TEN Worst Dirt Bikes Of All Time

Redrcr34
Profile picture for user Redrcr34
Posts
1047
Joined
10/3/2008
Location
IL US
Redrcr34 10/27/2010 5:36pm
10/27/2010 5:36pm
Of the 20 something dirt bikes I have owned, the 97 Honda Cr250 was by far the worst ever.
MotoGuido
Profile picture for user MotoGuido
Posts
243
Joined
9/30/2010
Location
San Diego, CA US
MotoGuido 10/27/2010 6:07pm
10/27/2010 6:07pm Edited Date/Time 10/27/2010 6:08pm
This one. Because it killed motocross. Haha THAT JUST HAPPENED!



nytsmaC
Profile picture for user nytsmaC
Posts
5946
Joined
8/10/2009
Location
Frig Off CA
nytsmaC 10/28/2010 7:59am
10/28/2010 7:59am
Redrcr34 wrote:
Of the 20 something dirt bikes I have owned, the 97 Honda Cr250 was by far the worst ever.
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.
bt260
Profile picture for user bt260
Posts
200
Joined
10/30/2008
Location
Locke, NY US
bt260 10/28/2010 9:46am
10/28/2010 9:46am Edited Date/Time 10/28/2010 9:50am
My first motocross bike was an '81 CR450. The rear shock shaft was broken away from the clevis when I got it. Had it welded back together and filled it with 80W gear oil to slow down the damping. At one point I rigged a set of WP upside-down forks on it so I had disc brakes. The bike was already ten years old but it was all I could afford. I did anything I could to ride.

The Shop

See All »
Prince1
Profile picture for user Prince1
Posts
218
Joined
9/10/2010
Location
US
Prince1 10/28/2010 10:06am
10/28/2010 10:06am
Any KTM till lately!
Rudeboy119
Profile picture for user Rudeboy119
Posts
791
Joined
1/19/2010
Location
Lothian, MD US
Rudeboy119 10/28/2010 11:39am
10/28/2010 11:39am
my 1995 KX125 was the biggest pile I have ever thrown a leg over. 1st ride out @ Budds Creek a local pro rode it and asked "whats wrong with this thing"? Zero horsepower! Nice chassis, but the suspension was harsh and not forgiving. The only think that motor was good for was perhaps an aqarium bubbler or to keep some cardboard boxes from flying away. 1996 I got a deal on a RM125 and coulnt believe how good it was! (Yes with the convention forks) the only bike I had that made me smile as it left with its new owner
Redrcr34
Profile picture for user Redrcr34
Posts
1047
Joined
10/3/2008
Location
IL US
Redrcr34 10/28/2010 1:11pm
10/28/2010 1:11pm
Redrcr34 wrote:
Of the 20 something dirt bikes I have owned, the 97 Honda Cr250 was by far the worst ever.
nytsmaC wrote:
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.[img]http://www.motodacross.com/suzuki/rm250/1994.jpg[/img]
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I remember Showa for the first time offering works kit internals for the forks. I paid like 1500.00 for the kit. The forks worked a little better but I think my stock KYB's were better on my 96 cr125
mxrose3
Profile picture for user mxrose3
Posts
2332
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Delmar, DE US
mxrose3 10/28/2010 1:51pm
10/28/2010 1:51pm
Redrcr34 wrote:
Of the 20 something dirt bikes I have owned, the 97 Honda Cr250 was by far the worst ever.
nytsmaC wrote:
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.[img]http://www.motodacross.com/suzuki/rm250/1994.jpg[/img]
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.
Redrcr34 wrote:
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I...
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I remember Showa for the first time offering works kit internals for the forks. I paid like 1500.00 for the kit. The forks worked a little better but I think my stock KYB's were better on my 96 cr125
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was horrible. Honda should have let McGrath stay on his 93' that year.
rcannon
Profile picture for user rcannon
Posts
357
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
West Jordan, UT US
rcannon 10/28/2010 2:15pm
10/28/2010 2:15pm
Kinetic1 wrote:
1979 Kawasaki KD100M. Pile oh pooh. It was slow the suspension was useless and it weighed a ton. Did I mention that it sucked so badly...
1979 Kawasaki KD100M. Pile oh pooh. It was slow the suspension was useless and it weighed a ton. Did I mention that it sucked so badly in every concievable way. I still miss the old girl though. I had an orange one.
Rupert X wrote:
I had something similar, a mid '70's ('75 I think...) Kaw KS125 green. I stopped using two-smoke oil after my dad said 5 wt engine oil...
I had something similar, a mid '70's ('75 I think...) Kaw KS125 green.

