Yamaha Wr400f Vs. Ktm 300 E/xc

Yamaha WR400F VS. KTM 300 E/XC

CW COMPARISON

Yama-Thumper takes on the 'Stroker King

IT WASN'T LONG AGO THAT YAMAHA MADE THE top enduro motorcycle. In 1994, the WR250 won "Best Enduro Bike" in Cycle World's Ten Best competition. But since then, KTM has had a virtual lock on the title, building the off-road bike that CW's editors have found the most appealing every year, save for an interruption by Honda’s four-stroke XR400 in 1996. So, what happens when Yamaha introduces a four-stroke enduro based on the magnificent new YZ400F motocrosser? Shootout time!

The news here is that neither company has been resting on its laurels. Being a first-year model, Yamaha’s new WR400F is as modem as can be, reaping all of the YZ400F’s technology while incorporating enduro-mandated equipment such as a 3.6-gallon fuel tank, headlight and taillight, spark arrestor, kickstand, odometer, and longer-lasting O-ring chain and steel rear sprocket. KTM, on the other hand, had the winning package from last year in the form of its two-stroke 250 E/XC, but junked it for an all-new design including a new chassis with a linkageless rear suspension, a new fork, upgraded powervalve system and fresh styling. Asked to provide a bike to defend its title, however, KTM gave us a 300 E/XC, figuring that the extra displacement would hold it in good stead against the 400cc Yamaha.

The KTM and Yamaha represent two distinctly different ways of achieving the same goal. Starting with starting, the E/XC is a simple case of kick and go, while the WR requires its owner to follow a routine. If you’ve ever owned a Thumper, the WR’s starting drill isn’t a problem, but you can still go to MX tracks around the country and watch motoheads snapping the kickstarters off their YZ400s, so clearly twostroke riders will need a familiarization period.

Once warmed-up, it’s apparent that both of these bikes could use a little help. For the KTM, it’s a matter of jet-

ting; the Austrian mount is carbureted on the conservative side, a tad rich for trouble-free break-in. Unless you’re planning on desert racing, dropping the main jet a couple of sizes from the standard #175 and going to the supplied leaner needle #N85D with the clip in the number-two position would be a good idea. With the stock jetting, the KTM runs cleanly till you really get on it; then, it takes a while to unload. With the leaner jetting, the bike gets up and boogies like it should, no matter how long you lug it around.

The Yamaha purrs like a sewing machine, and it runs like one, too. Corked-up with an exhaust plug and throttle limiter to pass EPA muster, the WR runs about as hard in stock trim as a Honda XR250 or Kawasaki KDX200, but it is quiet. To be fair, however, we decided to test the WR in full competition mode (as most owners will ride it), removing the exhaust plug and replacing the throttle stop with one from a YZ400. Instant change of face: The WR now runs nearly as hard as the YZ, but at a price to your ear drums. Following this

minor surgery, the WR is jetted spoton from sea level to 6000 feet before it even burbles.

With basic setup done, it’s interesting how dead-even these two bikes are in speed and acceleration. In drag races and roll-ons, either in sand or on dirt roads, neither has a speed advantage. Chug them down to crawling speed, and both the twoand fourstroke powerplants put out plenty of torque without any worry of stalling.

Two-stroke power, in the case of the KTM, means 300cc of oomph on every stroke. If you classify the power as brraapp, meaning the torquey grunt before the powervalve opens, and zing, meaning the screaming acceleration typical of a motocross bike, the 300 E/XC has both. Its brraapp is the trailriding power that refuses to bog down and pulls seamlessly through the gears-credit the new KTC (KTM Torque Chamber) exhaust system. The transition to zing is impressive, with power that beats out fully modified 250cc MX bikes, all through a long muffler and spark arrestor. The cool thing is that the powervalve’s spring tension can be adjusted to modulate when the zing begins.

