Kawasaki's Two-Stroke is Real, the KX327 is Here

smrscott
Posts
393
Joined
12/15/2009
Location
Tustin, CA US
6/3/2026 3:48am

Trying to compare a 20-year-old bike and tech to a new machine is a stretch. 

A bike that is light and feels light are totally different. Look at the Stark, heavy but feels light when moving.

The old Husaberg had the crack super-high and the cylinder pointed forward, yet it felt really light once it got rolling. 

The location of the spinning mass is often what make a bike feel light or heavy. The less spinning mass, 250cc or 350cc 4T, feel lighter than a 450cc 4T. Almost the same weight, yet lighter crank and less spinning mass. The Stark does not have a heavy spinning crank or clutch. (for example) Also the location of the heavier spinning masses, which is the crank and the clutch, make a huge difference. 

Not sure for certain, yet it appears the counter balancer could be located on the bottom of the engine, which also moves a spinning mass more toward the center of the motorcycle.  

The new KX has a higher crank and the clutch appears higher in the chassis, maybe they centralized spinning mass to help give the bike a lighter feel, especially with a big-bore 327cc smoker, which is 75cc more than old school 250s 2Ts.

All of this change the gyroscopic effects of the bike when changing direction and in the air.  

Also, if you look close, the bottom cradle is not the same as the 450F chassis.  

Only time will tell if Kawasaki hit it out of the park, it’s just another motorcycle or they missed the boat?  

No matter what, it’s still cool and I want to ride one.

  

7
1
dbaker521
Posts
124
Joined
12/24/2015
Location
Kingwood, TX US
6/3/2026 5:02am
themx11 wrote:

Wonder why not just a KX125. Surely that would be super popular. 

Kawi is in cahoots with the restyle plastic kit companies.😁

6/3/2026 5:03am
smrscott wrote:
Trying to compare a 20-year-old bike and tech to a new machine is a stretch. A bike that is light and feels light are totally different. Look...

Trying to compare a 20-year-old bike and tech to a new machine is a stretch. 

A bike that is light and feels light are totally different. Look at the Stark, heavy but feels light when moving.

The old Husaberg had the crack super-high and the cylinder pointed forward, yet it felt really light once it got rolling. 

The location of the spinning mass is often what make a bike feel light or heavy. The less spinning mass, 250cc or 350cc 4T, feel lighter than a 450cc 4T. Almost the same weight, yet lighter crank and less spinning mass. The Stark does not have a heavy spinning crank or clutch. (for example) Also the location of the heavier spinning masses, which is the crank and the clutch, make a huge difference. 

Not sure for certain, yet it appears the counter balancer could be located on the bottom of the engine, which also moves a spinning mass more toward the center of the motorcycle.  

The new KX has a higher crank and the clutch appears higher in the chassis, maybe they centralized spinning mass to help give the bike a lighter feel, especially with a big-bore 327cc smoker, which is 75cc more than old school 250s 2Ts.

All of this change the gyroscopic effects of the bike when changing direction and in the air.  

Also, if you look close, the bottom cradle is not the same as the 450F chassis.  

Only time will tell if Kawasaki hit it out of the park, it’s just another motorcycle or they missed the boat?  

No matter what, it’s still cool and I want to ride one.

  

There is wiring going to under the crank, likely to the starter motor...

image 3128.png?VersionId=CUX

image 3126

The bulge behind the crank is likely the counter balance...

image 3125
7
1

The Shop

Bearuno
Posts
5316
Joined
6/28/2014
Location
AU
6/3/2026 5:50am Edited Date/Time 6/3/2026 8:18pm
smrscott wrote:
Trying to compare a 20-year-old bike and tech to a new machine is a stretch. A bike that is light and feels light are totally different. Look...

Trying to compare a 20-year-old bike and tech to a new machine is a stretch. 

A bike that is light and feels light are totally different. Look at the Stark, heavy but feels light when moving.

The old Husaberg had the crack super-high and the cylinder pointed forward, yet it felt really light once it got rolling. 

The location of the spinning mass is often what make a bike feel light or heavy. The less spinning mass, 250cc or 350cc 4T, feel lighter than a 450cc 4T. Almost the same weight, yet lighter crank and less spinning mass. The Stark does not have a heavy spinning crank or clutch. (for example) Also the location of the heavier spinning masses, which is the crank and the clutch, make a huge difference. 

