MX2 motocrosser test comparison

Posted on by admin

MX2 motocrosser test comparison

Newly constructed against a facelift

With MX2 crossers that have been completely redesigned and are technically almost identical, Husqvarna and KTM are fighting against the Japanese competition, which has only been modeled. We test the Honda CRF 250 R, Husqvarna FC 250, Kawasaki KX 250 F, KTM 250 SX-F, Suzuki RM-Z 250 and Yamaha YZ 250 F.

D.he name is wrong. Because the MX1 category (450 cm³ displacement) may be in the center of interest among media and fans, the MX2 class (250 cm³) has long since ceased to play second fiddle among the active players. According to the importers, around 60 percent of all amateur crossers are currently opting for a quarter-liter bike. The reason: The 40 to 45 hp engines are much easier to control than the up to 60 hp 450 series cars and yet differ only marginally from their big sisters in terms of lap times.

MX2 motocrosser test comparison

Newly constructed against a facelift

KTM 250 SX-F, Suzuki RM-Z 250) mix up the technology. Even though the forks may save up to 1.5 kilograms in weight, the scene remains skeptical. The control of the air pressure, which is necessary for every use, and a not yet finally proven tightness in the long run dampen the euphoria about the new technology. That being said, there will be an imaginary dividing line through the MX2 field in the coming model year. With the 250 SX-F – and the technically almost identical Husqvarna FE 250 – KTM is pushing two completely redesigned quarter-liter Crossers into the paddock. With a lot of fine-tuning on their MX2 bikes, the four Japanese manufacturers rely on the evolution of the tried and tested.

The engines are tempered, the tires (Bridgestone Battlecross X30) are installed, the routes (a speedy hard-floor slope interspersed with sand and a supercross-oriented course) are prepared and MOTORRAD off-road test pilot Didi Lacher (six-time German champion) is motivated. The race is on. You can see all test content on the following article pages.

Honda CRF 250 R.

Gargolov

A shame: After the Honda engineers finally perked up the Unicam engine, they are now torpedoing their work with the Triple Air Chamber fork from Showa. The adjustment of the air cushions is complex, the response behavior is moderate.

For years, Honda’s quarter-liter engines have not been considered a hot tip in the MX2 engine technology that is focused on maximum peak performance. The reason: The Unicam valve train enforces relatively tame control times and therefore mostly banished the propellant to the penalty bench of the MX2 team. Sharper cam profiles, titanium exhaust valves, compression increased from 13.5 to 13.8 and a lighter connecting rod actually help the problem child on the jumps.

Even if some crossers are subjectively irritated by the good sound from the double silencer of the Honda CRF 250 R, the Unicam single pushes objectively more forcefully than ever before. The little engine quickly purrs up the speed ladder in aggressive mapping suitable for any terrain. It can be shifted more effortlessly and precisely than any other off-road bike, inspires in the air and when braking with the lowest drag torque of all MX2 crossers and has finally caught up with the (Japanese) competition on the test bench with a peak output of 41 hp. 

Gargolov

Three mappings that can be selected via the handlebar switch are superfluous in the MX2 class. The most aggressive set-up always fits.

However, the chassis set-up does not make it easy to defend the terrain gained with the beefed up engine. Because the Triple Air Chamber fork from Showa with its three air chambers in the left fork leg needs attention even before take off. High pressures and the narrow range of setting options (between 10.5 and 11.5 bar, compensation chamber 0.7 to 0.9 bar) make control and coordination complicated – and the result is suboptimal. Even in the softest setup, the front of the Honda CRF 250 R rumbles with a rough response over edges and brake waves.

The rear also suffers from the hard spring of the Monoshock, which means that it works in the progressive damping range and is quite uncomfortable. It’s a shame, because even if the Honda, with its typically brilliant steering precision, bends around the inside track as accurately as a saw blade and fits ergonomically like a ballet shoe, the suspension ultimately messes up the ascent it deserves after the power regimen. Little consolation: the red lantern is not alone in carrying the burden.

