2000 KDX 220 vs 2007 KTM 200 XC-W

[rdsrf]

Has anyone out there ridden both of these bikes? I'm trying to decide whether to swap my 2000 KDX for the KTM. There's a nicely maintained KTM 200 XC-W for sale in my area for a fair price.
Ironically, I just did a bunch of work to the KDX. New Pirelli MT-16's, 2003 KX 125 USD fork (newly serviced), serviced rear shock, new hand guards, IMS footpegs and I just picked up a new piston kit (not installed yet). The bike works great as far as this novice rider can tell!
I guess I'm mostly concerned with how well the KTM will work for me given my novice skills and the terrain out here: Very tight woods with lots of muddy ruts, roots, rocks, tight hill climbs with turns and big steps etc. Mostly 1st and 2nd gear technical stuff. Thanks for any input!

[2001kdx]

There is just no comparison.

You've got the KX fork so that's as big a step in the right direction as possible, but that KTM has just got too much technology and nicer features. The green bike is just plain dated in comparison.

Here come the flooding of the older fellas flaming me for such claims, the usual I.E KTM's power to pipey, seat is too hard, suspension is awkward and the KDX is apparently the most reliable bike available. I just want to say that best case scenario is you keep both bikes for at least a few rides, then you'll sell the KDX

Or you could wait. Find a KTM rider and ride one. What you have is a very capable woods machine and at the novice level, you're are in no way, shape or form being held back by the bike.

Good Luck.

[skipro3]

It all depends on what you want out of a dirt bike. Everyone will tell you that seat is like strapping a 2x6 to the frame!! ha!! Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

No flaming by the way. everyone finds what makes them happiest. Most, if not all who slam a KDX do so because they haven't ridden one, or if they did, they are trying to justify the extra 4K they spent on their fancy bike.

I've ridden quite a bit with KTM and Husaberg owners. It really frosts them that I, on my 7 year old MX 2 stroke hang right in there with them on their 450, 550 and 650 4 strokes. What can I say? I try not to rub in the fact I'm into my bike for under 3K and that is WITH the auto clutch!!!

[Rick]

Imagine the reaction on a 91' Jerry!

[Jeb]

. . . I guess I'm mostly concerned with how well the KTM will work for me given my novice skills and the terrain out here: Very tight woods with lots of muddy ruts, roots, rocks, tight hill climbs with turns and big steps etc. Mostly 1st and 2nd gear technical stuff . . .

A KDX 220 is a great bike for a novice riding under the conditions you describe - consider spending a few hundred dollars to juice up the motor, i.e. RB mods and a pipe and it will likely work BETTER for you and your riding conditions than the KTM 200.

I've ridden an older version of that KTM; reminded me of a 125 frankly (a bit stronger) which can be fun but can be a PITA when you have to "make" it work like Skipro describes. The newer ones are reputedly better.

It's hard to loose if you hang on to that KDX and get enough seat time to see if you can get all that the KDX can dish out for you. THEN if you feel like you need more get a "high-performance" bike.

[StickyTeflon]

I have both, well an 08 KTM200xc-w and a 98 KDX220. The KTM 200 engine has been the same for the past 5yrs or so. Here is a link to my write up on the KTM from Sept when i got it. They are both decent bikes. the KDX is a little more relaxed and my suspention is softer on the KDX. On the other hand the KTMs power valve (comparable to KIPS) is adjustable. You can advance or retard the "hit" of the pipe. This is a very nice / customizable feature. KTM is narrow and the seat is hard compaired to the KDX. The KTM also feals taller but lighter. I belive my KTM is 212 lbs dry and my KDX is 223lbs dry. So far the only gripe i have with the KTM is the rear fender funnels dirt and mud right to the bottom of the airbox. The KTM air filter is large!. I havent sucked any dirt yet but I'm going to tape up the inside of my airbox.

Link to my post on my new 200xc-w and power valve adustment further down the thread....
http://www.thumpertalk.com/forum/showth ... p?t=550564

[rdsrf]

I forgot to mention that the KDX has an FMF pipe (not sure which one) and turbine core silencer. It's pretty well set up, and to tell you the truth, what little power it has, is generally more than I can manage in these kinds of riding conditions. Seriously, no jeep roads or open single track... Most people wouldn't think you could even ride a motorcycle through this stuff. I know I didn't the first few times out! I'm mostly interested in something that will make the riding easier, along with all the nice things that come with a newer bike: looks, little plastic and rubber bits that don't need replacing, reliability of newer components, and better performance.
So far, I get the impression that the 2007 KTM is a better machine in most respects, but maybe not as well suited for this type of technical riding....at least at my slow and novice level. Most of the time I'm so tired I try to chug along smoothly and shift and brake as little as possible. It doesn't sound like the KTM likes this kind of riding style. Is this an accurate analysis?

[reymund77]

stick to the KDX....I'm sure you will luv it riding in tight slow technical stuff

Had the 2001 KTM200EXC before....power is snappy and I hate it....high speed sand trail I get alot of tank slap/head shake from the stock clamps offset

[kawagumby]

They are different tools for slightly different jobs. Neither one is better than the other.
Newer bikes are not the advanced machines, comparatively speaking, that some here think they are. The design advancements, IMO, are trivial when compared to the results of simple but knowledgeable suspension tuning, etc. that can be done for any bike built within the last fifteen years. I have had 3 late model bikes and now have a well-tuned KDX that exceeds any of those bikes' potential for fast tight trail work.

