Post by: asr524 on January 22, 2013, 12:42:25 AM
What bike is the better choice KTM 250SX or the 250 XC?
I'm a short guy (5'3") and light (135lbs) so i really like the e start option. I also like the clear tank of the XC since its easier to see fuel level.
I used to have a 01 KX 250 and did some racing with it and was usually mid pack and higher in the 250C class. Im not really sure how much racing i would do again but some track time on practice days would happen occasionally as well as some trail rides.
Ive never had a dialed suspension at all. Never once have I changed a spring, even though i wish i would have multiple times.
Im looking into getting a new bike and these two at the top of the list and cant really decide which is better for me.
Post by: ford832 on January 22, 2013, 01:47:07 AM
Post by: Stusmoke on January 22, 2013, 01:52:23 AM
Post by: TMKIWI on January 22, 2013, 06:15:52 AM
I'm gonna say the sx. Yeah its got a small capacity black fuel tank but other than that its the same bike. Gearing, gear ratios, everything else is the same. I can't remember if the XC has a light or not though... Anyway SX because it can do both really well and the XC is more of an enduro/trail bike therefore it will have softer suspension.
Wrong.
The XC has the SX engine with a wide ratio box and 18" rear wheel.
The EXC has a different engine configuration,wide ratio,lights, different suspension etc.
I think the XC has more mx type suspension then the exc.?
Post by: oppenheimer77us on January 22, 2013, 07:15:17 AM
Post by: Stusmoke on January 22, 2013, 10:12:09 AM
I'm gonna say the sx. Yeah its got a small capacity black fuel tank but other than that its the same bike. Gearing, gear ratios, everything else is the same. I can't remember if the XC has a light or not though... Anyway SX because it can do both really well and the XC is more of an enduro/trail bike therefore it will have softer suspension.
Wrong.
The XC has the SX engine with a wide ratio box and 18" rear wheel.
The EXC has a different engine configuration,wide ratio,lights, different suspension etc.
I think the XC has more mx type suspension then the exc.?
Really? I thought the XC was a closed course competition bike and had the SX engine exactly the same. Ok my bad.
Post by: citabjockey on January 22, 2013, 03:46:35 PM
250XC:
Fork WP Suspension Up Side Down 4860 MXMA CC
Shock absorber WP Suspension 5018 BAVP DCC
Suspension travel Front 300 mm (11.81 in)
Suspension travel Rear 317 mm (12.48 in)
Steering head angle 63.5°
Wheelbase 1,495±10 mm (58.86±0.39 in)
Weight without fuel, approx. 104 kg (229 lb.)
Gearbox 6-gear, claw shifted
250SX:
Fork WP Suspension Up Side Down 4860 MXMA CC
Shock absorber WP Suspension 5018 BAVP DCC
Suspension travel Front 300 mm (11.81 in)
Suspension travel Rear 330 mm (12.99 in)
Steering head angle 63.5°
Wheelbase 1,495±10 mm (58.86±0.39 in)
Weight without fuel, approx. 97 kg (214 lb.)
Gearbox 5-gear, claw shifted
So there is *some* difference in at least the rear suspension. Possibly a linkage difference?
Engine has 6 speed on the XC versus 5 on SX. doesn't say anything about engine tune
differences. The e-start looks like it costs 15 lbs or so.
Post by: Stusmoke on January 22, 2013, 07:05:32 PM
I'm gonna say the sx. Yeah its got a small capacity black fuel tank but other than that its the same bike. Gearing, gear ratios, everything else is the same. I can't remember if the XC has a light or not though... Anyway SX because it can do both really well and the XC is more of an enduro/trail bike therefore it will have softer suspension.
Wrong.
The XC has the SX engine with a wide ratio box and 18" rear wheel.
The EXC has a different engine configuration,wide ratio,lights, different suspension etc.
I think the XC has more mx type suspension then the exc.?
Really? I thought the XC was a closed course competition bike and had the SX engine exactly the same. Ok my bad.
http://www.ktm.com/us/enduro/250-xc-usaeu/technical-details.html#.UQA1FWfCeFs
V.
http://www.ktm.com/us/enduro/250-xc-w-usa/highlights.html#.UQA0mWfCeFs
You were right. My bad, got model confused.
Post by: scotty dog on January 22, 2013, 09:40:29 PM
Post by: oppenheimer77us on January 22, 2013, 10:16:20 PM
Post by: ford832 on January 22, 2013, 10:44:56 PM
Post by: SachsGS on January 23, 2013, 12:29:12 AM
Post by: Stusmoke on January 23, 2013, 12:41:15 AM
Post by: ford832 on January 23, 2013, 01:05:21 AM
The e-start looks like it costs 15 lbs or so.
Even if there was some other advantage I don't see,this would be a deal breaker for me.15 lbs is huge.
