introduction

Welcome to KDXRider.net! Please take a moment to introduce yourself, and meet the group.
Post Reply
geoffro
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 03:04 am Apr 20 2013
Country:

introduction

Post by geoffro »

Hi all, greetings from sunny South Africa! Just a quick intro, bought my '05 200 a year ago. Lost count on how many bikes I've had!! This kdx is one of the oldest technology bikes I have had and I am enjoying it THE MOST!!! "bang for the buck" you cannot get better I think.
Just not crazy about that front end at speed but have seen some tricks to try..thanks to you kdx followers!!
Will post a few pics when I figure that out!! seeya
User avatar
diymirage
Supporting Member II
Supporting Member II
Posts: 2909
Joined: 05:00 pm Sep 19 2011
Country:
Location: michigan

Re: introduction

Post by diymirage »

welcome Geoff
the KDX isn't outdated...it is "time tested"

look into replacing the front forks with those of a KX and i think the bike wil be exactly where you want it to be :)
newbbewb wrote:DIYmirage has it right.


-1996 KDX 200 woods weapon (converted to 99 green body)
-1996 KDX 200 plated street toy (barney edition)
-2003 Yamaha TTR125-L (wifeys bike)
-1997 KDX 220 project bike
User avatar
ICRage42
Supporting Member
Posts: 598
Joined: 07:24 am Jan 09 2013
Country:
Location: Kawasaki, Ninja Ohio

introduction

Post by ICRage42 »

Welcome

I wouldnt say the kdx is outdated. No fuel injected or valves is not an entirely a bad thing. Easy squeezy rebuilds. Easy to care for. Comes with a smoke shield to keep other riders behind you.

But I have to agree the front is sloppy for anyone over 160 or so if its stock springs. But if you have some of them old bikes still you might find a candidate for fork conversion.
If you cant fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.
bikdx
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 07:36 am Apr 08 2013
Country:

introduction

Post by bikdx »

ICRage42 wrote:Welcome

I wouldnt say the kdx is outdated. No fuel injected or valves is not an entirely a bad thing. Easy squeezy rebuilds. Easy to care for. Comes with a smoke shield to keep other riders behind you.

But I have to agree the front is sloppy for anyone over 160 or so if its stock springs. But if you have some of them old bikes still you might find a candidate for fork conversion.
Thanks, ICR! I've heard that before about the front end sloppiness and wondered why it didn't apply to my '94. I'm under 150# and I've had the forks and rear shock (it was toast!) rebuilt and set up for my weight/riding style. Guess that's why I hadn't noticed it being sloppy even at speed. :supz:
bikdx
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 07:36 am Apr 08 2013
Country:

Re: introduction

Post by bikdx »

And welcome geoffro. ICR's on the money, though. After my experiences with just the rear shock bottoming out off a jump (and bruising some ribs), I elected to have both the shock and forks done. Best money I ever spent on that bike. :grin:
geoffro
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 03:04 am Apr 20 2013
Country:

Re: introduction

Post by geoffro »

Thanks for the welcome guys! When I say "old technology" I mainly mean "front forks". Rest of the bike is perfect as far as I am concerned... I have done the heavier springs in front(i'm 80kg) but still will play with shimming. Some of that high speed stability is because of the steep rake, I know it is designed like that because its a woods bike and not actually a desert racer. But I LOVE my green baby even with a few bad habits...
User avatar
ICRage42
Supporting Member
Posts: 598
Joined: 07:24 am Jan 09 2013
Country:
Location: Kawasaki, Ninja Ohio

Re: introduction

Post by ICRage42 »

at that weight possibly reduce the spring in rear and youll get a better result from the front just sayin. Im in a front fork conversation cuz umma fat ass lol.
If you cant fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.
Post Reply