KDX's are ridden by A level riders too, the notion that they are somehow limited to novices only is an incorrect perspective.

[Jeb]

. . . KDX's are ridden by A level riders too, the notion that they are somehow limited to novices only is an incorrect perspective.

'Point well-stated . . . I didn't mean to imply the KDX, being well-suited for a novice rider, would not be a great bike for a vet.

[rdsrf]

Well, I'm leaning towards hanging on to the KDX. Sounds like it's a little more friendly in the rough, slow stuff and much more friendly to my wallet. I just wish they were still making new ones....I'd go get a new machine and swap over the KX fork and other goodies.

[Colorado Mike]

just my too scents...

I almost bought a KTM 300 before I got the KDX 220. I mostly got the KDX because I thought it would keep me from killing myself on a bike that was too much for me. The fact that it was about $2500 cheaper than the KTM wasn't really that much of a factor at the time. The problem with dirt bikes is, you seldom get to ride one before buying unless you know someone that has the one you're interested in. Anyway, I got the KDX , modded the crap out of it, and then still kind of lusted for more motor. I had been thinking I should have gotten the KTM, and then I rode the 300 that an aquaintance got. There was no doubt the bike was a lot more performance oriented than the KDX. what surprized me was how awkward the KTM felt. For me, the KTM was very difficult to get comfortable on, and I don't mean the seat.

I can't argue that the KDX is dated, and perhaps the wrong choice if you don't want to buy a bike then swap it's forks, and tweak all the parts that are so much nicer on other bikes and all that. But I can say that it works very well for about 75% of the riders 90% of the time. Not a lot of bikes can do that. and it's versatile enough to accomodate pretty different needs.

The KTM may be the bike for you, but I caution you to ride one for a day to find out. I can also tell you that getting off of my KDX onto my son's YZ makes me forget about the KTM as a next bike and realize a trail-modded YZ would suit me a lot better. But that's why there are so many manufacturers making different bikes for different types of riders.

[midlifemoto]

forgive my ignorance...but isn't the XC-W a cross country wide ratio gear box model? if so, then it doesn't sound like the right one for you anyway based on your riding area of 1st and 2nd gear technical terrain

fwiw...I wouldn't trade my KDX, it's just too darn friendly, forgiving, capable , dependable and inexpensive to own and operate..probably the best combo of attributes of any bike ever made

[jc7622]

So what is your (or anyone else's) thinking on wide ratios transmissions and the transmission gearing of the KDX? How do the KDX tranny compare to the KTM200 wide ratio? What does each excel at?

[midlifemoto]

my understanding is the KDX was designed and intended as primarily a woods bike, but versatile enough to accomodate a broad range of different terrains.....and that bike manufacturers that create cross country and wide ratio models intended for those to primarily excel at desert and more wide open riding, and may design the steering rake and geometry to compliment that riding style...the kdx has a steep rake imho to perform best in tight stuff. now of course, that's not to say changing the sprockets on an XC or WR model wouldn't work just fine in the tighter stuff

[ebeck]

Love the KTM motors. Especially the 300. One of my favorite bikes at least on paper.

I really do not like the KTM ergonomics though. My KX chasis feels large and roomy compared to the KTM yet it is the same size. The KTM is too cramped for my tastes, yet I love them.

I am sure you can get used to it though, but after the KX ergonomics I just am not willing to give that up and the KDX is a really comfortrable compared to the KX.

[StickyTeflon]

Just an FYI the late model KTMs have an adjustable rake or camber as the manual calls it. At 20mm from the crate and changeable to 18mm for tighter turning by rotating the steering stem 180 degrees. wheel base on the 200 is 57.9 and dry weight is 209lbs.

The xc-w vs. xc transmission.
1st 13:33-----13:32
2nd 15:31-----15:30
3rd 17:28-----17:28
4th 19:26-----19:26
5th 17:19-----21:25
6th 22:20-----22:23

Final drive 14:48 stock. I waiting on a 13T front sprocket right now.

Service manual was setting next to the computer......


I must admit i don't ride the KDX as much anymore... It's a buddy bike mostly. BUT, the KDX is a "put it in second gear" and forget about it bike when the terrain is really tough. I'm running a 13:52 drive on the KDX and it pulls like a tractor up the mountains of Virginia

[midlifemoto]

these guys are right on and very experienced...a saggy rear end (and a soft shock setting :-) will definately affect steering accuracy and feel...get that baby tuned and balanced and don't be surprised if your bike now corners like your buddies....the one situation that I don't like about my my KDX's handling is on flat sweepers without berms...the tallness of the bike coupled with the steep rake doesn't like to 'flat track' and get sideways under power...but I'm just an average rider skill wise so maybe it's me and not the bike

[midlifemoto]

oops, apparently I can't multi-task...wrong post, meant for the one about the kdx front end..sorry.... :-(

[Jeb]

I thought a wide-ratio gearbox was preferred in the woods - thought that's what a KDX had, sure feels like it!! My experience is a close-ratio'd gearbox is less preferred - that's the mx bikes. I thought KTM touts the XC as the WORCS or desert (a.k.a wide open terrain) and thusly calls it a "semi-close" ratio g/b and the XC-W as the wide ratio g/b designed FOR THE WOODS (it's got the heavier crank/flywheel as well) . . .

RE favorite bike on paper - my favorite bike "on paper" is a 150 lb 600cc 2-stroke with that old-school Penton power and 3 speeds: slow, medium, and fast!!