Posts
6404
Joined
1/5/2011
Location
Collettsville, NC, USA
Edited Date/Time
1/27/2012 4:51pm
I was thinking about the 350SX and I think if they would have created an engine package that had more of a broad power band as opposed to the top end screamer, it would have been the almost perfect bike. Obviously it still need to lose some weight, but the engine is not what the vet guys want IMO.
Most vets, including myself, want a bike that has the low end grunt to pull their fat asses out of the corners, but not too much that it's unmanageable. We also want a lower reving 4-stroke motor that has the lower maintenance cost of a 450.
Com'om KTM, build that bike people were really asking for. .....
Most vets, including myself, want a bike that has the low end grunt to pull their fat asses out of the corners, but not too much that it's unmanageable. We also want a lower reving 4-stroke motor that has the lower maintenance cost of a 450.
Com'om KTM, build that bike people were really asking for. .....
They gave us a small-motored 450.
Give us that motor in a chassis that's more like a CR-KX/F and we're on to something awesome.
KTM 300?
H
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
I disagree, I think they built a big 250f motor and instead need a small 450 motor power band wise.
Heck, I'd consider it just like it is, except I'm not looking for a four stroke.
It's called a KTM 450 SX/F.
And as for the power, there are lots of ways to detune them, including the obvious, which is that the grip on the right turns in both directions.
As to what I was implting: Yes, they DID give us a Small Motored 450...that was my point.
In the beginning they DID have that "Big" 350 motor in a coupl'a different chassis'...the coolest of which was a nicely framed "Lites" set-up with the 350 motor in it...w/ the number 800 on it...
Anyone ever see the Trellis framed 350?
it's not that hard to make them slow, is it?
Btw, I'll take a check...from you...that is.
All others? See J.James' tats.
Part of the benefit of four-strokes is that, for example, in braking bumps, they sort of plow through them. Part of that is due to the "weight" and "stability" of the bike, both of which work against "light" and "nimble".
So, while two-strokes are really fun, they're a lot less fun through braking bumps.
From the position of riding or racing on a motocross track, four-strokes handle a lot of stuff better than two-strokes, including braking bumps, keeping traction in low-traction situations (hooking up), and having a wider overall usable "powerband" if you choose to call it that.
But if you're talking only about handling as far as "turning" or "cornering" is concerned, my CRF450R is honestly just as good as my RM250 is. You have to go about it a little bit differently, but that's on you as the rider, not the bike.
But you'd better know how to ride. Which ultimately is where most of the folks who want to "bring back the two-stroke" come from, at least at the human level (meaning not the superstar racers or whatever). It's people who see "posers" jumping on four-strokes and getting "sick air" and then half killing themselves, and these people don't think it's a good thing. And I have a tendency to agree.
But, in racing - with displacement rules as they are - four-strokes are just flat out better bikes.
But you can't take my opinion for much. I liked my '78 Husky 390CR better than my '79 Maico 490 Mega 2, and I was probably the only guy on the Earth that felt that way.
But I'm glad we're able to have different points of view these days - it's been a long time since there were any real differences in bikes. For so long, we had a choice of four virtually identical 125s or four virtually identical 250s. Now at least we have something to argue about. And I'm glad KTM is making the 350, even though I think they missed the boat by not making it lighter.
Pit Row
and im one of those 2-stroke guys
just statin'
So much fun, but yes, you better know how to ride it!
My CRF450R makes about 62-63 hp, and it's anywhere and everywhere you want to use it. You can lug it (torque for days) or you can rev it until you think it might blow up, and it just keeps pulling.
And it TURNS at least as good, if not better, than my 250.
I love riding my 250. It's fun. But the front end on the 450 is way more planted for cornering, and the rear end stays planted too, just because the power isn't so abrupt.
Also, CG is judged by the bike/rider combination as a single unit, and I don't think my CRF450R has a higher CG than my RM250 does, once I'm on it and riding.
As for the 350, I'm not a fan. It's okay. But I feel like it does nothing great. It doesn't pull off the bottom even near like the 450, but it doesn't pull on top nearly like the 250, and it doesn't pull on bottom that much better than the 250, either. At least not stock.
I love the electric start, though...
But it was like hooligan fun. Like doing donuts in your car in an intersection. Not really like "man, I could really go fast around a track on this" but more like, "holy shit, this thing is trying to kill me, and I'm hanging on anyway".
.........and yeah, you can play with the power valve to make the 250 more mellow................and make it more four strokey............
Weight is only an issue on paper with the 350. Riding my CRF450 I miss the light feeling that my 350 had. I could easily just throw that thing into the corner and go. The 450 kind of wants to stand-up in comparison.
My biggest complaint with my 350 was the suspension, but once Factory Connection worked on, and I found a good set-up for me, it was waaaaaay better.
Post a reply to: KTM missed the boat