Since you're going to be riding it more off-road, you'll probably gear it down anyway, so a higher 6th gear would come down into a more usable range (the stock 6th on a gen 1 was a little too high) The looks of the gen. 1 (kinda old-school, which I dig) remind me of the 80's/90's KDX's that I always thought were so cool back in the day. Some prefer the updated look of the Gen 2, they both look cool IMO, especially after throwing away the black rear fender appendage that comes on both versions in different, though equally hideous forms.

 

where do you get this? Just curious. Have you spent lots of time on both models, stock or set up similar, on different conditions to offer this as fact or opinion? Or is there some unbiased third-party review that you're referencing? Again, not trying to start anything, just curious.

Thanks

 

From what I've seen on CL, you could save a little money with the older model, but it's not significant. In my area, there seems to be an abundance of used 2009 models out there and the '06/'07 comes up only rarely to occasionally. If I had it to do over again, now with hindsight, I'd still get a Gen I. But there probably aren't too many Gen II owner who would prefer the older one.

Either way, get one and enjoy it!

 

Sometimes less is better. Less undersprung over damped cheap suspension to deal with for example. Lower center of gravity helps off road as well. It's not all about ultimate travel. It's an inch after all. Just my opinion.

 

Just my opinion. I have more confidence on the shorter bike. I have not rode an older KLX. Just comparing it to my old WR that had a seat height of 39". Trials bikes are not tall and they perform excellent in the tight nasty stuff. The KLX is a trail bike (sort of) not a MX bike. So for me the 10 and 9" of travel is plenty. I do jump just not huge like a MX.

I have had times when on a side hill and needed to put a foot down (some one stopped in front of me), the tall WR made it to where I didnt reach the ground and crashed. If I was on the KLX I could have saved it. So For me I feel the lower seat hight is a plus. Is 1" a big deal between the older KLX and the newer ones, maybe maybe not. I do know that 4" seat height between the WR and the KLX is huge. Ground clearance between the Gen 1 and 2 is only .4" Insignificant IMHO.

 

The KTM FreeRide 350 Has 9.8" inches of travel front and 10.2" in the rear and a seat height of 35.2" They claim "Perfect handling". Sure they have way better suspension components but they are very close to the same travel and seat height as the KLX.

Freeride 350 - Highlights KTM

 

Interesting logic, but if it were true, why are so many of the best off-road and dualsport bikes as tall as they are? I think it all comes down to personal preference. You wanted a shorter bike, so you bought one. Is it possible that Kawasaki lowered the KLX250S in attempt to appeal to a slightly different market than the Gen 1? When I bought my bike, the '09 was just coming out, so I had to choose between the two, when I finally saw the specs and photos of the '09, my choice was clear. If the Gen 1 KLX had not been available, I would have purchased a Yamaha WR250R.

You could look at it a less undersprung overdamped suspension to deal with, but I see it as more to work with when it comes time to upgrade/modify.

 

"Interesting logic, but if it were true, why are so many of the best off-road and dualsport bikes as tall as they are?"

The logic was based on the KLX Gen1/Gen2. The KLX is not in the same class as the bikes you mention. Even with expensive suspension mods that most KLX owners will never do. I did not base the purchase on suspension/ride height, the dealer had a good deal on a demo model 09. Like you said, for most it will come down to personal preference.

 

Well if KTM claimed it ...

Seriously they said that about the first 690 enduro when it went from 13.4" in the back to 9.8". There is "bettter" suspension out there, but there is no way you can make up for a difference that big off road. The 690 sucked off road compared to the old LC4 with much more suspension. I now also have a new '11 690 with 10.8" f/r and that is of course better than the 690E (10.8" on the KTM 690 is the "R" version) and while it's better than the "e" it of course can't compare off road to the old LC4 w/12 and 13".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that off road 13" of poor/marginal suspension kicks butt on 10" of the "latest/greatest". Can it beat 12"? I don't know...


Back on topic can anyone who has actually put both generation of KLX's on a scale confirm the weight of each model. Some say there is a 16lb difference. Some say they just changed from dry to wet weight... can we get a solid confirmation from somene on that?

 

Everyone over 40 likes the looks of Gen 1.
Everyone young likes the looks of Gen 2.
I sit in my garage and drink beer and look at my 2007 and think how perfect it looks.