1994-95 RM 125/250 outer chamber Fork Oil Quantity - please help!

Related:
Create New Tag

7/24/2018 12:56 PM

Hi everyone, I'm upgrading my 93 RM 125 to 1994/95 RM twin chamber forks. Race Tech says 330 cc of oil in the outer chamber, but the Clymer manual says almost 100 cc more. That's a huge difference. Can anyone confirm which one is correct? Thanks!!

|

7/24/2018 5:09 PM

I would go with race tech before clymer....

|

7/24/2018 5:31 PM

Not sure if this will help you...from 1995 rm250 MXA test April 95 Photo
Photo

|

7/24/2018 5:45 PM

That is perfect- thanks!! Its the same forks, settings should be close enough. I really appreciate you taking time to look that up!

|

7/24/2018 6:11 PM

mark_swart wrote:

That is perfect- thanks!! Its the same forks, settings should be close enough. I really appreciate you taking time to look ...more

No problem...I"m 7 days post op from ACL surgery, I have a large stack of 90"s MXA magazines and all the time in world to waste...I bought a very clean set of 95 Rm twin chambers & bolted them on my 92 RM250. They were like brand new, seals not leaking ect. have about 3 hrs on them, they must be bone stock, pretty good on big hits, but very harsh on small choppy/square edge conditions. Just like they said in 95....

|

7/25/2018 9:25 AM

sandman768 wrote:

No problem...I"m 7 days post op from ACL surgery, I have a large stack of 90"s MXA magazines and all the time in world to ...more

Haha that's pretty much how I feel about the stock 93 forks! Hopefully the twin chambers will perform better. I found a set on ebay, pretty good shape but needed new seals. At least I know the twin chambers have more potential if I end up getting a revalve. On my CRFs, Factory Connection always replaced the top spring with a lighter one and they forks became much more plush. I have to wonder if that might be the same fix for these? I'll keep you updated after I get a ride on them, thanks again for the article, it's a huge help.

|