Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
The Shop
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Really ?
Interesting read from MXA:
Which leads the MXA wrecking crew to a logical shootout. What if we took a brand-new 2001 Honda CR500 and compared it to a brand-new 2008 Honda CRF450? Actually, that is misleading, because it sounds like we are testing a six-year-old bike against a brand-new one. Not true. The MXA wrecking crew is actually testing a 15-year-old bike against a brand-new CRF450. How so? Although our CR500 was produced in 2001, it was based on the 1992 CR500 (and only saw modest gearing, suspension and graphics mods during its ten-year life span).
Yes, we know that it isn’t a fair shootout to compare a bike designed in the early ’90s against a bike designed in 2004 (and modified at the factory three times since then), but we are going to do it anyway.
Our methodology was simple. We signed up four test riders to spend time on our sparkling-new 2001 CR500 and showroom-fresh 2008 CRF450. Three of the test riders were used for lap time testing only.
They were given a whole day to acclimate themselves to both the CR500 and the 2008 CRF450. At the end of the day, the three riders (a Junior, Intermediate and AMA Pro) were sent out to do lap times on both bikes. The second portion of the test was to take a single pro rider, one who had spent several years racing a CR500, and have him race both bikes (splitting motos on MXA’s 2001 CR500 and his own 2007 CRF450). We weighted the results of the four test riders, favoring our CR500 hired gun, but still taking the whole testing procedure into account.
Q:WHICH ONE MAKES THE MOST POWER?
A. Stock for stock there is no comparison—the CR500 two-stroke pumps out approximately 55 horsepower, to the 50 horsepower of the CRF450. If you doubt those numbers, you will be convinced by turning the throttle wide open on both bikes. The CR500 explodes, while the CRF450 churns its way forward.
In a test of sheer power, the CR500 wins. Unfortunately for the CR500, the only way to make all that power controllable is to tame it (which Honda did in later years by gearing the bikes taller) or turn it on with caution. The CRF450 doesn’t require as much care. It makes more power off the bottom and on the top than the CR500. And, it does it all in a manageable, torquey manner.
The CRF450 is Dr. Jekyll. The CR500 is Mr. Hyde.
Q:WHICH ONE IS THE FASTEST?
A:First and foremost, our concept of faster is gauged by the ability to ride the bike faster—not just hang on and pray. The CRF450 turned faster lap times because it has a controllable delivery. It was less violent under acceleration and less chuggy under deceleration. The versatility of the four-stroke outweighs its shortcomings at peak horsepower. No contest.
But, and this is a big but, if you have the skill to pull the trigger, the CR500 would actually gobble the CRF450 up in deep loam, rough straights and steep hills. The big two-stroke was a rocketship when it had a rocket man at the controls.
Q:WHICH ONE IS EASIER TO RIDE?
A:The idea of easy-to-ride can’t even be applied to the CR500. It is a workout to hang on to it. When you build up the bravery or get it up to speed, things start to smooth out, but it takes talent, nerves and skill to leave it on. This category is all about the CRF450.
Q:HOW DO YOU RIDE A CR500?
A:At most tracks, you can start in third gear and leave the bike there for almost the entire moto. A CR500 rider doesn’t have to do very much shifting, except to get through the pits and to break through the sound barrier. Clutch action is limited to pulling it in when you overshoot corners (because you misjudged the speed you were traveling). In many ways, the CR500’s ability to run in only one of its five speeds allows the rider to concentrate on picking lines and grabbing big handfuls of brake.
Q:AND THE POWERBAND WINNER IS…
A:Need you ask? The CRF450 wins the overall powerband category.
Q:WHICH BIKE HAS THE BEST SUSPENSION?
A:From 1992 on, Honda made very few changes to the CR500 package, but one area where they did try to keep up to date was with the suspension components. Unfortunately, the MXA test crew didn’t like the forks on the late model CR500s (post 1996). They worked best at low speed or with light riders. If you pushed them, they bottomed over big jumps. Back in the day, we swapped the stock 0.42 kg/mm fork springs for stiffer 0.43s, but in this stock-to-stock shootout we didn’t have that option.
On the 2008 CRF450, Honda had upped the stock spring rates over what was used in the 2007 model. The addition of 0.47 kg/mm fork springs made the CRF450 much more capable of grabbing big air.
But, when it came time to race the two bikes, the CR500 wasn’t as outdated on the track as it was on the calendar. The suspension was fairly usable. We think the CRF450 suspension was better, but were shocked that it wasn’t a slam-dunk victory.
Q:WHICH BIKE WEIGHS THE LEAST?
A:The Honda CRF450 was the lightest. At 232 pounds, it weighs 15 pounds less than the CR500.
Q:WHICH BIKE IS THE LOUDEST?
A:No contest. The CR500 is whisper quiet. In a race, the spectators couldn’t hear the CR500’s two-stroke engine over the CRF450’s growl.
Q:WHICH BIKE HANDLES THE BEST?
