Two For the Trail

TWO FOR THE TRAIL

CW COMPARISON

HONDA XR25OR vs. KAWASAKI KLX250

DO NOT ENTER THESE BIKES IN A HILLCLIMB. AVOID drag races at all costs. Motocross? Well, not exactly. These machines-Honda’s new XR250R and Kawasaki’s liquid-cooled KLX250-are predisposed to trail riding. They are, in other words, perfect partners for long loops through dusty deserts, unspoiled forests and snow-capped mountains.

Honda’s presence in the lightweight four-stroke class is well-known. For nearly a decade, the XR250 has been the cream of the crop. In 1990, Suzuki took a futile swipe at the XR’s dominance with the DR250, essentially a sleeveddown DR350. Then, in 1994, Kawasaki broke the rules with its KLX250. Combining a liquid-cooled engine and a perimeter frame, the KLX served notice that it wanted a big slice of Honda’s pie. In response, Honda unveiled its new “super” XR250R for 1996.

What makes a good trailbike? If your name is Honda, the fundamental ingredients are durability and simplicity. Case in point: The ’96 XR250R is powered by an air-cooled, sohc Single, though it now features a dry-sump oiling system like the similarly new XR400. Engine and transmission oil is car ried in the frame, and capacity has been increased, as well.

Chassis lines are similar to those of the XR400, with a combination of rectangular, square and round steel frame tubing. As a result, the entire package is more rigid than ever. There's even a removable rear subframe for simple crash repair and easy access to the rear shock. Concentration also centered on improved ergonomics and a lower center of gravity. Dry weight is down 3 pounds, but the narrower gas tank still holds 2.4 gallons.

Suspension is by Kayaba, strange since seemingly identi cal Showa components are found on the XR400. The hybrid, screwed-and-glued-together conventional telescopic fork has 20 clicks of compression-damping adjustment, while the piggyback rear shock is fuiiy adjustable and features a larger piston for improved fade resistance. Brakes are drilled, CR type units.

kawasaki took an alternate approach. Basically unchanged since its introduction two years ago, the KLX250 is built around a liquid-cooled, dohc Single.

Bereft of cylinder finning and fitted with a single exhaust port, the engine maintains a slim profile, even with the addition of twin radiators and discreetly routed coolant lines. Borrowed from the KX motocrossers, the ultra-rigid steel perimeter frame

enhances the lightweight look, though the subframe is not removable. Fuel capacity is a mere 2.1 gallons, an unfortunate downside of the Kawasaki’s wasp-waisted ergonomics.

Suspension is KX-like, as well. The inverted Kayaba fork yields more than 11 inches of travel and has provisions for compressiondamping adjustment. The fully adjustable Kayaba shock offers 16 clicks for both compression and rebound damping. Accessing the Kawasaki’s air filter requires seat removal, while the Honda has a tool-less trap door in the left sidepanel. Odometers, handand rock guards, and full enduro lighting are standard equipment on both bikes. Snail-cam chain adjusters are another plus, although the KLX gets a demerit for its non-O-ring chain.

With automatic compression releases providing little kick resistance, the XR and KLX both start easily.

Clutch action and shifting are equally light, though neither have the tight, solid feel of a modern motocrosser. Ratios are seemingly identical and spaced nearly perfectly. Power is comparable, too, though delivery is quite different.

The Honda has a good bark right off idle and builds power in typical XR fashion with a so-so top end.

_ Conversely, the KLX doesn’t come

alive until midway through its powerband. Without doubt, the higher-tech Kawasaki motor is happiest when it’s spinning.

Side-by-side acceleration tests verified seat-of-the-pants impressions. Off the line, the XR showed its bottomend advantage, pulling an entire bikelength on the KLX. But the Kawasaki would slowly pull even and then forge ahead. (Removing both bikes’ airbox and muffler baffles yields the same results.) In tight going, the XR’s motor is more responsive, but even less-practiced riders experienced no problems crawling over slow sections on the KLX.

Novices and experts alike appreciated the Kawasaki’s light-effort steering characteristics. The XR may weigh a few pounds less, but the KLX requires less muscle in quick transitions. It also makes do with comparatively light fork and shock > springs, whereas the Honda is more firmly sprung and damped. Despite their mechanical differences, both bikes tackle roots, rocks and whoops equally well, and if personal tastes require something more, a click or two of damping adjustment usually does the trick. Riders in the 175-poundplus category might need stiffer springs, but they’ll probably be looking for more displacement, too.

Both bikes have excellent disc brakes, although the Honda gets the nod for better feel. The XR also gets better fuel mileage. Sixty-five miles between fill-ups is possible. Plan on a gas stop every 45 miles for the KLX. Tires on both bikes are durable Dunlop K490s on the front and K695s at the rear. Maintenance is minimal and simple. Oil filters are easily accessible, and the KLX has a two-piece clutch cover for easy servicing.

So, are you completely unclear as to which bike wins this comparison? Well, there’s one more factor to consider: price. The Kawasaki retails for $4999, $500 more than the Honda. For the extra dollars, you get liquid cooling and better top-end power, which, for two bikes that perform so identically in their natural environment, doesn’t seem like much of an edge. The XR250R, on the other hand, has more bottom-end grunt, greater fuel range, a higher-grade chain and better brakes.

Advantage Honda. □

HONDA XR25OR

$4499

KAWASAKI KLX25O

$4999