I stopped using two-smoke oil after my dad said 5 wt engine oil would do just

fine -it did...for a few years anyway... It was my get-to-school ride and my after school

beater...Kaw refused to fix things under warranty, including broken frame - said

i was abusing the bike. Yeah, I was. True.

The Northampton, Mass dealer took good care of me. Jerry. Heidi.

Was it Valley Motorsports ? I think it was....The mechanic there raced a Rokon in mx

back in the day...
I had a KS125 as well. Kawasaki should have given you an award for making it go fast enough to break a frame. You must have been good. I rode mine for years, and passed it down for many more.

No power, no suspension. Nothing redeeming about the bike. I do think it was head an shoulders better than my 82 yz 490.

The sc 500's we had were ok bikes (for what they were) but it was impossible to keep pistons in them.
ATKpilot99
Profile picture for user ATKpilot99
Posts
10420
Joined
4/13/2010
Location
Lake Geneva, WI US
ATKpilot99 10/28/2010 3:02pm
10/28/2010 3:02pm
nytsmaC wrote:
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.[img]http://www.motodacross.com/suzuki/rm250/1994.jpg[/img]
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.
Redrcr34 wrote:
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I...
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I remember Showa for the first time offering works kit internals for the forks. I paid like 1500.00 for the kit. The forks worked a little better but I think my stock KYB's were better on my 96 cr125
mxrose3 wrote:
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was...
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was horrible. Honda should have let McGrath stay on his 93' that year.
A lot of people really seem to hate the 97 CR 250. The factories must have really been able to tweak them because LaRocco and Lusk in 98 and Windham joining them in 99 really seemed to do well on those bikes and it was pretty much the same chassis. In fact I remember Lusk saying in an interview that the 99 Honda was one of his all time favorite bikes.
Flatliner
Profile picture for user Flatliner
Posts
4092
Joined
11/3/2009
Location
CA
Flatliner 10/28/2010 3:12pm
10/28/2010 3:12pm
Redrcr34 wrote:
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I...
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I remember Showa for the first time offering works kit internals for the forks. I paid like 1500.00 for the kit. The forks worked a little better but I think my stock KYB's were better on my 96 cr125
mxrose3 wrote:
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was...
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was horrible. Honda should have let McGrath stay on his 93' that year.
ATKpilot99 wrote:
A lot of people really seem to hate the 97 CR 250. The factories must have really been able to tweak them because LaRocco and Lusk...
A lot of people really seem to hate the 97 CR 250. The factories must have really been able to tweak them because LaRocco and Lusk in 98 and Windham joining them in 99 really seemed to do well on those bikes and it was pretty much the same chassis. In fact I remember Lusk saying in an interview that the 99 Honda was one of his all time favorite bikes.
It was durable, and pretty fast, but very unforgiving and terribly stiff. Also transfered a lot of feedback to the bars.

Rudeboy119
Profile picture for user Rudeboy119
Posts
791
Joined
1/19/2010
Location
Lothian, MD US
Rudeboy119 10/28/2010 3:28pm
10/28/2010 3:28pm
mxrose3 wrote:
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was...
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was horrible. Honda should have let McGrath stay on his 93' that year.
ATKpilot99 wrote:
A lot of people really seem to hate the 97 CR 250. The factories must have really been able to tweak them because LaRocco and Lusk...
A lot of people really seem to hate the 97 CR 250. The factories must have really been able to tweak them because LaRocco and Lusk in 98 and Windham joining them in 99 really seemed to do well on those bikes and it was pretty much the same chassis. In fact I remember Lusk saying in an interview that the 99 Honda was one of his all time favorite bikes.
Flatliner wrote:
It was durable, and pretty fast, but very unforgiving and terribly stiff. Also transfered a lot of feedback to the bars.

