rg250

[McDuck]

1986 what do ya think of them? It would not be my first bike, honest...

[Jantar]

I would love to have an RG250 as a toy to play with. :yes:

However I would not let Stromfrau anywhere near it. She only has 4 or 5 years previous riding experience, none of it on 2 strokes, and none on sports bikes. :shutup:

[McDuck]

so they are good bikes? i am just deciding between one of them or a katana 250

[bimotabob]

They are reliable I believe.
The first model had a 9000 redline, the second 9500 the third 10,500.
The one you say - 1986 should be the third with powervalves and is the best by far.
The only one better was the special model with the 17" wheels.
The walter wolves had cool paint schemes - either silver or dark purple.

[Jantar]

The RG250 is a high performance, high maintenance bike. In comparison the Katana 250 will carry on happily with little more than a bit of chain adjustment and lube.

If you can carry out your own maintenance then try the RG. If you rely on others to service your bike, then go with the Katana. Also remeber that you will be more likely to drop the RG, and it may be more expensive to repair.

[McDuck]

wich do you think would be better for a large person?

[F5 Dave]

RG: They were like a watercooled version of the X7 & the crank was pretty marginal on those as well. 25 years on I would factor in a full rebuild at some stage. Not really recommended unless fanatical.

[imdying]

They're a lot of fun, although they feel a whole heap more upright than the NS250R of the same years.

[willy_01]

my rg 250 (1984) was my first road bike and it was fine. Maybe it was because im a big guy but the 'power band' was scary for all of about 3 seconds then you get use to it. Im a really crap rider but the rg never felt too dangerous or too out of control. The back tyre will skid on you on quick down changes, not a biggy at all, you will get used to it. Mine had done 40000kms and to my knowledge it was still on its first set of pistons and rings. I did have to clean the carbs twice while owning it (but that could have been due to poor fuel?) other than that it was fine. You will get sick of kick start tho - my biggest 'con' about that bike! I road it on very few long distance trips as it was too loud, too slow, and too small (but im bloody huge:mellow:) but for some stupid reason i still, even to this day really like that bike ?:Punk:

[McDuck]

if you dont mind me asking, how big are you?

[bimotabob]

Hi

Maintenance is not an issue like has been suggested.
I had one at 16 and rebuilt the top end, tuned it etc with almost no tools and and even less knowledge.
If you can put 2 stroke oil in it and adj the chain you have 90% of it sorted.
Has No valves to adj and no balancing gear for the carbs is required.
The cranks do not give trouble as such with these as they are not the same engine as the air cooled X7.
However as someone has said here due to age a rebuild is a possibility - mind
you the old 4 strokes are getting up there in Km's and I know which one I'd rather do.
Back in the day when these were common a had several mates with them,
a couple were large guys so size probably wont be an issue.

The CDI's are a known issue and keep an eye on the reg/rect.
Head gaskets genuine are overpriced - was quoted $180 a few years ago.
They also take the common H4 bulb for good lighting.

Regards

[F5 Dave]

Although an all new engine Suzuki uplever & heavily rely on previous technology. The intake & porting were closely related to the X7 & my understanding (I used to read all the road tests at the time) was that the crank was very similar. Whether this is totally true depends on how carefully the journalist researched his article. Suzuki cranks at this time were pretty marginal, even the RG500 had issues. Add to the fact that it is 23yrs old then expect issues.

I live sleep eat breathe 2 strokes, I’ve raced an RG50 for over 12 years (heavily related design) & am currently modifying an RG250 frame at present for a project.

I’d just hate someone to buy one & expect it to be like a reliable workhorse & then find themselves elbows deep in a hard to find parts rebuild. OK if you’re a tinkerer, pain in the arse (& wallet) if you aren’t.
Add the 16” front wheel to the equation.

Just be aware of what you are getting into. If it is a cute little bike & you want a plaything then ok. At the time Suzuki only sold cranks as an assembly (think the RG500 was $1500 per crank so the 250 would have been similar). I'm restoring an old T125 currently. All parts obsolete.

However
Do a search on parts availability. E bay has NOS from time to time & Long brand Rods probably do a kit, maybe it is still current

[bimotabob]

Although an all new engine Suzuki uplever & heavily rely on previous technology. The intake & porting were closely related to the X7 & my understanding (I used to read all the road tests at the time) was that the crank was very similar. Whether this is totally true depends on how carefully the journalist researched his article. Suzuki cranks at this time were pretty marginal, even the RG500 had issues. Add to the fact that it is 23yrs old then expect issues.

I live sleep eat breathe 2 strokes, I’ve raced an RG50 for over 12 years (heavily related design) & am currently modifying an RG250 frame at present for a project.

I’d just hate someone to buy one & expect it to be like a reliable workhorse & then find themselves elbows deep in a hard to find parts rebuild. OK if you’re a tinkerer, pain in the arse (& wallet) if you aren’t.
Add the 16” front wheel to the equation.

Just be aware of what you are getting into. If it is a cute little bike & you want a plaything then ok. At the time Suzuki only sold cranks as an assembly (think the RG500 was $1500 per crank so the 250 would have been similar). I'm restoring an old T125 currently. All parts obsolete.

However
Do a search on parts availability. E bay has NOS from time to time & Long brand Rods probably do a kit, maybe it is still current

But Suzuki is awesome for old stock availability from the 80's on , I spent over $4000 on genuine parts - many oddball type parts for my RG500 - you are incorrect about crank parts not being sold individually for them - maybe they did that in the 70's?
I had the original parts book with all parts listed from new - and they are all still available too which is testament to Suzuki's backing of old stock as only 10,000 were made.
It's also unfair to say the RG500's had crank issues - it was the owners that had issues. There is no design flaw as such. They were thrashed - and raced by people to poor to buy the real thing.
The cranks could do 100,000km with piston/rings at half interval if looked after like mine was.

It's simple really, as the engine size gets smaller it will likely spend more time higher in the rev range and that shortens crank life.
So the 250's would do less and the 50's less still in theory.

F5 Dave - how much above the standard redline of 10,500 does your bucket racer see with it's factory crank - 13,000? - and for how long?
Two of mine had crank issues - between the main brgs and crankshaft.

The golden rule is:
Never redline a 2 stroke and run good oils and you'll see some 4 strokes
explode before yours does.

[geoffm]

A 350 YPVS motor fits into an RG chassis real easy. Gives the RZ a better frame,a nd the RG a better motor.
Geoff

[bimotabob]

A 350 YPVS motor fits into an RG chassis real easy. Gives the RZ a better frame,a nd the RG a better motor.
Geoff

That would be an awesome mod to do!
Even if it was the 250 YPVS engine they have more HP,
the Yamaha had more power than all the Jap 250's.
Good luck getting an engine, everyone wants one :yes:

[F5 Dave]

A 350 YPVS motor fits into an RG chassis real easy. Gives the RZ a better frame,a nd the RG a better motor.
Geoff

My Yamagama (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=63003&d=1181021706)

thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=51274&highlight=brand)

[McDuck]

my god that looks like a machine and a half, could i have a go when itis finished?