A:No mystery here. A bike that weighs 15 pounds less, produces a broad, torquey powerband and has modern suspension is no match for a heavy, powerful bike with old-school suspension balance. The CRF450 has a leg-up in this category based on eras, age and modern sensibilities.
Q:AND NOW FOR THE $64,000 QUESTION…
A:When asked to choose between the 2001 Honda CR450 and the 2008 Honda CRF450, the three lap-time test riders unanimously chose the modern four-stroke. Since they had limited CR500 experience (and one of the three had never ridden an Open class two-stroke before), we expected them to be more at home on the CRF450. Lap time test results were interesting.
The Junior-level rider was only one second a lap faster on the CRF450 than on the CR500. The Intermediate was five seconds a lap faster on the CRF450, while the AMA pro was six seconds a lap faster on the CRF450. We were surprised that the lower the skill level of the rider, the lower the lap time difference, but not as surprised as by our race test. Within three or four laps, our CR500-savvy racer was cranking out competitive lap times. By the time the race rolled around, he began to like the CR500. And when he would switch back to his CRF450, he’d say that “it felt weird to ride the four-stroke.”
In the end, our pro racer came to a convoluted conclusion. If the CR500 engine was placed in the lighter, better suspensed and more modern CRF450 chassis, he’d prefer to race the CR500. For our purposes, the frame swap was not possible, and we had to judge the 2001 CR500 with its old-fashioned feel. Its sofa saddle, pulled-back bars, bulbous gas tank and bulky ergos were part of the total package. If we could lose all of that…and make a modern version of the CR500…it would be competitive.
Q:AND THE WINNER IS…
A:As the two bikes sit, the 2008 CRF450 is a much better race bike than the 2001 CR500. You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that out…but even Dr. Watson would be surprised that the margin of victory wasn’t as great as everyone expected.
-The rise of James Stewart
-The rise of the 250F in the 125s
-The beginning of the end of the 2-stroke in AMA Pro Racing (Grant was dominating everyone on the CRF until he couldn't get it started).
This also seemed to mark the beginning of a 4-stroke dark cloud that would spread to all forms of racing.
In my opinion MXA was the only mag that ever said a bad thing about bikes they tested. But that being put aside, they are basically saying a 1991 CR500 was suprisingly competitive with a 2008 CRF 450. Thought you would have liked that, not tried to discredit it. Mainly I was interested in the 500 being more powerful as someone posted that 250f's are as powerful (or more) than the old 500s were.
When we start talking about 4 inches of travel, we have gotten far off the 2 stroke vs. 4-stroke debate and are talking about suspension progression instead. I would agree that modern suspension has more to do with creating the potential for death compared to that on a TM 400, or YZ 465.
Modern suspension has far more to do with allowing increased speeds (that coukd result in death) than having cams and valves in the motor does.
It's frustrating at times as a 44 y.o. when I have to make the choice to roll that jump when i'm right behind that kid and on his ass, then he's gapped me after those jumps we are referring to.
Pit Row
I feel pretty confident when I say this, four strokes MAY be easier to ride after the 5th lap than a two stroke, but if you are going to do something dumb like roll out of a turn and try to huck some huge gap, you are destine to ride a chair for the rest of your life. And the type of bike has a lot less to do with that then the moron riding it. That's just thinning the herd. And for what it's worth, I was almost one of those morons, on the day I got the 97 RM 125. Overconfident - new bike sickness. Fortunately someone crashed before me and I took a moment to think about hucking the 15 foot high 90 foot long double.
A lot of the arguments point to the newer style tracks. I feel this could be the culprit.Yes I like natural elevation tracks that I can haul ass on, but now I am just going faster and closer to danger. So really is it the track? I believe gap jumps are less forgiving. You miss it, your gonna hurt. The point I am getting at is the same thing in my initial post. Wouldn't we be here on modern direct injected two strokes anyway? Technology is all about making the bike easier to ride.
A lot of valid points here, and a lot of are you flipping serious points??
Next,
`oG
In my mind I think the biggest thing is because they do not free wheel and when you get in trouble they drop anchor and the front end dives down when in the air. I have seen this so many times with 4 strokes and think about how many of the bad crashes are when the rider gets augered into the ground by a big heavy 4 stroke.
honda saw a marketing niche, and they went for it. they even allowed yamaha to be the test mule, how nice of them. they used propoganda, which apparently many of you bought. they strong armed the AMA as well.
in a perfect world, there would only be one rule. displacement. aside from that, may the best platform win, and in turn, may that technology trickle down to the end user.....US. but what you dont realize is how much BETTER our bikes would be if AMA racing was this way. we are a solid 15-20 years behind where we could be on production bikes if it werent for the AMA and the japanese.
solution. set the 2 classes at 150cc and 300cc. allow any sort of fuel delivery. allow any engine configuration. and lets find out what really constitutes the best mx platform. i think a lot of you fooper troopers will be (in the words of mohammed) surprised.
Post a reply to: Are 4 strokes the reason...