Why a KX frame?

Post by **Indawoods** » 08:46 am Mar 15 2005

I don't get why people want to go through all the trouble of mounting a KDX motor in a KX frame. What a major PITA! For one thing... if you don't have it perfectly mounted, it will prematurely wear components. Another is you lose your range unless you mount one of those butt ugly IMS tanks.
You have to ask yourself.... why do I want to do it? For the suspension? Simple solution... mount a KX frontend... the rear is more than capable. Weight savings? Does it really make that much of a difference unless your in the 140# range? I passed that when I was 12. The KDX is a very nimble bike and light if you ask me.... If can lift it... It's light!

m0rie · Post by **m0rie** » 10:11 am Mar 15 2005

The biggest reason I can see is for the improved ergo's. The KX125 frame is nice and slim around the tank area. The downside of course is the smaller fuel tank. Thats one area that the KTM 2t's have right is a slim frame with a decent sized gas tank.

-Maurice

Post by **Indawoods** » 10:27 am Mar 15 2005

I don't think the ergo's of the KX are better for tight trail and wood conditions. First off they don't have as tight of a turning radius and a longer wheel base, they also have a larger rear wheel (not good for torque) and you don't have the lower center of gravity.... so, I still don't get it!

Post by **Indawoods** » 10:46 am Mar 15 2005

I want some cheese with my whine and I know I'm stuborn but the only situation where I think it would make a difference is if you were running GNCC or some racing of that nature where you are running wide open most of the time....and in that situation I think I would want the KX motor.

T-Roy · Post by **T-Roy** » 10:52 am Mar 15 2005

Preach it brother! I agree totally. Most of the KTM's that I test ride appear to be tall and top heavy, a completely different feel. Now I like the slim feel of the KX for MXing, but overall at this stage of the game I like the KDX ergos better for tight stuff. When I am standing up on the KDX, my grip tape helps me a ton. With the slimmer profile bikes, I strugge for grip. Just my .02 as a D class woods rider. Maybe as my skill increase I will think diferently.

I'm banking on the KX front end conversion mainly to keep me from root digging. I'm no longer a flying squirrel, so whay the KX frame?

quailchaser · Post by **quailchaser** » 12:41 am Mar 16 2005

For me:

I like the ergo's on the KX way better than the KDX. I can corner better on the KX because it's easier for ME to get into the proper postion. I like the look of the after market fuel tank on the KX. It looks nothing like that garbage IMS tries to pass off for the KDX.

I'm not sure about the 19" wheel and torque? Don't most of us change gear ratio's to fit our riding style and terrain anyway? I ride with several riders who are riding MX bikes "adjusted for the ST" and I can't keep up with them. I agree that the KX would be better with an 18" rim for woods and ST. It'll only add a few more dollars to the project to make that change.

I think it would be a fun project for the right price. Sort of like those who choose to take a 500 engine and stuff it into a beer can frame.

What I don't get is why someone would want to take a perfectly good "woods" bike like the KDX and try and turn it into an MXer? Spending all that time and money changing the suspension, adding MX plastic, ect... Just kidding...Ride what you like and enjoy the sport!

Later
Robb

Post by **KDXGarage** » 01:08 am Mar 16 2005

I think that the 18" wheel and tire combination is the same height / diameter as the 19" wheel and tire combination. The 19" tire is lower profile, which I have read is more prone to pinch flats and provides less cushioning, as well as less flex and bite on hits like a log on the trail. I have got an 18" wheel and a 19" wheel, and they look the same height to me.

There are some that will take ANY bike and try to turn it into an MX bike.

Heck, if anyone thinks that KDX riders on a MX track is bad, think about the people on XR / CRF 50's.

Post by **Indawoods** » 10:28 am Mar 16 2005

I can tell you a Yamadog TTR225 is a TURD! Heavy, no power, no suspension, metal tank

and they say that is a trail bike.... it's a rolling turd from the 70's. A KDX is alot more capable on a MX track than alot of bikes that are not designed for the track. Kinda fun sometimes but I'm not a high flyer anymore. A KX front end is to eliminate the underhang and stiffen up the front end, not trying to make it a MX bike. The plastics have nothing to do with the bikes ability... just looks. Anybody who puts graphics on their bike are doing it for the bling factor too. Same thing.

That whole 50cc movement is a freakin joke. Have you seen in the magazines that 80% of the ads are for parts on those things? I mean come on... is there that big of a market for that crap? $1200 frontends, $400 shocks... Billet Triple Trees. I'm sure this means that 80% of dirt bikers own one...right? I'll keep my "big boys" bike and you can keep your toys.....

T-Roy · Post by **T-Roy** » 11:12 am Mar 16 2005

Chaser,

You make a really good point. Why would anyone take a trail/woods bike and try to turn it into a MXer. I for one, would never do that, I would simply by a KX.

However, I would eliminate the headlight system if I had no current use for it and I would swap out to mx plastics if I wanted to change the color scheme.

And, if I happened to tinker on the local MX track once and a while I might setup my suspension to handle the easy doubles for obvious reasons (this turned out to be a bad idea by the way, as I get beat to death in the woods).

And, after biting it one good time by catching a rock or root with those darn front fork underhangs (yes, it was painful when I hit the ground), I would purchase a stabalizer and add a KX front end as cheaply as I could.

Yes, I have done all of the above, but not to create a MXer by any means. Plus, the bling factor of my bike makes me at least 10mph faster in every gear. At least that is what the salesman todl me.

