There is a comparison test between the new KLX250S and the Yamaha WR250R in the February Cycle World magazine. They also tested some other 250s in their September 2008 issue, I'll post their stats also. Might as well get them all from the same source. These stats are all from Cycle World, not me, so contact them if you have a problem with them.

Yamaha WR250R
Price: 5899
Dry weight: 286
Seat height: 36.0
Fuel Mileage: 51.7 mpg
0-60: 7.4
1/4 mile: 15:47 @ 81.90 mph
Horsepower: 25.2 @ 9200 rpm
Torque: 15.3 @ 8200 rpm
Top speed: 85 mph

Kawasaki KLX250S
Price: 4899
Dry weight: 286
Seat height: 35.0
Fuel mileage: 49.7 mpg
0-60: 9.4
1/4 mile: 16.68 @ 75.34 mph
Horsepower: 18.7 @ 8300 rpm
Torque: 13.1 @ 7100 rpm
Top speed: 81 mph

Honda CRF230L
Price: 4499
Dry Weight: 261
Seat height: 32.1
Fuel Mileage: 93 mpg
0-60: 12.7
1/4 mile: 17.92 @ 67.49 MPH
Horsepower: 14.3 @ 6650 RPM
Torque: 11.7 @ 5630 rpm
Top speed: 71 mph

Yamaha XT250
Price: 4399
Dry weight: 277
Seat Height: 32.5
Fuel Mileage: 80.0
0-60: 11.7
1/4 mile: 17.53 @ 60.68 mph
Horsepower: 16.2 @ 6980 rpm
Torque: 12.9 @ 6480 rpm
Top speed: 73 mph

Yamaha WR250X
Price: 5999
Dry Weight: 293
Seat height: 35.2
Fuel mileage: 60 mpg
0-60: 7.5
1/4 mile: 15.57 @ 80.06 mph
Horsepower: 27.1 @ 9150 rpm
Torque: 16.5 @ 8150 rpm
Top speed: 85 mph

Kawasaki Ninja 250R
Price: 3499
Dry Weight: 352
Seat height: 31.0
Fuel Mileage: 60 mpg
0-60: 7.6
1/4 mile: 15.54 @ 82.70 mph
Horsepower: 27.2 @ 10,770 rpm
Torque: 14.3 @ 9650 rpm
Top speed: 96 mph

Honda Nighthawk (234cc)
Price: 3699
Dry Weight: 295
Seat height: 29.7
Fuel mileage: 90 mpg
0-60: 12.2
1/4 mile: 17.86 @ 69.46 mph
Horsepower: 17.3 @ 8100 rpm
Torque: 12.8 @ 4580 rpm
Top speed: 77 mph

And for a little added fun, I thought I'd just go ahead and throw in these stats from the October 2008 issue of Motorcyclist:

Honda Rebel 250
Price: 3199
Weight: 317
Seat height: 26.6
0-60: 11.0
1/4 mile: 17.81 @ 70.06 mph
Horsepower: 15.9 @ 7500 rpm
Torque: 11.7 @ 6250 rpm

Kawasaki Ninja 250R
Price 3499
Weight: 348
Seat height: 30.5
0-60: 6.9
1/4 mile: 15.30 @ 84.14 mph
Horsepower: 25.6 @ 10,500 rpm
Torque: 13.1 @ 9150 rpm

Suzuki DR-Z400SM (yeah I know, not a 250)
Price: 6199
Weight: 319
Seat height: 35.0
0-60: 5.4
1/4 mile: 14.30 @ 87.81 mph
Horsepower: 32.5 @ 7850 rpm
Torque: 23.9 @ 6750 rpm

Yamaha WR250R
Price: 5899
Weight: 289
Seat height: 36.6
0-60: 6.7
1/4 mile: 15.51 @ 80.88 mph
Horsepower: 23.5 @ 8750 rpm
torque: 14.4 @ 8250 rpm

 

The MSRP on the KLX-250S actually went up to $4,999. Also, how did they acquire these fuel economy numbers? Were they hanging the throttle wide open in first gear? The worst I've ever got, post rejet and gears, was 60. I consistantly got 80 in stock trim. And you can't say they rode it on the trails and got that, 'cause look at the Honda 230 (unless that's a typo or a misprint).

 

Wow your articles state that the Yamaha WR250R has 6 more HP. That is huge... Like 30% more.

I thought I had read somehwere that the Kawi out powered the Yamaha and the Honda.
Did anyone else read that anywhere?

I'll try to find it and post it up.
Chris

 

Yea I was pretty shocked by that when I read the article, but it did say that the KLX had more low end power than the Yamaha.

 

it's never been a debate that the new WR outpowers the KLX, everyone knew that. I was more shocked that the SM version of the WR puts out more power than the R model. They're supposed to share the same engine.

 

The Yamaha XT250 maybe, but not the EFI wr250. The torque number is probably more important than the hosepower. Yes the Yamaha makes a couple more lb/ft but its at stupid high revs. I thought our bike was a spinner, but sheesh. It'd be very interesting to see an actual dyno printout with the HP and TQ curves. IDK about you guys but I don't run my bike at 8K very often. The torque peaks around 7K so that's where I shift. And it (KLX) does outpower that anemic (sp) Honda 230L. Air-cooled, SOHC, oldschool forks, and its only ~400 less than the Kawi.

 

Same engine production line variables put 100 of the same bikes on there you'll get 100 different readings.

 

not two horsepower, not in todays exacting standards. if what you say is true, computerized engine building/cutting technology is terrible. there has to be something tuned differently such as timing/cam cut/cam selection.

 

Sorry to say thats the way it is! There are many more factors from different tires, operators, dynos, chain tension, you name it. Thats why you can't live by a dyno sheet its more of a tuning tool then end all be all way to buy things.

 

Cycle World printed the test of the WR250R in the February '09 issue, and the test of the WR250X was in the September '08 issue. If they were tested at different times, then maybe temperature had a little bit of an effect on the dyno readings. I remember when I got my car dyno tested, the guy doing the tests suggested I come again on a day with similar weather to get a more accurate reading of how much effect the mods made. I'm not sure how bikes are dyno tested. Are they put on a treadmill like device? I wonder if different type of tires would have any effect if that was the case?

I wonder what my bike will do in the 1/4 mile with the mods I made. I might take it up to the local drag strip on "test and tune" night or bike night sometime this summer just for fun and give her a few runs. I've ran my car there before, but never a bike. That would be cool if I could break into the 15s, but I'm not too worried about it, just curious. I ride in tight woods, so I think the KLX is the better bike for my needs, and hopefully the mods will help me get over obstacles and hills. If I lived by more wide open riding areas, I certainly would have looked harder at the WR250R.

Anyway, while I was looking up these stats and had my magazines out, I figured I might as well just post them in case anyone else was curious.