The Yamaha’s 400cc of power every other stroke also makes for excellent off-road propulsion. The differences between the WR and YZ motors are that the former has retarded exhaust cam timing (one complete tooth on the camchain sprocket, or 22.5 degrees) and a larger diameter flywheel enclosing a lighting coil that powers a bright, 60-watt halogen headlight. The WR’s transmission also has wider ratios (hence its name) with lower first and second gears, similar third and fourth, and a taller

fifth. Carburetion on both bikes is provided by a single 39mm Keihin, but the WR’s has an enrichening device to stop backfiring on deceleration, plus slightly different jetting. Riding the WR, you couldn’t ask for more from the motor. There is seamless power from right off idle all the way to 11,200 rpm, which gives the rider the option of lifting the front wheel at any time with just a blip of throttle or a slip of the clutch.

These two bikes also show zero handling and suspension faults. The most significant difference is that the KTM has a lighter-feeling front end, which requires less effort to turn. Even so, stability is first-rate; we never experienced any headshake. Conversely, the WR feels as though it has more weight on the front tire, a sensation that is exacerbated by engine braking. So, even though the WR’s large tank makes it tough for the rider to get his weight over the front end, its forward weight bias makes up the difference. As a result, the WR is stable at speed-even more stable than the KTM.

Suspension on both bikes feels

KTM

300 E/XC

$5948

Light, narrow and agile

Adjustable powervalve

Quiet

Tool-less air-filter access

Easily accessible shock

owns

Weak headlight

Jetting needs setup

Muffler oozes spooge

Replacing air-filter door is a chore

Out of luck if you hate orange

very similar. Both are set-up for heavier riders (those weighing more than 175 pounds), and are well-suited to anything from trailriding to competition, Eastern enduros to Western desert races. Each bike’s suspension isn’t necessarily perfect in extreme conditions such as sandy whoops or slippery rocks, but is instead compromised to work well everywhere-sort of a universal enduro setup that both manufactures have hit right on. Adjustability on both bikes is first-rate, as the forks and shocks are completely tunable. Notable is KTM’s change to a WP fork from the Marzocchi unit used last year. As a result, seal life is now way better, and

there is both compression and rebound valving in each leg, though the adjusters remain compression on one leg and rebound on the other. Furthermore, the linkageless WP rear suspension is worlds better than the setup that riddled us on our 250 SX. It is plush and compliant, and does not have the valving wall that the MX bike possessed. Just like the KTM, the Yamaha’s MX-quality suspenders give off-roaders the best to work with; it’s not a set of last year’s MX leftovers farmed down to enduro status.

What it all comes down to is weight. That’s the major difference between these two bikes, and in this shootout,

YAMAHA

WR400F

$5899

Ups

Good clutch durability and feel Crisp jetting Fade-free brakes Coolant overflow tank really works, we never lost a drop

Downs

Way too heavy and a bit too wide

First-to-second shift is tough

Radiator shrouds catch on brush

Too noisy

Not sold in California

it’s the deciding factor. The 239-pound KTM is a whopping 26 pounds lighter than the WR, a difference that is readily apparent while riding. The WR tips the scales at 265 pounds-same as a Honda XR400, though it seems even heavier. The WR has a big-bike feel, more like a 600 than a 400, largely due to the amount of power it puts out, but also to the weight of the enduro equipment added to the basic YZ package-items such as the big tank, steel muffler, steel kickstand, steel rear sprocket, coolant catch tank (mounted under the left sidepanel), glass headlight and odometer. Moreover, all of these heavy objects are mounted at the furthermost points from the bike’s center, so when it starts bouncing around, you feel every bit of it. Add to that the WR’s seating position-a few inches farther back and a couple of inches wider at the gas

tank than the YZ’s-and you’ve got a syndrome we’ll call WRitis.

The KTM, in contrast, benefits from losing all of the weight associated with a shock linkage and its related attachments on the frame, plus a lighter plastic fuel tank and shrouds. When it comes to offroad motorcycles, lighter really is better, and KTM realized that fact, dropping 8 pounds from last year’s 250 E/XC.

Picking a winner here is easy: It all boils down to the fact that the KTM is a better four-stroke than the Yamaha is a two-stroke. Say what?! The most important characteristic in an enduro motorcycle is versatility; the type of motor a bike has isn’t as important as how it works. The age-old problem of producing a four-stroke that’s light in weight, durable, reasonably priced and competitive against a two-stroke is still with us. Unfortunately, Yamaha’s success from the motocross track got weighed down in its transition to off-road usage. As good as the Yamaha WR400 is, the KTM 300 E/XC is even better.