Post by: Stusmoke on January 23, 2013, 03:58:29 AM
I agree with Ford though. It would most definitely be a deal breaker for me. If there was no alternative and I was still set on the XC, I would just take it off. Two strokes are meant to be light and they are easy as pie to start (If tuned correctly) anyway.
Post by: citabjockey on January 23, 2013, 04:55:33 AM
The down side is the pavement sections in the Virginia City grand prix where my close ratio limited me to 50 or 55 where the 250F's were flying by me at 80.
But that is a rare situation indeed. And the first snotty uphill? I went back by them.
I've never understood why everyone seems to want a wide ratio trans-I always hated it.It's likely great for fireroads or desert but for woods or track,you're much better off having a tighter gear spacing so your not razzing it to catch the next gear or lugging it and working the clutch to get to the next.When I had mine,that was my biggest complaint,followed by the excessive weight of the flywheel.I ended up having it machined down.When I traded it for the SX,all was right again.
Post by: TMKIWI on January 23, 2013, 07:14:51 AM
You should take the light off for track days cos it may very well get broken by roost.
Xc's don't have a light.
EXC's do.
Post by: Stusmoke on January 23, 2013, 07:28:37 AM
You should take the light off for track days cos it may very well get broken by roost.
Xc's don't have a light.
EXC's do.
Sigh. Right again. I'm not having a very credible day am I?
Post by: asr524 on January 23, 2013, 02:28:04 PM
Thats around 7 kgs for a bloody es? Thats bollocks. If you're dead set on a magic button, maybe a 250SXfs would fit it? If so is it ligher? (I'd bet my left nut it is considerably lighter). If so then just buy the XC, ask around at wreckers for a 250SXFs starter and ask them if they would trade the XCs for the SXFs.
I agree with Ford though. It would most definitely be a deal breaker for me. If there was no alternative and I was still set on the XC, I would just take it off. Two strokes are meant to be light and they are easy as pie to start (If tuned correctly) anyway.
i just looked at the specs and the 250XC is 229lbs while the the 250SXF is 229.7lbs which means you just lost your left nut!
I know that 2-strokes are fairly easy to start since i had my kx but the general problem is im 5'3" and cant touch the ground.
Post by: citabjockey on January 23, 2013, 03:30:22 PM
Does that apply to my 380? Booting a stalled great pumpkin near the end of a 4 hour race might not quite meet the description "easy as pie" ;-)
Of course the OP is talking about a 250....
Two strokes are meant to be light and they are easy as pie to start (If tuned correctly) anyway.
Post by: Stusmoke on January 23, 2013, 08:55:56 PM
Hey Stu:
Does that apply to my 380? Booting a stalled great pumpkin near the end of a 4 hour race might not quite meet the description "easy as pie" ;-)
Of course the OP is talking about a 250....Two strokes are meant to be light and they are easy as pie to start (If tuned correctly) anyway.
Oh come on! You can't count at the end of a four hour race
I doubt I could start an 85 after an hour let alone 4...
Post by: Stusmoke on January 23, 2013, 09:02:08 PM
Thats around 7 kgs for a bloody es? Thats bollocks. If you're dead set on a magic button, maybe a 250SXfs would fit it? If so is it ligher? (I'd bet my left nut it is considerably lighter). If so then just buy the XC, ask around at wreckers for a 250SXFs starter and ask them if they would trade the XCs for the SXFs.
I agree with Ford though. It would most definitely be a deal breaker for me. If there was no alternative and I was still set on the XC, I would just take it off. Two strokes are meant to be light and they are easy as pie to start (If tuned correctly) anyway.
i just looked at the specs and the 250XC is 229lbs while the the 250SXF is 229.7lbs which means you just lost your left nut!
I know that 2-strokes are fairly easy to start since i had my kx but the general problem is im 5'3" and cant touch the ground.
Hehehehe short ass. Ok seriously though, when I placed that bet I mean't that the electric start ALONE was lighter, not the whole bike
And it would have to be. Theres no way a 250F can be 214 pounds. Not without the serious dollars anyway. The YZ250F is 218 I think and its still carbied.That is a hell of a lot of weight for an 85 transplant. the Lites used to be around the 200 pound mark
I hope the big four are happy...
Post by: oppenheimer77us on January 23, 2013, 09:41:15 PM
Post by: asr524 on January 24, 2013, 12:38:05 AM
Have you looked at the 150 XC? No E-start for that one and it is as tall as the other KTM's but it sure is light. At your height I would look at a lowering link which should drop the rear several inches at the seat and allow you to easily touch the ground. I have a stature challenged friend who has used lowering links on his bikes and is very happy with them.
I haven't considered the 150 because I could keep a piston in a 250 twice as long as I could in my 125's. I also like the extra power the 250 has.
How is the reliability of the 150's?