250 vs 650

[jeeppurz]

first time posting I've been a fan of the KLR for years now, and should have the finances to purchase a bike this spring. But the problem lies with insurance costs. The insurance companys here in Ontario rate their rates on the number of cc's a motorcycle has, and not it's acutal horsepower output. I'm a new licesned rider, and the insurance cost for a klr is stupidly high. Then when I seen this new to north america klx 250 come I thought this would be a good substitute for the klr. The klx only being a 250 has much lower insurance costs. I only have to pay for the bike once but the insurance companys want a check every year... I'm just wondering if my weight of 240lbs and 6'4" would be to much for a litte 250. I'm not interest in going fast. The highest speed limit here is 100kmph. (And also speeding effects insurance cost.) So any thoughts would be welcome.

[Streetfighters]

Get the 650 - don't look back. You'll be happy you did. Geoff- www.oldrice.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "jeeppurz" To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 11:45 AM Subject: [DSN_KLR650] slightly NKLR thoughts on the new klx250 first time posting I've been a fan of the KLR for years now, and should have the finances to purchase a bike this spring. But the problem lies with insurance costs. The insurance companys here in Ontario rate their rates on the number of cc's a motorcycle has, and not it's acutal horsepower output. I'm a new licesned rider, and the insurance cost for a klr is stupidly high. Then when I seen this new to north america klx 250 come I thought this would be a good substitute for the klr. The klx only being a 250 has much lower insurance costs. I only have to pay for the bike once but the insurance companys want a check every year... I'm just wondering if my weight of 240lbs and 6'4" would be to much for a litte 250. I'm not interest in going fast. The highest speed limit here is 100kmph. (And also speeding effects insurance cost.) So any thoughts would be welcome. Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 Yahoo! Groups Links

[Rodney Copeland]

Welcome to a great group Bro! Get the Hoss if you're not too old to pick it up. I love the new KLX 250, but my KLR 650 has near 33,000 miles on it now and hasn't let me down. It's like a watch, from my experience I Roosted an XT 500 for 20 years and didn't think any bike could give me that sorta freedom. Then I found the Mighty KLR 650. Rod

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "jeeppurz" wrote: > > first time posting > > I've been a fan of the KLR for years now, and should have the finances > to purchase a bike this spring. But the problem lies with insurance > costs. The insurance companys here in Ontario rate their rates on the > number of cc's a motorcycle has, and not it's acutal horsepower > output. I'm a new licesned rider, and the insurance cost for a klr is > stupidly high. Then when I seen this new to north america klx 250 come > I thought this would be a good substitute for the klr. The klx only > being a 250 has much lower insurance costs. I only have to pay for the > bike once but the insurance companys want a check every year... > I'm just wondering if my weight of 240lbs and 6'4" would be to much > for a litte 250. I'm not interest in going fast. The highest speed > limit here is 100kmph. (And also speeding effects insurance cost.) > > So any thoughts would be welcome. >

[John Kokola]

This month's Cycle World (USA) has a 1-page review of the KLX250S. They say that "sixth gear is good for attaining an indicated 85 mph at 8000 rpm," that the riding position is "comfy and roomy," and that the suspension is "softly sprung -- good for the street and slow trails, though not super stable for high-speed off-road work." All in all, it sounds a lot like its big brother! --John Kokola jeeppurz wrote:

>first time posting > >I've been a fan of the KLR for years now, and should have the finances >to purchase a bike this spring. But the problem lies with insurance >costs. The insurance companys here in Ontario rate their rates on the >number of cc's a motorcycle has, and not it's acutal horsepower >output. I'm a new licesned rider, and the insurance cost for a klr is >stupidly high. Then when I seen this new to north america klx 250 come >I thought this would be a good substitute for the klr. >

[Rodney Copeland]