For me (at least at my current skill level), I like the short, tight ergos of the late model KDX frame while banging bark in the woods. And yes, I actually like the wide cockpit profile as I can simply hold on better with my lower body. Maybe I sit down too much, thus I like the KDX couch effect.

On the other hand, most of the A woods riders that I know love the slim profile KTM's and would not even consider riding a KDX.

The only advatage that I see by using the KX frame would be the KX front end, which you can easily add to the KDX.

Just my .02

Short fat white guy, who can't ride for 10 minutes without major arm pump, and who falls over way too much in the woods.

Post by **KDXGarage** » 02:33 pm Mar 16 2005

KDX couch. I like it! I can put the remote in the stock toolbag.

If I was fast, then I could appreciate the slim ergonomics, but that is not the case. My KDX is faster than me.

IndaWoods, I don't know how the TT-R225 got brought into things, but they FINALLY revamped it for 2005. It is now similar to the Honda CRF230. It is called the TT-R230 now. It looks a lot better.

quailchaser · Post by **quailchaser** » 03:45 am Mar 17 2005

T-Roy wrote:Chaser,

You make a really good point. Why would anyone take a trail/woods bike and try to turn it into a MXer. I for one, would never do that, I would simply by a KX.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Well, that didn't come across as I intended.

I really had no point. It was supposed to be a set up to the ride what you like statement. I ride with people who ride anything from the ever feared ttr225 to cr/kx 500's. Just about everyone of them are B or better riders.

I guess I did have a point: Ride what you like and have fun!

As far as what you like. Opinions on what premix to use, or what transmissions oil to use, or which tire is the best are just that...opinions. Same holds true as to preferences on how to set up our personal rides...or what we ride for that matter. I just responded to Inda's rant about his opinion on a KX/KDX hybrid. My opinion differs from his. I would like a nice light flickable MX ergoed (not sure that's a word) bike with a tried and true offroad engine without having to switch colors. Kawasaki should have already done this for us--or at the very least they should have updated the forks.

I would concede that paying Fredette (or anyone else for that matter) to build a hybrid for you would not be worth "IT". To do the project myself, I would have a blast (along with a few curses)--but, isn't that part of the fun of riding?

I just need to find someone selling a KDX200 with a servicable engine and electronics for cheap...and someone (or the same person?) selling a one or two year old KXF, KX, or RMZ really really cheap.

Later
Robb

Post by **Indawoods** » 06:25 am Mar 17 2005

I've got a different approach... my next bike is proly going to be a KXF250... the reviews are great. But that won't be for a few years til they get some age on em so the price drops (read used). I will never get rid of my KDX though.

T-Roy · Post by **T-Roy** » 11:00 am Mar 17 2005

Chaser, I agree that wrenching and learning how to become a weekend tuner is half of the fun.

KXF250? Vince, how do the 250's compare in horsepower? Could they chug my big butt along as well as a KDX powerplant?

Now, I have been eyeing Honda's 450X...

m0rie · Post by **m0rie** » 11:14 am Mar 17 2005

From what i've read properly jetted and uncorked the KX250F's have got enough torque and hp to get even the most "endowed" among us up that hill...

I've got a bit of ride time in on a CRF450R and if the X is anything like it that should be a fun bike to ride.

-Maurice

Post by **Indawoods** » 11:37 am Mar 17 2005

From what I have read... the KXF250 was Kawasaki/Suzuki's special project. Most of the current R&D have went into this machine and it is one of the most technologically advanced 4 stroke designs ever. 03's and 04's would get hot but they have resolved that issue with the 05's with larger radiators and a higher capacity water pump.
The reviews rave about the power, suspension, weight and ergo's of this machine. I can't wait to talk some unsuspecting youngin' into letting me try their new KXF250!

skipro3 · Post by **skipro3** » 12:02 pm Mar 17 2005

I've heard the honda x version is 30 lbs heavier than the R version due to lights, electric start, etc. Too much weight for me when the 2-smokes are still available.

m0rie · Post by **m0rie** » 12:11 pm Mar 17 2005

skipro3 wrote:I've heard the honda x version is 30 lbs heavier than the R version due to lights, electric start, etc. Too much weight for me when the 2-smokes are still available.

It will be heavier than the R but I doubt it will be that heavy. That would put it close to 270 lbs real world weight which is pushing DRZ400/KLX400 big pig territory.

A properly done E start shouldn't add more than 8-10lbs to the bike.

-Maurice

Post by **fuzzy** » 12:57 pm Mar 17 2005

my next bike is proly going to be a KXF250

Post by **Indawoods** » 01:07 pm Mar 17 2005

That's right... I don't kid myself as to what I need. I need it light and torqy. I don't need to get from 0-60 in 1.1 seconds in the woods, I also want to try some electric power for a change. Like I said... I am keeping my KDX and I'm pretty sure it will remain my main ride.... especially with all the money I have in it. 2-strokes rule but there will come a time when the 2-strokers will be banned in certain riding areas and I will have a bike I can ride that will be close to my KDX.

m0rie · Post by **m0rie** » 01:14 pm Mar 17 2005

Indawoods wrote:2-strokes rule but there will come a time when the 2-strokers will be banned in certain riding areas and I will have a bike I can ride that will be close to my KDX.

That time has come and gone here in Cali... sigh! At least if your 2t isn't green stickered.

-Maurice

KDXRIDER.NET

KDXRIDER.NET

Why a KX frame?

Why a KX frame?