CBR250r mc19, if I was buying what should I look for?

[4AGE]

In regards to a mc19 as a first bike. I found it quite good, as when your learning you can potter around under 8k to build skills and then as your skills progress you can explore the rev range a bit more.

[sharp2183]

[QUOTE=Grantman_;1130155420]Yes, all the mainstream 250 sportbikes in the late 80's early 90's wipe the floor with what's available today. I would take my 20 year old MC22 over a brand new Hyosung or Ninja 250r any day - in every respect. I can't say how the handling of the MC19 compares, but the 45hp engine is for all intents and purposes the same, therefore it can embarrass the mediocrity that constitutes a 250 sportbike today, no problems at all.

QUOTE]


I've found the MC19 to be ever so slightly slower than the early MC22. No idea why but it seems to be the case. But on the road I would be amazed if you could pick a big enough difference between the two that would make you want the newer option for the speed advantage alone. In saying that, I understand that the '93 and onwards MC22s were restricted at 40 instead of 45? Can anyone verify this? On top of all that, if you start cheap (19) over expensive (22) you lose less in the long run, pay less for learner insurance (not by much but still), and care less when you take that fall.

Again, if you get a good one theres no reason to believe the 'it's 20 years old so it must be fucked' claims. Get it tested to be sure though.

[Grantman_]

I've found the MC19 to be ever so slightly slower than the early MC22. No idea why but it seems to be the case. But on the road I would be amazed if you could pick a big enough difference between the two that would make you want the newer option for the speed advantage alone. In saying that, I understand that the '93 and onwards MC22s were restricted at 40 instead of 45? Can anyone verify this? On top of all that, if you start cheap (19) over expensive (22) you lose less in the long run, pay less for learner insurance (not by much but still), and care less when you take that fall.

Again, if you get a good one theres no reason to believe the 'it's 20 years old so it must be fucked' claims. Get it tested to be sure though.

Yes I have a friend who bought an mc19 not that long ago, and it ran just as sweetly as it should and as sweetly as you could hope for. The whole 'old = thrashed' thing is a crock. Evaluate each bike on a case by case basis. I bet the feeble 250’s are wrung out and ‘thrashed’ out of necessity a lot more than a 250 with decent power.

In 94 the 250's were restricted to 40hp - something to do with Japanese domestic market rules. The mc19 would be a good first bike, but if you have the money the mc22 is the revamped-from-the-ground-up, over-engineered pinnacle of Honda's production 4-stroke 250 history, past present and probably future.

[nzspokes]

Ive been to look at a 86 one, with bikini fairing, dual discs on the front and drum on the back. Must admit I like the look.

[tigertim20]

they all just look like everyday mc19's too me. Get a cheapy and just thrash it.

theres a reason why some bikes are much cheaper than an otherwise identical model. beware the cheap bikes, sometimes a good deal is to be had,but beware none the less

I've found the MC19 to be ever so slightly slower than the early MC22. No idea why but it seems to be the case. But on the road I would be amazed if you could pick a big enough difference between the two that would make you want the newer option for the speed advantage alone. In saying that, I understand that the '93 and onwards MC22s were restricted at 40 instead of 45? Can anyone verify this? On top of all that, if you start cheap (19) over expensive (22) you lose less in the long run, pay less for learner insurance (not by much but still), and care less when you take that fall.

Again, if you get a good one theres no reason to believe the 'it's 20 years old so it must be fucked' claims. Get it tested to be sure though.

firstly yes, the later ones, circa '94+ were restricted in HP.
there are a bunch of subtle changes to the MC22, like higher pegs etc, that make it a slightly better bike than the MC19 on the track, but honestly, on the road theres fuckall difference.
The thing with the '20 years old, itll be fucked' thing, is that a LOT of the IL4 250s have been owned by younger people who raped them, and didnt service them, thus finding one with a service history isnt very easy, but there are plenty out there that are in good nick too, be patiend and wait for a good example at the right price

Ive been to look at a 86 one, with bikini fairing, dual discs on the front and drum on the back. Must admit I like the look.

nothing wrong with them either, a friend of mine still has one.
If I remember correctly, the 86 is an MC14?
anyway If I remember correctly, the engines from 86, through the MC19 era are basically the exact same engine, engine numbers I think read XX14E... etc etc.

If you are concerned about dropping it and breaking plastic, get the '86 if its in good nick, youll get basically the same performance anyway.

[nzspokes]

nothing wrong with them either, a friend of mine still has one.
If I remember correctly, the 86 is an MC14?
anyway If I remember correctly, the engines from 86, through the MC19 era are basically the exact same engine, engine numbers I think read XX14E... etc etc.

If you are concerned about dropping it and breaking plastic, get the '86 if its in good nick, youll get basically the same performance anyway.

i like that they look a bit different. Waiting to hear back from the seller.

Looked at one today that was fucked.

But in saying that the CBX ran awesome today round a lot of twistys.

[DrunkenMistake]

They are the same motors,
MC14 XXX is the engine number.

[ducatilover]

They are the same motors,
MC14 XXX is the engine number.

They are similar, not the same.
My CB400 was a completly diff motor to the CBR400/CB1 and it had the same engine code. Honda was good like that.
Same goes for the MC15E 249cc V-twins.