I don't know about the high speed shtuff. The Chicky's Sherpa with the KLR 650 windshield and handguards does just as well as my Hoss at 65 in high crosswinds. Course it could be the 4.60 rear tire on the front. Rod http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/zrod73026/detail?.dir=1daa&.dnm=b003.jpg &.src=ph

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, John Kokola wrote: > > This month's Cycle World (USA) has a 1-page review of the KLX250S. > > They say that "sixth gear is good for attaining an indicated 85 mph at > 8000 rpm," that the riding position is "comfy and roomy," and that the > suspension is "softly sprung -- good for the street and slow trails, > though not super stable for high-speed off-road work." > > All in all, it sounds a lot like its big brother! > > --John Kokola > > jeeppurz wrote: > > >first time posting > > > >I've been a fan of the KLR for years now, and should have the finances > >to purchase a bike this spring. But the problem lies with insurance > >costs. The insurance companys here in Ontario rate their rates on the > >number of cc's a motorcycle has, and not it's acutal horsepower > >output. I'm a new licesned rider, and the insurance cost for a klr is > >stupidly high. Then when I seen this new to north america klx 250 come > >I thought this would be a good substitute for the klr. > > >

[Mike Peplinski]

There is no substitute for cubic inches. That being said, 250cc is enough to get you into any sort of trouble you want to. Sustained freeway speeds? Probably not recommended but short hops should be no problem. My riding partner has a 250 Honda (Highthawk) and easily keeps up with me up to 65mph. My youth was spend on Yamaha 250s that I rode on the freeway regularly. Of course headwinds and loading have a greater effect on a 250 than on a 650 but the smaller bike is lighter and more nimble. I go along with the other responses that say "go for the 650". In the long run you'll be satisfied but if you are really restricted, the 250 will perform.

>From: "jeeppurz" >To: DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [DSN_KLR650] slightly NKLR thoughts on the new klx250 >Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:45:51 -0000 > >first time posting > >I've been a fan of the KLR for years now, and should have the finances >to purchase a bike this spring. But the problem lies with insurance >costs. The insurance companys here in Ontario rate their rates on the >number of cc's a motorcycle has, and not it's acutal horsepower >output. I'm a new licesned rider, and the insurance cost for a klr is >stupidly high. Then when I seen this new to north america klx 250 come >I thought this would be a good substitute for the klr. The klx only >being a 250 has much lower insurance costs. I only have to pay for the >bike once but the insurance companys want a check every year... >I'm just wondering if my weight of 240lbs and 6'4" would be to much >for a litte 250. I'm not interest in going fast. The highest speed >limit here is 100kmph. (And also speeding effects insurance cost.) > >So any thoughts would be welcome. > > > > > > >Archive Quicksearch at: >http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html >List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com >List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html >Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

[Mike Schermann]

Jeepurz; I don't presume to know how insurance rates are regulated in Canada, but - what do you mean by "high rates"? Check with several different insurance companies to see how they structure their rates. It's usually a combination of CC's, number of years of riding experience, etc. In California, the # CC's is a minor factor, simply because you have some 600 cc bikes that run 160 mph. We also have the option of purchasing an optional "uninsured motorist" or "underinsured motorist" option. I found that I could reduce my insurance by 2/3 by dropping that option. I figure that with a 5000 dollar motorcycle, I'm willing to self-insure (or to take the risk) that I will not be involved in an accident with an un-insured driver. The state of CA requires that all insurance companies offer this type of coverage, but it does not dictate how much to charge for said coverage. By dropping this optional insurance, I now pay less than 200/year for TWO bikes. That being said, my age (55) and years of riding experience (~35) may cause my insurance to be cheaper than yours would be. I prefer to carry this UM/UIM option on my automobile, but not on the bike, simply because the bike is not all that expensive to replace, and I only ride maybe 2K miles a year on each bike. It's garaged most of the time during the week Bottom line: go with the 650. You're a big fella. Mike Escondido, CA jeeppurz wrote:

>first time posting > >I've been a fan of the KLR for years now, and should have the finances >to purchase a bike this spring. But the problem lies with insurance >costs. The insurance companys here in Ontario rate their rates on the >number of cc's a motorcycle has, and not it's acutal horsepower >output. I'm a new licesned rider, and the insurance cost for a klr is >stupidly high. Then when I seen this new to north america klx 250 come >I thought this would be a good substitute for the klr. The klx only >being a 250 has much lower insurance costs. I only have to pay for the >bike once but the insurance companys want a check every year... >I'm just wondering if my weight of 240lbs and 6'4" would be to much >for a litte 250. I'm not interest in going fast. The highest speed >limit here is 100kmph. (And also speeding effects insurance cost.) > >So any thoughts would be welcome. > > > > > > >Archive Quicksearch at: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html >List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com >List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html >Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >

[Al Maurine]

Cycle World just did a test on the new KLX250 .. 289 lbs dry and a 1.9 gal tank ... and $4699! That's only a few bucks less then a KLR650. Methinks that you will get tired of the KLX pretty quick .. maybe not. Depends on what kind of cycling you plan to do. If it's all in the dirt the KLX may suffice .. but if you plan to do pavement on it then my previous statement holds. The KLR can do dirt or pavement or can go around the world .. it really is a do-all machine. Al Maurine Tucson, AZ 94 R100M 'Mystic' 01 F650GS 'Dakar' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mike Peplinski]

Wow, I didn't realize the KLX was that heavy or that expensive. A 225# 250for around $3900 would kick ass on the trail. One has to question why Kawasaki would even bother. But then Kawa does several things that don't seem to make a lot of sense.

>From: Al Maurine >To: KLR 650 Group DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com>, c.moro@... >Subject: [DSN_KLR650] slightly NKLR thoughts on the new klx250 >Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 20:02:26 -0700 > >Cycle World just did a test on the new KLX250 .. 289 lbs dry and a 1.9 >gal tank ... and $4699! That's only a few bucks less then a KLR650. >Methinks that you will get tired of the KLX pretty quick .. maybe not. >Depends on what kind of cycling you plan to do. If it's all in the dirt >the KLX may suffice .. but if you plan to do pavement on it then my >previous statement holds. The KLR can do dirt or pavement or can go >around the world .. it really is a do-all machine. > >Al Maurine >Tucson, AZ >94 R100M 'Mystic' >01 F650GS 'Dakar' > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > >Archive Quicksearch at: >http://www.angelfire.com/ut/moab/klr650_data_search.html >List sponsored by Dual Sport News at: www.dualsportnews.com >List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html >Member Map at: http://www.frappr.com/dsnklr650 >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

[Doug Herr]

I snipped that down to what seem important points to me.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, jeeppurz wrote: > I'm a new licesned rider, You are new, so it will be hard for you to know what sort of riding you will really like. That would tend you toward the 250 as a good learning tool, or to the 650 since it can do just about anything. Pretty balanced there. > I thought this would be a good substitute for the klr. Only for the light riding end of what the 650 can do. Touring is mostly out since you can't really pack much and it will just not do the extended stuff as well. > I'm just wondering if my weight of 240lbs and 6'4" would be to much > for a litte 250. Just makes the other points more important. > I'm not interest in going fast. The highest speed > limit here is 100kmph. (And also speeding effects insurance cost.) As long as you don't need to go fast or long you may like the 250 better. A smaller more nimble bike is really nice to learn on. The 650 is pretty good for new riders, but the 250 is even better. As you can see from the other replies, we really like the 650 and would prefer that you get one, but it is *you* that has to pay for the insurance year after year. It may just turn out that you don't really need to ride all the time, all that fast or all that long. Then again, you could get the 250 and decide to sell it within the first year. Bottom line is that it is not an easy decision. Makes it easier if you can buy used, so start looking. -- Doug Herr doug@...