Not sure for certain, yet it appears the counter balancer could be located on the bottom of the engine, which also moves a spinning mass more toward the center of the motorcycle.  

The new KX has a higher crank and the clutch appears higher in the chassis, maybe they centralized spinning mass to help give the bike a lighter feel, especially with a big-bore 327cc smoker, which is 75cc more than old school 250s 2Ts.

All of this change the gyroscopic effects of the bike when changing direction and in the air.  

Also, if you look close, the bottom cradle is not the same as the 450F chassis.  

Only time will tell if Kawasaki hit it out of the park, it’s just another motorcycle or they missed the boat?  

No matter what, it’s still cool and I want to ride one.

  

There is wiring going to under the crank, likely to the starter motor...The bulge behind the crank is likely the counter balance...

There is wiring going to under the crank, likely to the starter motor...

image 3128.png?VersionId=CUX

image 3126

The bulge behind the crank is likely the counter balance...

image 3125

Well using the far from highly technical method of putting a ruler to a known 'measured' item - in this case, the 21 front wheel, and then using that ( not wildly accurate ) formula, with that pictures low Countershaft relationship to the Swingarm pivot, and projecting a straight line through those 2 centers, that makes the tightest point of the chain, around 8 inches above the center of the rear axle pictured. 

You'll find that the vast majority of those points on bikes, , make for a rough 4/5" sag to the rear the center line of all 3 points when forming a straight line.

This, as it is, would make for a Very pronounced  torque pulling the swingarm down / raising the rear end.

Just compare this geometry, to the pictures of the 450F., or, any other bike.

Unless Kawasaki have decided to make a bike with such a distinct / unique suspension geometry (and I'll be buggered that it would be a back end that worked well - though, it may be hailed as a 'revolution'), I think we've yet to see  pictures of the  actual bike.

Looking at these pictures,  they look more like CG ones, than actual, made, production bike pictures .

Understand, All Of You - In NO WAY is this observation of mine meant to Imply that the bikes does not  / will not exist  - I just don't think these are Actual pictures of a made bike.

4
1
KHNC
Posts
633
Joined
5/24/2023
Location
East Flat Rock, NC US
6/3/2026 6:44am
bodycast wrote:
Im going to need some ride reviews and comparisons.  Then im going to need 6 months and some old guy to put 20 hours on one...

Im going to need some ride reviews and comparisons.  Then im going to need 6 months and some old guy to put 20 hours on one and decide he cant ride it and I offer 7k cash lol.

And im not far from you , so I will come for a test ride once you buy it. 🤣

3
6/3/2026 3:00pm
-MAVERICK- wrote:

From the PR guy --- more KX (different displacement) models are coming in the future. Kawasaki intends to become very competitive in the off-road market. 

13
Moto Mofo
Posts
887
Joined
1/17/2008
Location
TX US
6/4/2026 5:46am

I can’t remember any other production bike with an aluminum frame having an engine cradle made from round tubing. Maybe this has been covered somewhere… but there’s been so much chatter about the new KXs that I simply haven’t had the ability to read through it all. 

5
ShellyMX
Posts
606
Joined
3/22/2026
Location
Smyrna, GA US
6/4/2026 6:00am

From the PR guy --- more KX (different displacement) models are coming in the future. Kawasaki intends to become very competitive in the off-road market. 

So glad to hear this!!

mxaniac
Posts
559
Joined
9/9/2019
Location
Airway Heights, WA US
6/4/2026 7:31am
kage173 wrote:
Can any engine builders explain how they get to these displacement sizes? Like is there a certain compression ratio,  hp, reliability target matrix that gets them...

Can any engine builders explain how they get to these displacement sizes? Like is there a certain compression ratio,  hp, reliability target matrix that gets them there? Or, it just kind of like 'hey guys, only open class vets are going to buy it so just make it bigger than the KTM 300?'

You have physical packaging constraints and torque limits of the components, but on top of all that the 2T has another important factor. You have an optimum port height for timing, and an optimum port volume. Unfortunately if your go too wide on the port to get your desired volume, your ring will catch. This constrains your bore to stroke ratio.

