Posts
63
Joined
1/28/2025
Location
DeSoto , MO
US
Edited Date/Time
6/5/2026 10:42am
I've been reading quite a few media outlets post on the new Kawasaki KX327 claimed wet weight at 233lbs?
My question is is this actually true.. Are they claiming a wet weight of 233 lb or a dry weight of 233lbs?
Are you asking us Vitards? Ya gonna get 70 different answers.
I'm just messing around.
Yes, they claim dry @ 233lbs, but we can't answer that unless someone here has bought one and weighed it.
Sorry mate, I'll give Kawasaki the benefit of the doubt. Kawasaki is a world-renowned company, and they will not bullshit on the specs and weight of the bike.
Kawi does not specify. They just said “…resulting in an overall machine weight of just 233.7 lbs. – comparable to a 250cc-class motocross bike.” The KX250 is listed as 230.9 without fuel, 240.8 with. Infer what you wish. I read that to suggest the 233 is without fuel.
Answer number 71....it don't effen matter
🙃
I've always assumed the advertised weight is dry weight. They want to advertise as low as possible
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
I think this one is still TBD until someone gets their hands on it to weigh it or Kawi clarifies. The arguments here have been that the Japanese manufacturers always list their bike weights as ready to ride with fluids and fuel, but as you can see below they've listed their 250f with and without fuel. I hope the 233lbs is ready to ride with fuel as that would make more sense:
Well, as soon as i will know the bike is reliable, i’ll get it, i’m a kawi fan. Been through more than 8 kawi’s 1 yami and 2 ktm.
But my MC250 2024 is 4,5kg ~ 10lbs lighter than this. That’s a lot.
This has already been hashed out in the original kx327 thread. The general consensus was that 233 was without fuel.
If only you could delete the battery and the starter……..oh wait, there’s not even a provision for a kick starter!
😡😡😡
I think Japanese manufacturers always list wet weight.
You can look up my post in the other thread that discusses weight but Keefer said 236(I think he meant 233) listed is wet weight but he thinks it will go up slightly.
This - the 1981 yz 250h weighed 232lbs with one gallon of gas in it.
It's about time we let go of the weight thing - The modern bikes are, fast, powerful, artfully suspended, geometrically dialed, electrically started, fuel injected, researched thoroughly and are really a technologically amazing machine being offered to a bunch of ham and eggers that are worried -
What about the weight? Honest - you won't feel it unless the bike is on top of you, and then you're doing it wrong.
No offense to the OP - the question was coming from someone.
Not sure what the actual weight will be for this bike but whatever it is, it's not heavy. My 1996 xr600r was heavy
Reply#2 It matters to me!
Yea Me too.. because if the wet weight was 233lbs then that means the dry weight would be closer to 225lbs without fuel because gasoline weighs approximately 6.2 lb per gallon and with a 1.7 gallon gas tank that would be roughly 8 lb lighter empty than with a full tank
That would be nice if the 233 lb wet is true that would mean the bike would be closer to 225 lb dry
There’s no reason to think it’s gonna be as light as the Austrians, and no reason to think a Kawi is gonna be a lightweight in general. Either way it’s a cool bike.
Kawi clearly states on their website for all the current models that the weights are “without fuel”
Yamaha does wet weight, KTM likes to list dry weights.
SX300 is 231lbs, the kx327 claimed wet weight is 233.7lbs, that's pretty close. The carbureted kick start yz250 is 227lbs.
Pit Row
That makes it 250+? 😳
If true, that would be very disappointing and a darn right pig for a 2 stroke. I get used to whatever I am riding after a lap or 2, but I do notice the weight when I switch between bikes of different weight, and always feel better with the lighter weight. I think weight reduction is not cheap. To make a part lighter by using more expensive materials or by machining it down very carefully and precisely costs money. It is cheap to make a quick casting of a heavier part, with greater deviation from batch to batch, that you know is unlikely to fail because of the additional material.
Whenever these weight topics come up I think about ktms spokes breaking several years ago. The next gen gained weight, but the wheels stayed together.
Or Rodger talking about machining things until they broke during testing, then backing it off a bit and moving on to the next part. 😅
Unless something has changed recently, the Japanese list wet weight (full tank of gas unless otherwise specified), and the Euros list dry weight (no fuel, oil, brake fluid, shock fluid, etc.) and in many cases this includes no battery.
There's a lot of confusing advertising going on but I would like to see a standard set for all bike weights being advertised with all fluids except fuel. Not all fuel tanks are exactly the same size from manufacturer to manufacturer so if your tank is bigger you are at a weight disadvantage from a marketing perspective if bikes were listed with a full tank. No one I know tops off their tank to go spin laps, but we would top off if going on a long enduro ride. So for me the SX300 would weigh 225lbs at the track, and 231lbs for a desert or trail ride. Given the fact it depends on the fuel tank size and ride type of how much your bike will weigh, the weight standard should be with all fluids except fuel to compare weight across brands.
Last I knew MXA publishes the true weights of all bike in their tests with a full tank of gas, as in, they actually weigh them.
And that would be a poor way to do it IMO because like I said all fuel tanks are not the same size. So in that case the GasGas would be at a 3lb disadvantage because it holds .5gal more of fuel. If they are going to do it this way it should be standardized with one gallon of gas or similar so it's an even playing field for all bikes with different sized tanks.
Question is...are you 10 pounds lighter....
There's plenty of us here who are definitely in good shape and have the mindset that every ounce counts. Saying that 10lbs doesn't matter is a slippery slope when comparing specs across different brands. Honda just set the bar really high with knocking 10lbs off their new 450. That is huge. That's like strapping almost two gallons of gas to your seat in comparison.
My 1986 KX250 weight is 213 with no fuel . The 81 YZ was a pig.
Saying that every "ounce" counts is laughable unless you are a top AMA Pro, and by the time they do one lap on a wet track, they have already added a few pounds to their bike anyway, so they definitely won't notice if their bike is 3 ounces heavier at the start than it was at the last race. Plus, if you are in "good shape" as you infer you are, then you should easily be strong enough to handle a bike that weighs a few more pounds than your current one, so if you really think that just a few more ounces matters to you, perhaps your not in as good of shape as you infer you are and you should probably think about hitting the gym a bit more.
It makes the most sense to use the weight with lubricants, but without fuel. No reason to penalize a bike with a slightly larger fuel tank. If you’re running 15 minute motos, there’s no need to fill the fuel tank to the top, either.
Post a reply to: KX327 WEIGHT CLAIM