Kawasaki KX 250 F

Gargolov

Character head: With a deep rear, rich traction, stable straight-line stability and a lively engine, the Kawa remains true to its traditional orientation.

After the modifications last year (larger flywheel, lighter rear frame, larger brake disc, tighter suspension elements), the men in the green dress are sending the Kawasaki KX 250 F unchanged into the 2016 season. Which, in principle, does not have to be bad. Because the intake tract, equipped with two injection nozzles (one before and one after the throttle valve), gives the Kawa drive a pleasant liveliness. As if stung by a tarantula, the dohc single pops out of the neighboring areas, revs up at lightning speed and almost tempts to be cheered up to the speed limit. And because it combines the brisk appearance with a markedly low-friction and low-vibration engine run, the propellant still belongs to the top league in the MX2 segment, and is just as good for professionals as amateurs. 

Gargolov

The separate Function Fork (SFF) from Showa carries the spring on the right and the damping unit in the left bar.

While the ghosts separate when it comes to the chassis design of the Kawasaki: high front, low rear, with this set-up, the current KX 250 F also carries on the philosophy of the Kawa-Crosser. Even stanchions pushed far into the triple trees cannot suppress the rear-heavy driving experience. The advantage: when accelerating, the rear wheel of the Kawasaki KX 250 F literally bites into the terrain. The disadvantage: In corners with no residents, the front does not want to give in and pushes outwards. Especially since the tuning of the SFF fork from Showa (steel spring in the right fork leg, damping in the left) was tight and makes it difficult to strain the front with physical effort. And not only that. Recently up to date, the moderately appealing Kawa front end has lost ground to the competition – apart from the Honda -. 

Weaknesses that are severely punished in the closely spaced MX2 field. The uncomfortable fork, the mediocre handling and the chubby figure of 104 kilograms cannot be compensated for by the agile engine or the well-working shock absorber. The Kawasaki KX 250 F is parked in fifth place alongside the Honda CRF 250 R..

Suzuki RM-Z 250

Gargolov

Reconsideration: With full pressure from the lower speed range, the Suzuki engine revives old virtues. 80 parts inside the engine have been revised.

The unchanged visual impression of the Suzuki RM-Z 250 is deceptive. A total of 80 revised engine parts, a frame that has been modified in terms of rigidity and Kayaba instead of Showa spring elements testify to the ambitious efforts of the engineers. And what’s the point? A return. Because instead of only starting from mid-speed as before, the Suzuki single now – as in the models before 2013 – already tensions its muscles in the lower rev range, clicks with a pronounced dull rumble from the neighboring areas and pretends to be the high -torque queen of the narrow run. This user-friendly character, which is also preserved by the most aggressive mapping that can be activated via a plug, puts amateur pilots in high spirits, no doubt.

Gargolov

Who is looking through there? Two compression stages (low and high speed), one rebound stage (low speed) with the Kayaba monoshock.

Or is it? Because the look at the performance curve (see page data and measured values) is astonishing. On the roll, the propellant of the Suzuki RM-Z 250 can only leave the Kawasaki behind, despite adequate peak performance over the entire speed tidy. But where it counts is on the pitch. 

And there the Suzuki RM-Z 250 sets itself in the limelight – without a doubt – with the new chassis. The fork, which is springy in both bars with an air cushion, carefully scans the terrain, keeps the machine in balance together with the equally softer strut and demonstrates its newly discovered sympathy for hobby pilots in this respect as well. Against this background, they can live well with the less revving and also comparatively mechanically rough engine. Just like with fourth place.

Yamaha YZ 250 F.

Gargolov

Nobody misses launch control, mapping switches and air fork. The YZ offers by far the most homogeneous overall package. Everyone rides fast with this bike.