3
KHNC
Posts
633
Joined
5/24/2023
Location
East Flat Rock, NC US
6/4/2026 7:33am
Joshracing wrote:
 

 

EV.jpg?VersionId=J.6apTISXQGiocUkfik.Z4qBzUzU
image 3141.png?VersionId=uGRCK0YG5k4QebkNZ

Its a hybrid. KxPrius

9
1
endurox
Posts
2088
Joined
3/22/2014
Location
Garden City, ID US
6/4/2026 7:38am
Joshracing wrote:
Yeah, I have a KX125, 2005, it's LIGHT!  No way near 100kg.  I think with all this junk added, it's going to detract from the simplicity...

Yeah, I have a KX125, 2005, it's LIGHT!  No way near 100kg.  I think with all this junk added, it's going to detract from the simplicity we all love.   Alloy frame?   Why?  Doesn't need this.  I wonder if anyone will do carb conversions for 'em.... Lectron, step up!

Loc wrote:
the 2005 RM125 was even heavier at 96kg (claimed to be at 87.5kg by the munfacturer). A carbed KTM SX 125 weighs 89.5kg, while it was...

the 2005 RM125 was even heavier at 96kg (claimed to be at 87.5kg by the munfacturer). A carbed KTM SX 125 weighs 89.5kg, while it was also claimed to be 87.5kg.... My CR144 with a 2020 CRF aluminum frame was lightest so far at only 87kg with pirelli tyres and standard tubes.

The trans pacific weight defies physics.

Forty
Posts
3049
Joined
7/27/2009
Location
Saint Paul, MN US
6/4/2026 7:48am

I like the X model - think it would be a better fit for my program -

1
6/4/2026 7:49am

I'd get the X.. more versatile for what I ride these days. 

I sure hope Kawasaki is making enough of these puppies to go around. My local dealer said there will be some unhappy faces with returned deposits.. they only expect to get one of them 

1
early
Posts
9829
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH US
6/4/2026 8:04am
Joshracing wrote:
 

 

EV.jpg?VersionId=J.6apTISXQGiocUkfik.Z4qBzUzU
image 3141.png?VersionId=uGRCK0YG5k4QebkNZ

I wonder if Rich Taylor will sue Kawasaki when they build the EKX

11
2
Village Idiot
Posts
2479
Joined
5/19/2023
Location
MXoN - a term used by newbs, goobs and rubes, PW US
6/4/2026 8:27am
Joshracing wrote:
 

 

EV.jpg?VersionId=J.6apTISXQGiocUkfik.Z4qBzUzU

Well, I did hear that it's Pride Month.

9
2
Johnny Ringo
Posts
8188
Joined
1/11/2016
Location
Tombstone, AZ US
6/4/2026 8:48am

I told my chick about this and she couldn’t believe it

1
TeamGreen
Posts
36914
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
6/4/2026 9:23am
 Random thoughts -Somewhat reminds me of the YZ125 design, but the cylinder isn't tilted nearly as far forward, so it doesn't have that "banana" shape.I'm wondering...
image 3119.png?VersionId=fbxH1gRD

 Random thoughts -

Somewhat reminds me of the YZ125 design, but the cylinder isn't tilted nearly as far forward, so it doesn't have that "banana" shape.

I'm wondering if the higher-positioned engine is dictated because of the use of the existing 4T main frame and is compromising the positioning as a result (since the intake components have to line up and are high because of the intake location on the skyscraper head of the 450 vs the much lower case reed intake position, so the engine had to be lifted) or if it was intentional from the get-go. Seems like a frame specifically designed for it would allow it to take advantage of lower positioning and would benefit the chassis roll feel with a lower CG. 🤔

The SA pivot is noticeably higher than the old bike and a steeper SA angle results in a cow-catcher linkage, reminiscent of the '91 YZs. 

The higher engine makes it a tight fit between the plug and bottom of the tank, especially compared to the old bike. They took out all the room that makes it easy to get to things on most 2Ts.

Curious to learn more about it as the days pass. 👍

It looks like they moved the crank up to make room for the starter motor underneath...

It looks like they moved the crank up to make room for the starter motor underneath...

image 3126image 3128.png?VersionId=CUX
Possibly, but it's not the crank positioning that has caught my eye, nor the reason for it. The whole engine (and lower cradle) are significantly higher...

