MC's 1997 Suzuki (the forks rumour)

Create New Tag

12/8/2017 9:33 AM

newmann wrote:

Those were the all new conventional forks SUSZUKI had going during the McGrath year. Way different flex characteristics ...more

Trirace are you looking for the clamp on the legs? just above the wheel?


"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough" ~Mario Andretti

12/8/2017 9:50 AM

I believe he's looking for this.



12/8/2017 10:00 AM

coastlinecascot wrote:

Hard hitting? No way. I raced a bone stock 98 kx250. my buddy showed up to comp park with a 98 rm250. I jumped on it and that ...more

I cannot say that I actually rode a 98, but I rode a 96, 97, 99 and 00. And the 96 and 97's hit like no other bike I've had. They would lose a drag race, but the bottom was 99 felt gutless in comparison. And a friend of mine sold his 2000 after riding my 97. I've had a buncha 250 two strokes and still those RM's hit hard.



12/8/2017 10:13 AM

ATKpilot99 wrote:

Having to split the cases to change a water pump seal wasn't the brightest idea Suzuki ever had.

Sheriff245 wrote:

Funny thing is, they actually did even worse in 2004 on the Kawazuki engine when they combined the water pump cover and the ...more

The Kawasaki and Suzuki shared a 250f that year.....And is was a Suzuki designed and built engine


Tomac and/or Anderson for 2020.....

12/8/2017 11:38 AM

I had both the 93 CR250 and 97 RM250. In comparing the production models. The 97 RM was a turd compared to the CR. It wasn't terrible overall, but that Honda was so good and still relevant even in 97. The motor on the RM just had nothing on the CR. It was so slow feeling in comparison. The RM I remember the front being very cramped feeling and felt like it was riding low. It was very darty and didn't feel planted until it would just suddenly knife. The motor i'm sure a factory team could fix, but there was something jacked up with the geometry of that bike IMHO.

So saying MCs complaints were mainly with the front end, I would definitely believe that.