that bike was suck a roach it made MC leave Honda. He liked the 93' frame and was running it all he way through 96' Honda didnt want him on the old frame, bad for business
Redrcr34
Profile picture for user Redrcr34
Posts
1047
Joined
10/3/2008
Location
IL US
Redrcr34 10/28/2010 3:50pm
10/28/2010 3:50pm Edited Date/Time 10/28/2010 3:51pm
I remember talking to one of the factory connection mechanics back in 98 and he said they were doing some different things to the frame, Can't recall what he said but I know they were drilling out the motor mount brackets, think they quit running a skid plate because it made the frame even stiffer, sort of like a shoe box becomes stronger when you put a lid on it. I do recall that Lusk like the frame and was running the 97 frame on his 99 Works Honda.
SuperAardy 10/28/2010 4:48pm
10/28/2010 4:48pm Edited Date/Time 10/28/2010 4:51pm
Redrcr34 wrote:
Of the 20 something dirt bikes I have owned, the 97 Honda Cr250 was by far the worst ever.
nytsmaC wrote:
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.[img]http://www.motodacross.com/suzuki/rm250/1994.jpg[/img]
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.
Redrcr34 wrote:
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I...
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I remember Showa for the first time offering works kit internals for the forks. I paid like 1500.00 for the kit. The forks worked a little better but I think my stock KYB's were better on my 96 cr125
That's the '95. Gold forks. Same chasis as the 93 however; the forks were much improved on the '95's. The 125's in that gen were amazing, the 250's were't bad either imo.
wow123
Profile picture for user wow123
Posts
1162
Joined
4/27/2010
Location
AX
wow123 10/28/2010 9:54pm
10/28/2010 9:54pm
Flatliner wrote:
It was durable, and pretty fast, but very unforgiving and terribly stiff. Also transfered a lot of feedback to the bars.

That exactly, had a 95kx250 at that time, riding and racing alot
and a few mates bought those hondas

Just wore you out and mistakes were punished heavily.

The Sneak
Profile picture for user The Sneak
Posts
171
Joined
2/24/2009
Location
US
The Sneak 10/29/2010 10:44am
10/29/2010 10:44am Edited Date/Time 10/31/2010 8:42am
Regarding the 1993 YZ125:

I was a 15 yr old 125 novice riding a hopped up but tired 90 YZ125. My folks helped me buy a new 93 YZ125 and it was slower than my 1990.



The suspension and slimmer layout was way way better than the 1990 though. It still didn't shift well, however.



So we sent the entire engine to Downers Grove Yamaha in Illinois and had it built to 'DGY package racer' specs.



This required...of all things..a 1990 cylinder!



When we got it back together it was pretty fast, certainly faster than a stock CR or KX.



I was 5' 6" 125 lbs though and really intimidated by the bigger bikes, coming off 80s. So I was still finished in 15th place every week.

EDIT: I also rode the 91 and 92s briefly. A friend who was an expert let me ride his 91 practice bike when the steering head bearings seized on my 90 and the parts were not in stock...and I had a 92 dealer trade-in for 2 weeks while we waited for my 93 (long story). All of them shifted like crap. I vividly remember pushing the bike through the pits after one moto and some guy smirking and saying something like 'what are you afraid to get it out of second gear?'
the freaking bike WOULD NOT SHIFT under throttle. I thought it was me.

The 91 and 92 felt the same: pipey, would not shift. I liked my 90 better even though I got made fun for having such a ragged bike.
rmpilot
Profile picture for user rmpilot
Posts
776
Joined
4/8/2010
Location
Tomah, WI US
rmpilot 4/27/2011 2:57pm
4/27/2011 2:57pm
-eagle- wrote:
96 rm 125 was awful
Deetsmx wrote:
I loved that bike. Felt light as can be and the forks rocked.
Steve47 wrote:
Huh??? That was actually a pretty damn good bike! I agree with almost everything in this thread but dude we must not be talking about the...
Huh???


