need Advice: WTB after WR450F
in [ATVs]
|
From: Rowdy on 12 May 2010 10:16 Am 12.05.2010 15:09, schrieb Wudsracer: > Just curious, but what about Husqvarna? > I heard that the 510 uses the older style top end (less performance, > but more reliability and longevity from what I read). They are street > legal around here. Hmm the 510 might be a handfull, the 450 should be enough. But still you're right, they've got EFi, kickstand, hydro clutch, a std. rear suspension and the same claimed weight as a 450EXC. Furthermore when offered as "Enduro" Version in .at or .de they must be street legal, up to and including DMV number plate as this is a requirement to enter an enduro race in europe. Thx for the pointing them out, I'll check the net for maintenance probs. Rowdy
From: Volker Bartheld on 13 May 2010 22:31 Hi! >>> Suzuki RMX450 (what's that? is it an good) >> You want this one. > Sure? The RMX has that stupid perimeter frame What's stupid about that frame? That it doesn't crack like those of the KTMs do? SCNR. > and a 1.6 gal tank. Mileage will be inferior, not? I'm getting about 120 Minutes of MX out of that tank. I bet this will transfer to about 160km of distance. After market tanks should exist - I'm thinking about replacing the rear fender with something that was found on the KTM Dakar models. > > But I'm afraid you would NOT want to pay the recommended >> price for it. > Huh? Suzukis are cheap, have alaways been in Austria: > 2010 450EXC 9298� http://mx.gol.at/bikes/397.html > 2010 RMX450Z 8699� > http://www.suzuki.at/de/bike/products/pr_produebersicht.asp?Key=1087 Well, I didn't expect the KTMs being that expensive. Another reason against them. > I didn't manage to find comparable weights, and I'm afraid the RMX > is much heavier than the KTM. I doubt. At least for a normal interpretation of "much". This is no undersprung and heavy DRZ but a rather slim bike with MX-genes and some contribution towards street legality. You might not have that problem in Austria - but also make sure to compare the "official" (i. e. homologated) power delivery of both bikes. KTMs in the 450 class seem to come with ridiculously restricted ratings. > Anyone got trustworthy or even first hand vehicle weights. http://www.motorradonline.de/de/foto-shows/motorraeder/neuheiten-2010-suzuki-rmx-450-z/264954#1 123,5kg (incl. 7ltrs. of fuel, fully operable) vs. 113,9kg of the KTM 450 EXC (w/o fuel). Trustworthy? Dunno. First hand? Surely not. Cheers, Volker P.S.: According to http://www.ktm.at/450-EXC-Sixdays-Champions-Edition.72.1.html?&detailview=2: Carburator: Keihin FCR MX 39. You wouldn't want that one. Believe me. -- @: I N F O at B A R T H E L D dot N E T 3W: www.bartheld.net
From: Rowdy on 14 May 2010 04:12 Am 14.05.2010 04:31, schrieb Volker Bartheld: >> Sure? The RMX has that stupid perimeter frame > > What's stupid about that frame? That you won't get any ergonomic aftermarket tanks for it, by design. Same with my KLX650R, you've got to stick with the stock tank or the bike will turn into a hippopotamus, ergo wise. >> and a 1.6 gal tank. Mileage will be inferior, not? > > I'm getting about 120 Minutes of MX out of that tank. I bet this will > transfer to about 160km of distance. 1.6 gal (6L!) on a 450 is a bad joke. I bet this translates into 3 hours of woods riding, which means PONR is a measly 1.5 hours out. The 8L YZ tank(+seat) on a WR400F gave me a perfectly slim bike, however requiring reserve (1.5L) after less than 60mi. The stock WR400F 12L tank had ridiculously '80ish ergos. The stock WR450F '03 tank with its 10L is a good compromise with its flat seat line but is wide around the cylinder head, definitely less comfy than the YZ-WR400F combo. > After market tanks should exist I doubt they do. They would have to add at least 2' in width _on each side_ and still have to leave out the volume directly underneath the perimeter frame tubes, dead space per design, bad for an offroad bike. In my experience a single backbone type frame provides much more versatile and space efficient tank capacity options than any perimeter frame even can. This might be totally irrelevant for MX but lack of range can really ruin your (and your buddies') OffRoadin' day. For me the 450EXC's key selling point currently is the killer ergonomics that nevertheless come with a 9L (2.4gal) tank. That is more fuel than the whole competition, even the newer WR450Fs apparently went down to 8L. >> is much heavier than the KTM. > > I doubt. At least for a normal interpretation of "much". This is no > undersprung