression validated by a trip to the scales. At 232 pounds without gas, the KTM was the heaviest bike in this comparison.
The YZ250 fits in the middle, as well. It pleased nearly everyone, but didn’t overly impress. The Yamaha’s downside is its unbalanced suspension. It needs stiffer fork springs (0.42kg, $62 from any Yamaha dealer), which we installed for the duration of our testing. The fork benefits from a new “mid-valve” that smooths the changeover from lowto high-speed valving. In back, the standard KYB shock gets revised valving and a stiffer spring than last year’s bike. Compared to the Honda and Kawasaki (all share similar KYB suspension) the YZ is either a bit harsh on the small bumps or it bottomed too much, depending on where the clickers were set. Finding an in-between setting that works well at both extremes can be taxing. A sag setting of 3.6 inches was critical in making the YZ handle.
Once set up, there were no surprises in riding the YZ. A heavy feel is evident compared to any of the other Japanese bikes, and the YZ is neither exceptionally slim or roomy. As we said, middle-of-the-road.
Next comes the CR. Simply put, the Honda has no real handling flawsunfortunately, things aren’t that simple. The CR250 will go exactly where you point it, right now. It will hug the inside line, rail the outside, smooth or rough, and stability is top notch. But this kind of razor-edge handling is not for everyone. Our less-experienced riders sometimes had difficulty keeping the CR on line, and even a few fast Intermediates got in over their heads at times.
The CR’s suspension is class-winning material-for Pros. This is the first CR in years to make fast riders smile without a swap to stiffer springs first, though some of our Novices and Intermediates found it harsh. This is a solid ride, the kind that keeps the wheels planted on the ground. It resists bottoming quite well and is balanced. But the CR required an inordinate amount of attention to suspension settings, much more than any of the other bikes.
Which brings us to the Kawasaki. Its suspension action is extremely progressive, taking the small hits in stride with the plushest ride of the five. It also resisted bottoming, both front and rear, better than the other bikes. Another plus: The suspension was nearly perfect as delivered on standard settings, and only needed to be stiffened up a couple of clicks all the way around as fork and shock oil wore down toward the end of the test. And it worked for everyone, Novice to Pro.
Handling was right at the top for everyone, too. The KX is just a tad behind the CR in the tight turns, but most riders felt more comfortable on the KX, probably due to the bike’s roomier layout. Everyone, big or small, felt the KX was the most comfortable bike. It is thin and quite easy to move around on, especially up on the tank in turns. The more we rode the KX, the harder it was to fault.
U nless you have a factory mechanic picking up after you, durability is a big concern. In the past, this has been a bugaboo area for Kawasaki KXs: Frames broke, footpegs sagged, pipe-mounts frac tured. Not this year. After six months of moto thrashing our KX has needed fork service, new piston and rings (purely preventive) and its radiator shrouds replaced, the latter due simply to poundings from knee braces. That’s it.
Our biggest problems came with the YZ this year. An engine-mount bolt backed out and broke its nut off inside the frame. We also experienced a leaky shock seal. And the YZ's cheesy graphics and seat cover lasted about a month before they needed replacing.
The KTM not only had the aforementioned weeping fork seal, but the motor’s induction reeds seemed to go south towards the end of the test, hurting throttle response. Also, the muffler needed repacking quite often and the seat tore as easily as the YZ’s. This was offset by the KTM coming stock with high-quality fueltank graphics and a decent chain-the sort of equipment meant to be on a $5000 bike.
Though vibration was a concern, the RM Suzuki gave us no problems at all during the test period.
As usual, the Honda was top-flight. There were no mechanical gremlins, though the bike w^as recalled to have its crank replaced, a warranty claim. It still feels the tightest after all our testing-and it w'as used the most.
R esults arc in. Suzuki takes fifth. KTN1 fourth. Both the 250SX and the RM250 arc a year behind the competition. I Novices liked these bikes more than B Experts, though no one felt totally confident on them. That the ’95 RM would have been a great bike in ’94 shows just how competitive this class is. Don’t be surprised to see riders on Suzukis or KTMs winning races this year. Riding skill still plays a large part in a bike’s performance-youTl just need more of it to take the checkered on these two.
r~
Third goes to the Yamaha. It was rated behind the Honda or Kawasaki in almost every category.
The Honda is a close second. If you are riding perfectly, then the CR is a perfect companion; make a mistake, though, like those of us not named Jeremy McGrath, and the CR can become a handful. We were able to detune the hardhitting throttle response by bumping up the idle or going up on the pilot jet enough to make the motor more Novicefriendly, but the suspension still was not as compliant as the Kawasaki’s. Plus you had better be a good tuner to keep the suspension dialed in for different track conditions. A few clicks off and you will pay.
Without further ado, then, the Kawasaki KX250 is the winner of this comparison. For 1995, it is the best bike for most riders, plain and simple.
Tune in same time next year, and we’ll do it all over again. E3
HONDA CR250
$5099
KAWASAKI KX250
$5249
KTM SX250
$5048
SUZUKI RM250
$4999
YAMAHA YZ250
$5249
