Page 1 of 2

What years are the best???

Posted: 07:04 pm Feb 19 2006
by Ryan
well, ive been reading the posts for a week now and have figured out a few things. I just have a few questions that i cant seem to find a few answers to that im sure some of you can help me with.

First i know i need forks from 96 up.

The differnces in the forks were
from 96-97
98-02
02- present right??

What was the differnce in the tech. I was looking to get a pair of '00's but my power was out and i could not get them. Right now there is a piar of 96's on ebay. they are the only pairs i see on there. Is it just worth it to get them or just should i wait for another pair from 98 up. The 2000's needed seals and only went for $45.00. I knew they were a good deal but i lost the oppertunity. Should i spend the same or more on a pair earlier than 98 or should i wait?? Since i figure it is about $150 to get a decient pair is it better to buy a pair for like $40 and buy guards and seals or is it worth it to buy a real nice pair for $150 than needs nothing.

Posted: 07:35 pm Feb 19 2006
by Indawoods
Forks for under $100 is not the norm. You'll be doing good to get away under $300 for everything.

Posted: 07:46 pm Feb 19 2006
by bradf
All late model KX forks are better than KDX forks. All 94-06 forks set-up correctly i.e., springs, valving, and some possible internal issues will be very good. A poorly set-up 06 set won't be as good to you as a correct woods set-up on a set of 94's. I just got a set of 01's that must be re-valved/re-shimmed and the bladder eliminated before they will be useable to me

Posted: 09:25 pm Feb 19 2006
by Ryan
are the 02's suppose to be ok?? and what do you expect these to go for??

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayI ... 4615190675

Also is it nessicary to revalve the kx forks and change out the springs if they are stock. I weight 140 so would the stock springs work ok. If i need to revalve them for the woods im gonna have to wait untill next year for the switch because that is gonna be expensive. Cause if i start there is no going back.

Posted: 09:49 pm Feb 19 2006
by Ryan
well im the highest bidder, but i dont expect to be for very long. How much do you all think they will go for. If they seem good maybe i will try to win them.

Posted: 09:53 pm Feb 19 2006
by Indawoods
Proly have to respring them... 250's are a little stiff. Heck ... I weigh 200# and the stock 125 springs are just right for me...

Posted: 10:02 pm Feb 19 2006
by Ryan
ok so stock vavling is fine and the 125's would have better springs than the 250's would, i think i got it. Do these forks look good to get or should i keep looking???

Posted: 10:08 pm Feb 19 2006
by Indawoods
You will have to revalve them.... not HAVE to but you won't be happy until you do. They are valved for a MX track.

They look fine and I wouldn't hesitate to buy them... but you still have a wheel, axle, spacers and fork guards to buy for 'em too...... $$$

Posted: 10:09 pm Feb 19 2006
by Ryan
here is somthing that i just found out. The 1996 kx250's have a stock spring rate of .393. the 2002's have a stock rate of .430. The 98's have a stock spring rate of .410 So for me the older the forks the better sprung they will be because race tech says .398 is the reccomened.

Posted: 10:11 pm Feb 19 2006
by Indawoods
Just buy my 95's.... valved and sprung for you.

Posted: 10:16 pm Feb 19 2006
by Ryan
how much?? they are soooo old :shock: but im sure much better than the stock kdx forks. thats if you are to sell them

Posted: 10:20 pm Feb 19 2006
by Ryan
do you even have pics of them or no???

Posted: 10:24 pm Feb 19 2006
by Indawoods
Tomorrow night I can....

Posted: 08:50 am Feb 20 2006
by Ryan
has anyone ever tried to use kx forks from 96 and a wheel from 95. From what i see they will work. The axels have the same part number and so do the wheels and the brake assembly. Which means that 97's would also work with 95 stuff because the 96's are the same as the 97's.

Posted: 08:51 am Feb 20 2006
by Ryan
what is the difference in the technology between the 94-95's and the 96-97's Everything is the same except some internal parts of the forks. How are the 96's better?? thanks for any help cause i cant find answers anywere.

Posted: 01:13 pm Feb 20 2006
by Ryan
ok i found some forks on ebay. They are off of a 2004 rmz250. Ive heard in a few spots on ebay that they will work on a kxf250 and a kx125 or 250 from 2003-2005. Does this seem right, if no one knows im not gonna bid cause i dont want to spend the money and then have them not fit.


here they are

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/04-Suzuk ... 3466QQrdZ1

well at least one of them

Posted: 01:22 pm Feb 20 2006
by Colorado Mike
You realize that is for one side, right? You'll probably want two sides. I'd be pissed if I won one and not the other. Oh, and like I said before, bidding long before the auction is almost over is stupid. <whisper voice on> eSnipe eSnipe eSnipe <whisper voice off>.

Posted: 03:10 pm Feb 20 2006
by fuzzy
Don't think that a set of '95 forks are old for your KDX. The KDX is a '95 no matter how you look at it. No changes since then!

Posted: 10:27 pm Feb 20 2006
by Ryan
ya i know it is only for one i was gonna try to get both but he sold the wheel so i dont think im gonna get these

Posted: 08:18 pm Feb 22 2006
by Lutz
Right out of the box, so to speak, the '94 KX125 forks I put on my bike were FAR better than the stock KDX forks.

Don't think you need to have the newest forks possible...it's been said before, any '94-'06 KX forks will be better than the KDX forks. Just find what you can afford and stick with it.