Possibly, but it's not the crank positioning that has caught my eye, nor the reason for it. The whole engine (and lower cradle) are significantly higher than the old bike and I'm thinking it's because they used the 4T main frame for platform sharing cost reasons and that has forced them to raise the entire engine up so the case-reed intake is high enough to match up with the intake positioning dictated by the 4T frame. I could be wrong, but that's my suspicion. Otherwise, why wouldn't you have it lower like the old design and drop the CG by several inches (and that's a big difference in the MOI from the roll axis)? 🤔

I've seen people rave about how much they could feel the difference in the roll resistance of their bike after spending a bunch of money on some brackets to lower the radiators less than an inch. I can only imagine the difference in feel if you lowered an entire engine a few inches. 🙂

The “moment” is affected by other spinning mass…other than just the crank, that is. The clutch assy, counter-balancer, transmission pieces…etc. and the starter has some mass, too, tho…only spinning at times that don’t play into this. They stack the gears and shafts differently in modern 2Ts. 

I’m just guessing here; but, compared to the 4T, I’m guessing this has a potentially lower cg & MOI and they played with that during testing. 

2
TeamGreen
Posts
36914
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
6/4/2026 9:25am
Joshracing wrote:
 

 

EV.jpg?VersionId=J.6apTISXQGiocUkfik.Z4qBzUzU
image 3141.png?VersionId=uGRCK0YG5k4QebkNZ

It’s just trying to identify as a “Real Motorcycle”. 🤣

4
1
6/4/2026 9:35am
TeamGreen wrote:
The “moment” is affected by other spinning mass…other than just the crank, that is. The clutch assy, counter-balancer, transmission pieces…etc. and the starter has some mass...

The “moment” is affected by other spinning mass…other than just the crank, that is. The clutch assy, counter-balancer, transmission pieces…etc. and the starter has some mass, too, tho…only spinning at times that don’t play into this. They stack the gears and shafts differently in modern 2Ts. 

I’m just guessing here; but, compared to the 4T, I’m guessing this has a potentially lower cg & MOI and they played with that during testing. 

Indeed. The gyroscopic effect of that mass can harm handling characteristics, I.e. turn in. 

1
TeamGreen
Posts
36914
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA US
6/4/2026 9:39am
TeamGreen wrote:
The “moment” is affected by other spinning mass…other than just the crank, that is. The clutch assy, counter-balancer, transmission pieces…etc. and the starter has some mass...

The “moment” is affected by other spinning mass…other than just the crank, that is. The clutch assy, counter-balancer, transmission pieces…etc. and the starter has some mass, too, tho…only spinning at times that don’t play into this. They stack the gears and shafts differently in modern 2Ts. 

I’m just guessing here; but, compared to the 4T, I’m guessing this has a potentially lower cg & MOI and they played with that during testing. 

MoogenKen wrote:

Indeed. The gyroscopic effect of that mass can harm handling characteristics, I.e. turn in. 

Still, I’m thinking it’s waaaaay less than a 450…? 

2
6/4/2026 9:45am
TeamGreen wrote:
The “moment” is affected by other spinning mass…other than just the crank, that is. The clutch assy, counter-balancer, transmission pieces…etc. and the starter has some mass...

The “moment” is affected by other spinning mass…other than just the crank, that is. The clutch assy, counter-balancer, transmission pieces…etc. and the starter has some mass, too, tho…only spinning at times that don’t play into this. They stack the gears and shafts differently in modern 2Ts. 

I’m just guessing here; but, compared to the 4T, I’m guessing this has a potentially lower cg & MOI and they played with that during testing. 

MoogenKen wrote:

Indeed. The gyroscopic effect of that mass can harm handling characteristics, I.e. turn in. 

TeamGreen wrote:

Still, I’m thinking it’s waaaaay less than a 450…? 

Without a doubt. 450s cams spinning up high in the bikes CG, will want to make it stand up straight. Was more referring to my own experience when I went to the dark side for a while. Coming right off a two stroke, the four banger was harder to throw around. 

1
PRM31
Posts
3575
Joined
8/7/2009
Location
Northern, VA US
Fantasy
6/4/2026 10:16am

A lot of "theory" here. New everything leaves a lot of room for possible hiccups, and opens the door for something pretty amazing. I look forward to reading about how it actually feels on track. Any news on when media might get to ride this thing? I thought RV2 indicated he could be riding around this time? 

2
Andy7
Posts
485
Joined
2/24/2017
Location
Venado Tuerto, Santa Fe AR
Fantasy
6/4/2026 11:18am

I can't believe that there hasn't been a single leak of the actual prototype bike after more than a year. This has to be the best kept secret in the industry ever.

12

Post a reply to: Kawasaki's Two-Stroke is Real, the KX327 is Here

The Latest