That was actually a pretty damn good bike! I agree with almost everything in this thread but dude we must not be talking about the same bike...

I'm with Deetsmx on that one, I loved that bike.
id love to figure out how to put those forks on my yz 250 or 490
Moto_Geek
Profile picture for user Moto_Geek
Posts
1824
Joined
6/26/2007
Location
Golden, CO US
Moto_Geek 4/27/2011 3:57pm
4/27/2011 3:57pm
Redrcr34 wrote:
Of the 20 something dirt bikes I have owned, the 97 Honda Cr250 was by far the worst ever.
nytsmaC wrote:
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.[img]http://www.motodacross.com/suzuki/rm250/1994.jpg[/img]
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.
I remember McGrath talked about how bad this bike was in his post career interviews and in his book.

Pit Row

See All »
SoCalMX70
Profile picture for user SoCalMX70
Posts
3505
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Thousand Oaks, CA US
SoCalMX70 4/27/2011 7:06pm
4/27/2011 7:06pm
Redrcr34 wrote:
Of the 20 something dirt bikes I have owned, the 97 Honda Cr250 was by far the worst ever.
nytsmaC wrote:
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.[img]http://www.motodacross.com/suzuki/rm250/1994.jpg[/img]
I didn't care for the 97 CR250 either, but can you really say it was worse than THIS turd? I'd pick the CR every time.
Moto_Geek wrote:
I remember McGrath talked about how bad this bike was in his post career interviews and in his book.
He rode a '97, not a '93.
Mod Killer
Profile picture for user Mod Killer
Posts
1827
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Worldwide, CA US
Mod Killer 4/27/2011 7:17pm
4/27/2011 7:17pm
no cannondale huh?
Void Main
Profile picture for user Void Main
Posts
17013
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
US
Void Main 4/27/2011 7:20pm
4/27/2011 7:20pm
Mod Killer wrote:
no cannondale huh?
Here's a cannon Dale:

jim598
Profile picture for user jim598
Posts
126
Joined
4/9/2010
Location
Marion, OH US
jim598 4/27/2011 7:45pm
4/27/2011 7:45pm Edited Date/Time 4/27/2011 7:48pm
I had a 86 490 and it was a trouble free bike that I liked ok. I liked all three of my cr 500s a little better but I was faster on the 490 than the 85 cr 500. I had several bikes that were way worse. 175 ossa that bike did nothing right, 82 yz 125 rod went out when it was two weeks old, the bike was a pile of crap. 88 rm 250 I broke everything on it, the bike was made of silly puddy. 1980 cr 390 husky, hardest starting bike ever and I have driven semis that turned better than that bike. 175 bultaco everytime you started ityou used to have to lay on its side to get to clean out, kinda ruff if you crashed in the middle of a race. 250 cz to pull the clutch in you couldn't even hold the handlebars in a straight line while trying to pull in the clutch and ride at the same time.just my opinion
Flatliner
Profile picture for user Flatliner
Posts
4092
Joined
11/3/2009
Location
CA
Flatliner 4/27/2011 8:09pm
4/27/2011 8:09pm
Redrcr34 wrote:
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I...
If Thats a 93, I almost bought one of those. I just didn't like the verrrrry stiff frame. Suspension sucked, Motor was a rocket though. I remember Showa for the first time offering works kit internals for the forks. I paid like 1500.00 for the kit. The forks worked a little better but I think my stock KYB's were better on my 96 cr125
mxrose3 wrote:
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was...
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was horrible. Honda should have let McGrath stay on his 93' that year.
ATKpilot99 wrote:
A lot of people really seem to hate the 97 CR 250. The factories must have really been able to tweak them because LaRocco and Lusk...
A lot of people really seem to hate the 97 CR 250. The factories must have really been able to tweak them because LaRocco and Lusk in 98 and Windham joining them in 99 really seemed to do well on those bikes and it was pretty much the same chassis. In fact I remember Lusk saying in an interview that the 99 Honda was one of his all time favorite bikes.
I don't know what they did.....but it must have been extensive. No matter what I did I could not get rid of armpump from that bike, and previous to it, pumping up was rarely an issue.

