Anyone run these tires. Looking to get a pair but have read they run thin. Anyone buy a 4.60? Is it thinner then stock? Should I just get the 5.10? Thanks

 

I've run them on my DR650 in the 5.10 size, so I wouldn't get that for the klx. I actually would get the smallest size they offer for the klx, as going bigger raises your gearing a hair, robs a little power, and would give your bike a rear high front low stink bug feel.

As for performance, I think they work great for gravel roads, among the best ds tires, but are completely allergic to mud and actually has a restraining order to stay 25 feet away from the slick stuff. If you don't get into slick mud then they work great, but then again, imho, most tires do. They are among the least expensive to buy, and the only wear remarks are that the front starts to cup after a while. Personally, if I were to go with this type of tire, I'd go with Kenda 270 as it has softer rubber and is better for smaller bikes and the 244's are better for the bigger bikes. I've had two front flats with the 244's at 20psi. On the pavement, I have actually drug the pegs with them a few times, so they do fine there also.

 

5.10 is about a 5" wide tire with about a 90% profile, which is the sidewall height ratio to the width. The 4.60 is a 4" wide tire with about a 60% profile. Inch sizing is pure stupid, the 4.50 actually is a 4-1/2" wide tire where the 4.10 and 4.60 have the decimal apply to profile, not width. Go figure.

If you can stick with the metric sizing it actually makes sense. A 130/80 is a shade over 5" wide with an 80% profile, a 120/90 is about 4-3/4" wide with a 90% profile, a 110/90 is about 4-1/3" wide with the 90% profile, and a 100/100 is a shade under 4" full profile.

If you look at real off road bikes - ones the guys actually know what they're doing, you will notice they don't use huge fat tires. There are huge wide knobbies out there, but it seems those who know will run a 120 on the 450s and a 110 on the 250s. If you carry this over to the 250 dual sport the tire that would actually perform the best would be a 110 or a 4.00.

The 5.10 or 130 will only suck up more power since it is more tire than the 250 needs - and also costs more than the better size. If you want a fat tire look, you don't get much fatter, but with fat comes increased rotating weight and increased tendency to bog when buried in sand or mud.

The 100/100 is the original equipment size. I thought a 120 was OEM, but I guess I was mistaken. The bike had a 120 on it when I bought it. I sold them off (Kenda 761s) and went to a 4.00-18 due to what I knew about small bore power delivery. Now I find I just went back to what Kawasaki used knowing what their bike could use. In addition pinching a wider tire on the narrower rim can reduce contact patch. (We saw that when fitting 5.10s on the stock Kaw Z1 rims, the 5.10 wore as fast or faster than the stock 4.00s back in the 70s.

The 100 or 4.00 is a light tire, taking less horsepower to rotate and the narrower width enables you to break the tire loose easier when you want to, saving the clutch a bit - like when in serious mud or sand. They are usually significantly less costly. I guarantee you it is plenty of tire for the bike. A big bore might do well with a 110, which is what I believe TNC is running on his modified 250.

Some riders will tell you the bike will do fine with the 120 or even the 130, but reality is rotating weight on the wheel takes more power to rotate and maintain rotation - aka power taken to just move the tire. In addition the extra traction may be more than is optimum - yes, off road you can have too much traction, that's why you don't see giant wide knobbies on 450 MX bikes. Too much traction off road = bogging down easier. Bogging down means running a lower gear reving higher and/or slipping the clutch significantly more.

Those were the reason why I went with the 4.00-18. But I will also tell you I like the lighter MX type look of the regular size rear tire. If it was an SF I might say different, but even with them bigger than stock tires just suck up power.

Summary:

• Want a wide tire look do the 120/90 or 130 realizing some penalty in performance. Noticeable? depends on how/where you ride.
• Want optimum performance go with the 110/90, 100/100, or 4.00. Less clutch possible by breaking the tire loose and using controlled spin to deal with mud and sand. No real down side, especially in cost for replacement.

 

I run a 120/80 Kenda K270 (which, I think is pretty much equivalent to a 4.60), which is almost the same as the shinko 244 (Side-by-side pic of Kenda K270 and Shinko 244 - ADVrider). I do lots of single track trails with mud, rocks, tree roots etc. and the tire works quite well. I disagree with 4vman1 on the mud rating for these tires, although I guess it depends on the type of mud. Now, since I'm running the Kenda K270, not the Shinko 244, there might be a difference, but from what I've read, they're pretty similar.