Keep it simple – according to this motto popularized by MotoGP star Casey Stoner, the Yamaha YZ 250 F intervenes in MX2 events. As standard, the only marginally modified YZ 250 F for the coming season offers neither different mappings nor launch control and certainly no air fork. The model policy of the steady hand does not seem to have harmed it. But on the contrary. Without turning a screw on the damping setting, spring preload or handlebar position, the YZ provides the most confidence-inspiring driving experience on the test field. 

Gargolov

Despite the upturned cylinder head (rear outlet) and the air filter positioned behind the steering head, Yamaha otherwise relies on uncomplicated technology.

The foundation stone for this is laid by the Kayaba fork, which works very conventionally with two steel springs. First-class appealing, the front absorbs every edge and, together with the equally smooth shock absorber, pushes the Yamaha YZ 250 F to the top position in terms of suspension elements. If you add the strong front line that is familiar from all Yamaha crossers, the YZ does not let anyone spit in the soup when it comes to the chassis. 

Against this splendid backdrop, you can even forgive the wide air filter cover behind the steering head. Incidentally, just like the strange sound snorkeling out of this airbox. Because with a brilliant running smoothness achieved only by the Honda unit, the unorthodox engine continues the charm offensive of the chassis. A homogeneous pressure, which only flattens in the upper speed range, and a minimal drag torque literally animate to tighten the throttle cable. It has never been easier to burn consistently fast lap times with an MX2 racer than with this Yamaha YZ 250 F. Point.

Husqvarna FC 250

Gargolov

Close relatives: Only the cylinder and housing covers distinguish the Husqvarna FC 250 engine from the KTM counterpart.

Slightly modified white plastic parts, standard hand guards, a rear frame made of carbon fiber reinforced plastic and a 4CS fork with steel springs from WP Suspension – these are the features that distinguish the Husqvarna FC 250 from its KTM sister model. In this respect, the Swedish exile, also produced in Mattighofen, benefits almost one to one from the general overhaul of the KTM 250 SX-F. Which is why FC has to be measured against the aforementioned differences.

Differences between Husqvarna FC 250 and KTM 250 SX-F

Gargolov

When it comes to the chassis, Husqvarna relies on a conventional fork with steel springs and rebound and compression damping housed separately in the bars.

Subject frame rear: The difference in performance to the KTM 250 SX-F of just one horsepower may be due to the series distribution, but the plastic rear in the rear is a bit more expansive than the slimmer counterpart of the KTM.

Subject fork: Basically the WP front does well, but does not respond to small braking waves as sensitively as the forks of the Suzuki and Yamaha. Not to mention the new WP air fork in the KTM 250 SX-F. 

Noticeable: On the Husqvarna FC 250 and KTM 250 SX-F, the spring at the rear is obviously quite hard and therefore offers little leeway when adjusting the sag. At 110 mm slack with driver, the spring no longer has any preload. A slightly softer nib would be a good idea.   

That’s it. Because apart from the various peculiarities, the Husqvarna FC 250 throws itself as powerfully in the chest as the KTM 250 SX-F, with 45 hp in the performance-loving MX2 business stifles every revolt of the Japanese faction in the bud – and ranks well in second place one.

KTM 250 SX-F

Gargolov

Numbers speak louder than words: 99 kilos of weight and 46 hp peak performance – with this, the KTM sets new records in MX2 technology and lays the foundation for its test victory.

Let’s make it short. KTM sets new standards. A series MX2 crosser has never been more powerful than 46 hp, and never has one been lighter than 99 kilograms. And apart from the almost identical Husqvarna FC 250, no motocross bike has an electric starter either. In this respect, the data collection is enough to give the KTM 250 SX-F, which has been completely redesigned for the coming season with a stiffer frame and more compact engine, the result of the comparison test: victory on points.