It obviously paved the way for better frames down the road, but at the time the 96 was so much better overall.
Redrcr34
Profile picture for user Redrcr34
Posts
1047
Joined
10/3/2008
Location
IL US
Redrcr34 4/27/2011 8:47pm
4/27/2011 8:47pm
mxrose3 wrote:
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was...
I'll take the 93' RM250 over the 97' CR250. At least the 93' RM250 turned effortlessly and had a pretty good motor. The 97' CR250 was horrible. Honda should have let McGrath stay on his 93' that year.
ATKpilot99 wrote:
A lot of people really seem to hate the 97 CR 250. The factories must have really been able to tweak them because LaRocco and Lusk...
A lot of people really seem to hate the 97 CR 250. The factories must have really been able to tweak them because LaRocco and Lusk in 98 and Windham joining them in 99 really seemed to do well on those bikes and it was pretty much the same chassis. In fact I remember Lusk saying in an interview that the 99 Honda was one of his all time favorite bikes.
Flatliner wrote:
I don't know what they did.....but it must have been extensive. No matter what I did I could not get rid of armpump from that bike...
I don't know what they did.....but it must have been extensive. No matter what I did I could not get rid of armpump from that bike, and previous to it, pumping up was rarely an issue.

It obviously paved the way for better frames down the road, but at the time the 96 was so much better overall.
It was such letdown after I got the 97 Cr250. I remember the hype about that bike and got sucked in. The new aluminum frame, new 47mm Forks, Powerjet carb. I seemed to switch back and forth from 125's to 250's, had a couple of trail bikes, then in 1979 bought a 76 Husky 250cr. From there I went to an 81 KX125 then an 82 cr125, 82 RM250, 83 KX250, 84 KX250, 85 CR125, 86 KX125, 87 CR125, 89 CR250, 94 Cr250, 96 CR125, 97 CR250, 2000 CR125, 03 CR125, and now an 07 CRF 250- 280 BB. There were some crappy bikes but none compared to to 97 Cr250. I never could get the bike to my liking and after 2 years got rid of the POS.
rg4
Profile picture for user rg4
Posts
163
Joined
1/9/2011
Location
Eastern, WA US
rg4 4/28/2011 2:14pm
4/28/2011 2:14pm
Fun thread about old school bikes.. I'm suprised the 1982 YZ250 isn't on the list. My dad's buddy bought a brand new one back in the day. He said it was a horrible bike and the front end felt very heavy. I was riding a YZinger 50 in those days. Later in the 80's my dad rode a 1987 KTM 250. He bought a parts bike just to keep it running. During the time my dad was riding KTM's, I had a 1986 KTM 80. The powerband was a match. Made me appreciate the 1987 KX80 Big Wheel I got. We later put a DMC 105 kit in it.
rmpilot
Profile picture for user rmpilot
Posts
776
Joined
4/8/2010
Location
Tomah, WI US
rmpilot 4/28/2011 3:17pm
4/28/2011 3:17pm
if theres one thing i cant stand its the twin spar aluminum frames, maybe i just havent ridden new enough ones of them but they just dont agree with me.
reded
Profile picture for user reded
Posts
3682
Joined
3/26/2011
Location
KS US
reded 4/28/2011 3:34pm
4/28/2011 3:34pm
The '97 CR250 was a MF'er to make turn, it took muscle as well as finesse. It was a running sonuvabitch in a straight line but I cringed every time I got to a corner. Plus it had some suspension issues that just could not be worked out, still not sure if it was the frame or the actual suspension components. That bike wadded me up more times than I care to remember.
Ing
Profile picture for user Ing
Posts
3654
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Spring Hill, FL US
Ing 4/28/2011 4:09pm
4/28/2011 4:09pm
Prince1 wrote:
Any KTM till lately!
Never owned one huh?

Post a reply to: TEN Worst Dirt Bikes Of All Time