and heavy DRZ but a rather slim bike with MX-genes and some Okay, if they abandoned the cast iron DRZ weight they might be on par with the competition. > contribution towards street legality. You might not have that problem in > Austria - but also make sure to compare the "official" (i. e. homologated) > power delivery of both bikes. KTMs in the 450 class seem to come with > ridiculously restricted ratings. Not an issue here. For more than 20 years now, no one in Austria rides their bikes in stock trim. Even the LC620SC of old had something around 16 kW, officially. You wouldn't believe the carb baffles my TT600 came with, and hopefully never have to ride a WR-F with throttle stop in place, its a bad joke. > P.S.: According to > http://www.ktm.at/450-EXC-Sixdays-Champions- > Edition.72.1.html?&detailview=2: > Carburator: Keihin FCR MX 39. You wouldn't want that one. Believe me. Why's that? After 11 years of FCR combustin' I'm at good terms with them, thanks to your VBmod even for more then 10k miles :-) Rowdy
From: Wudsracer on 14 May 2010 17:01 Phil Thomas has a 2008 KLX450R, and has obtained n oversized tank for it. He now has it "dual-sported" and street legal. I don't know what his fuel capacity or range is. It's a pretty good bike, for a 450 4-stroke. I have to be having a very good day to run off and leave him. Jim ********************************************************************* >On Fri, 14 May 2010 10:12:51 +0200, Rowdy <thy-no(a)hottmail.com> wrote: >Am 14.05.2010 04:31, schrieb Volker Bartheld: >>> Sure? The RMX has that stupid perimeter frame >> >> What's stupid about that frame? > >That you won't get any ergonomic aftermarket tanks for it, by design. >Same with my KLX650R, you've got to stick with the stock tank or the >bike will turn into a hippopotamus, ergo wise. > >>> and a 1.6 gal tank. Mileage will be inferior, not? >> >> I'm getting about 120 Minutes of MX out of that tank. I bet this will >> transfer to about 160km of distance. > >1.6 gal (6L!) on a 450 is a bad joke. I bet this translates into 3 >hours of woods riding, which means PONR is a measly 1.5 hours out. > >The 8L YZ tank(+seat) on a WR400F gave me a perfectly slim bike, however >requiring reserve (1.5L) after less than 60mi. The stock WR400F 12L >tank had ridiculously '80ish ergos. The stock WR450F '03 tank with its >10L is a good compromise with its flat seat line but is wide around the >cylinder head, definitely less comfy than the YZ-WR400F combo. > >> After market tanks should exist > >I doubt they do. They would have to add at least 2' in width _on each >side_ and still have to leave out the volume directly underneath the >perimeter frame tubes, dead space per design, bad for an offroad bike. >In my experience a single backbone type frame provides much more >versatile and space efficient tank capacity options than any perimeter >frame even can. > >This might be totally irrelevant for MX but lack of range can really >ruin your (and your buddies') OffRoadin' day. > >For me the 450EXC's key selling point currently is the killer ergonomics >that nevertheless come with a 9L (2.4gal) tank. That is more fuel than >the whole competition, even the newer WR450Fs apparently went down to >8L. > >>> is much heavier than the KTM. >> >> I doubt. At least for a normal interpretation of "much". This is no >> undersprung and heavy DRZ but a rather slim bike with MX-genes and some > >Okay, if they abandoned the cast iron DRZ weight they might be on par >with the competition. > >> contribution towards street legality. You might not have that problem in >> Austria - but also make sure to compare the "official" (i. e. homologated) >> power delivery of both bikes. KTMs in the 450 class seem to come with >> ridiculously restricted ratings. > >Not an issue here. For more than 20 years now, no one in Austria rides >their bikes in stock trim. Even the LC620SC of old had something >around 16 kW, officially. You wouldn't believe the carb baffles my >TT600 came with, and hopefully never have to ride a WR-F with throttle >stop in place, its a bad joke. > > > P.S.: According to > > http://www.ktm.at/450-EXC-Sixdays-Champions- > > Edition.72.1.html?&detailview=2: > > Carburator: Keihin FCR MX 39. You wouldn't want that one. Believe me. > >Why's that? After 11 years of FCR combustin' I'm at good terms with >them, thanks to your VBmod even for more then 10k miles :-) > > >Rowdy
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Day ride groups..families Next: Hammer down. Allow me to demonstrate. |