 

They are not the same thing. Here is the sizing chart for the K270 from Kenda's site:

Technical Specs

Part No. Size Ply Rating O.D. (in) S.W. (in) Max Load (LBS) Max PSI Tread Depth in. Features
042701738B0 3.25-17 4PR, 50P 24.1 3.5 418.9 32 Rear
042701760C0 4.60-17 6PR, 66P 24.9 4.5 661.4 40 0.5 Rear
042701764C0 510-17 6PR, 71P 25.9 5.4 760.6 40 Rear
042701834B0 2.75-18 4PR, 42P 24.1 2.7 330.7 32 Rear
042701842B0 3.50-18 4PR, 56P 25.4 3.2 493.8 32 Rear
042701850B0 4.00-18 6PR, 69P 26.2 4.3 716.5 32 Rear
042701852B0 4.10-18 4PR, 58P 25.2 3.8 599.7 32 Rear
042701858C0 4.50-18 6PR, 73P 27 4.8 804.7 40 Rear
042701860B0 4.60-18 4PR, 63P 25.7 4.3 599.7 32 Rear
042701864C0 5.10-18 6PR, 73P 27 5.2 804.7 32 Rear
042701805C1 100/90-18 4PR, 56P 25.8 4.1 493.8 32 Rear
042701806C1 120/80-18 4PR, 62P 26 4.8 584.2 32 Rear
042702134B0 2.75-21 4PR, 45P 26.3 2.8 363.8 32 Front
042702136B0 3.00-21 6PR, 57P 27.7 3.2 507.1 32 0.4 Front
042702138B0 3.25-21 4PR, 57P 27.9 3.5 507.1 32 Front


Then there is the Duro Median 903/904, the tire I use, a totally different sizing by inch... makes me wonder if they made a typo, especially since the 120 is only .1" narrower than the 130, which is one serious wide tire on my 650:



I know I did, in my previous post I said I use a 4.00-18, but it's actually the 4.10-18. Question is does a 250 need a tire that is nearly as wide as that on a 650 and is about 20% heavier than the 4.10-18 which is pretty much the same tire as OEM 100/100-18 (if that is what they stuck on them).

One other difference for Kendas - 4.10-18 $50.99 and 120/80-18 $68.99. Four of the narrower tire for about the same money as three of the fatter ones at Motorcycle Superstore

By the way, you need the facts on the Shinko 244s According to their site they only do the 244 in inch size so you NEED to know what is what.


Your call, do what pleases you, because at this point you pretty much know the pros and cons. All will work, some better/more efficiently than others.

 

Thanks everyone! This is a big help. I should have mentioned these will be going on my Kdx 220 so not worried about power. My kdx has 100/100/18. My klx has 4.60x18. They look the same. Just trying to find a dot tire for it that is about a 40/60 to 50/50 tire. Thanks again!

 

Well after reading and spec checking I think I am going to go with 120/80/18 and 3.00/21. Little fatter on rear with about the same dia. will be nice as the stock 100 isn't that great. Thanks for all the help.

 

Depends on what you do, want a tire you can air down and crawl over rocks with the most grip? get a 130 or even better a trials rear tire, the only reason racers use 120's and 110's is for weight reduction to increase speed.

They let the aggressive tread of their tires pull them out of corners not the width grip of the tires. Having dual sport tires, sometimes a 100 or 110 won't have the tread pattern to keep you planted when you need to be.

All depends on your riding style, easy trails, rocky trails, trial type trails, fast paced trails, mostly street, etc.

 

Yeah, it depends a lot on the manufacturer. They are pretty similar, but not exact. Note that the HF904's 4.60 and 120/80 are both quoted as a 4.8" section width, so the Duro's 4.60 and 120/80 are (supposedly) exactly the same (both section width and overall diameter.)

 

There are two tire size threads. Here is the link to the other thread and here is a cross post of my one response:


In another tire size post I did some research and found some interesting stuff. It is totally true that sizing varies over manufacturers. A 120 in some brands can be up to 1/2" difference from others. I found one that was 4.78" and another that was 4.37" I also found a 4.60 may vary from around 4.5" to 4". Not much consistency. If a rider wants to know what they really are buying they NEED to go to manufacturers' sites and see what the specs are.

The same tread style from two different manufacturers, Kenda 270, IRC GP1, and Shinko 244, , may be totally different. The Kenda has both a 4.60 and 120, the former is 4.3" wide and the latter is 4.8" - 1/2" difference. (In the brand I use, Duro, they have both the 120 and 4.60 listed at the same width, 4.8".) IRC has their width metric at 105mm, which converts to about 4.13". The Shinko only lists inch sizes and the 4.60 is 4.37". Makes you wonder what the sizing deal is in the industry, it sure can be screwy. Especially when a 4.60 is THREE different sizes over about 3/4" range.

So, advice - do what I do, probably a number of others have done. Pick the kind of tire you want, then go to the manufacturer's web site and see what they have as an actual measured width.


In an interesting side note to add to the confusion, Kawasaki's listings show a 100/100-18 on the back, but in tests it appears a 4.60-18 Dunlop 605, measurement claimed at 120mm is used. So, apparently a tire about 120mm or 4.78" wide is used, in spite of the 100/100 listed by Kawasaki... go figure!


By the way, I'm wondering if the Duro sizing is correct, because the 120 is rated near the same width as the 130. I run the 130 on my 650 and know it isn't anywhere near the same as the 120.

A few of us have given tire size recommendations with explanation - aka small 20 hp engine versus tire size - think about the kind of riding you will do, find out what the real tire size is, then make an educated choice.

P.S.
If anyone is looking to choose a tire for off roading I'd take my lead from one rider here who does a lot of off road - TNC. He not only has a 300 kitted TM36 pumper carbed KLX, he has significant past off road experience and spends the kind of time I wish I could riding off road. I need to reach retirement!