Gargolov

To go with it: the brand new, uncomplicated air fork from WP Suspension with just one chamber. Responsiveness, damping, reserves – everything is great

Because what the paper form promises, the KTM 250 SX-Fauch delivers on the track. Whether sprinting at the start gate or sprinting out of the neighboring area – from the middle speed range, the new one comes off as if a cartridge of nitrous oxide in the air filter box had burst. The higher the speed, the more comfortable the unit feels. Only 13,800 revolutions mark the end of the flagpole. Impressive. But also demanding. Amateur drivers find it difficult to always keep the engine in the potent upper performance range. And: The short-stroke designed propellant cannot offer the cultivated appearance of the Japanese engines in this Parforce appearance. In the most aggressive of the three driving modes, a pronounced engine brake is even irritating and lets the pilot quickly zap back to the standard setting.

The premiere of the AER 48 air fork from WP Suspension was convincing. The front of the KTM 250 SX-F is convincing across the board with its first-class responsiveness and a successful damping process. Because the rear is surprisingly comfortable despite the hard spring selected and marginally low preload and the handling was neutral, the list price, which is up to 900 euros higher at 8795 euros, probably scares off very few hobby crossers. It has always been a bit more expensive to hire winners.

tires

Gargolov

All bikes have been tested on the Bridgestone Battlecross X30 for equality sake.

The highly specialized motocross production racers often only differ in nuances. There are only a few points between winners and losers. It is all the more important that there is equal opportunity with identical tires. In this test, all MX2 bikes rolled on the Bridgestone Battlecross X30, which was only presented this year. The tire, designed for mixed terrain, impressed on loose ground with excellent grip and proved to be wear-resistant. On hard terrain, it is worth switching to the newly designed sister model X40.

Test result

Gargolov

The KTM 250 SX-F wins, while the second-placed Husqvarna FC 250 is being moved a bit more appropriately. The Japanese competition is just watching.

1. KTM 250 SX-F

Gargolov

The KTM 250 SX-F came first in the test with 216 points.

An MX2 crosser has never been lighter, never stronger. The values ​​of the KTM 250 SX-F make the question of the test winner superfluous. Almost by the way, the SX-F impresses with its electric starter and the brand new, excellent air fork. An impressive overall package.

2. Husqvarna FC 250

Gargolov

The Husqvarna FC 250 achieved 2nd place with 212 points.

The technical basis of the KTM 250 SX-F also lays the foundation for success for the Husqvarna FC 250. But: Their individual features such as steel instead of air suspension fork and the plastic rear frame add more weight and less function. Synergy should look different.

3. Yamaha YZ 250 F

Gargolov

The Yamaha YZ 250 F got 210 points and thus 3rd place.

The winner of hearts. The Yamaha YZ 250 F only needs one thing to win: the top performance of the Husqvarna-KTM duo. That being said, the YZ is always in the spotlight. Top suspension, top handling, top smoothness. A great motorcycle.

4. Suzuki RM-Z 250

Gargolov

The Suzuki RM-Z 250 achieved 207 points and 4th place in the test.

The Suzuki RM-Z 250 has changed with a torque-oriented motor instead of a speed-oriented motor and the switch to Kayaba suspension. For the better. The only thing missing from the finely honed top trio is a somewhat smoother running culture and a bit of performance.

5. Honda CRF 250 R (206 points)

Gargolov

206 points in the test mean 5th place for the Honda CRF 250 R..

The tame sound is deceptive. The detailed changes have finally spiced up the previously ailing Honda engine. But the stucky three-chamber Showa air fork and the too hard strut destroy the progress made on the engine in the overall balance.

5.Kawasaki KX 250 F (206 points)

Gargolov

The Kawasaki KX 250 F also got 206 points – and 5th place.

Lively engine, decent suspension – the Kawasaki KX 250 makes a good impression. But moderate handling and the heaviest weight in the field cost points in the tightly packed MX2 field. Small consolation: the red lantern carries the KX together with the Honda.

46 Pictures

Pictures: MX2 motocrosser test comparison

To home page

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

Gargolov

MOTORCYCLE

Related articles

Related articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *