130 or 5.10 is far too much tire for the power of a 250 unless you want the performance of a TW200. They just suck up power and will bog the engine too easily unless the bike is geared stupid low, making them slow when the trail is fast or on the road between trails. It's like putting a set of 38x15x20 tires on a four cylinder Ford Ranger. Yeah, they look cool, but they actually aren't the best performing tires, they're too much for the truck. Sure, it rolls down the road, can go off road, but bury it in some mud and it can't pull the tires in sticky mud.

The narrower tire is not just MX, it's on off roaders that are cross country and harescramblers, running over serious rutted, rock covered trails, roots, mud, sand, you name it. They aren't running fat tires of any sort. The CRF250X has a 100/100-18 rear tire, width of a Dunlop in that size is 4.61" overall tread width. The 450 calls for a 110/100-18 which is 5" overall width. The taller cross section is for impacting rocks, the MX tires are 19" 80 or 90 profile. These riders who know what they are doing off road do not go excessively wide and their rides are a bit more powerful than a dual sport KLX.

Trials tires, at least sticky ones are going to be 115mm maximum width - the FIM required max - which is a true 4.52" in width and made for the tractor like power of the current trials engines with gearing in the basement. The KLX is faster in first than a trials bike is in third, but won't pull near as hard if gearing was identical, it's the state of tune and most trials engines are 300cc or bigger and a lot of them still two stroke. They can use the sticky tire, in fact they have enough power to smoke that tire.

Take it for what it is worth.

 

Sorry I didn't mean to say the 130 was for the klx, I persoally wouldn't go bigger than 120 either, on my drz however, a 110 was uncomfortable tiny for climbs, 130 worked better in my scenario.

You know I just found the answer, all bikes should run a 150 teraflex

 

OMG! The TERRIBLEFLEX! I remember them, guys liked them because with that sidewall they could pretty much run flat, but they weighted a ton.

Picture a 5.10 version of that on something like a Husky 125 two stroke! That's the kind of stuff we'd see. They'd stick as wide as the swing arm would fit, totally ignoring what the factory did and back then the Husky was a strong runner (late 70s). Of course guys ran stuff like sweat shirt sleeves or car seat foam for air cleaners too. Not exactly the golden age of motorcycle maintenance by owners.

I'm not sure what the hot ticket is for the DRz. I seriously think the 130 on my 650 is a bit of overkill. I take it you're having a real good time with the DRz. If they'd been around a few years earlier I'd have had one of them instead of my 650.

 

Oh its a blast, lots of work done to it already, wheelies like crazy. I imagine its about the same as your 650 except less torque and more high rpm power. Most of my riding is boulders and sand, the 130 helps keep the bike upright in turns (weird I know) rather than tip over, get caught on a rock, and launch me 10 feet into more rocks haha.

 

This is great info. Even though I am shopping for my KDX I knew I could count on my fellow KLXers.

Anyone know if the Kendas or shinkos are better for rocks? My local forest has trails that will change from hard pak dirt to solid rock climbs.

Appreciate it!

 

The DRz wheelies a whole lot easier than the 650C. The C was the dual sport and had a 1.5" longer swing arm than the R model. I really like the DRz. I think it's one great affordable all around dual sport. It may not be a KTM, but it's reliable as a rock. Only thing I ever heard of and I don't think they went bad as frequently as either the KLX250 or 650, was the tensioner deal too. The rest wears like iron and screw the revs, they'll do it all day long. I chased my buddy around on his 400 converted to SM at 80+ mph all afternoon.

 

I have to say for the KDX I'd do some research, maybe see what Jeff Friedette would recommend since he is like Mr. KDX. Two strokes usually do benefit more from the narrower tires. Maybe the 4.60 would be good if not too low profile in real world diameter, check out the manufacturers' sites to get the numbers.

ever consider the IRC GP110?



They intrigue the heck out of me. I don't see them as much of a road tire for play, but what an off road tread! I don't remember much of the research I did, but I'm sure there are comments. I do remember they howl like crazy when cornering. I was looking at them about the same time I came across the Duros. The Duros have just done so well I've never bothered changing.

 

I'd say kendas, little more squirmy on the street, but I prefer taller ***** for rocks, the reason I went with a IRC Battle rally TR 8 front and a t63 rear was for more aggressive tires overall. If you don't mind some slip, the kendas work great.

 

Thinking Kendas also as I have read the Shinko front is not so great in the dirt. I really don't care to much about street performance more looking at 50/50 tires because of wear. Got to ride 10miles one way to the trails and I hate changing tires. 606's would suit me best but are 10/90.

Looked at the 4.60 like my KLX has but by the charts it is the same width as the 100 Dunlop on the KDX now. Tires like new and traction is just not great compared to my higher HP YZ250 with a 110. Sure suspention can play a part but bikes are both set-up about the same for woods.

Its mainly all single track 2-3gear tech trails so I think the kendas will do with proper psi. For the price worth a try.

 

The 606's also seem to wear pretty well, my friend has a set on his WR250R. He picked up a Pirelli MT43 Trials tire (good for the single track/woods riding we do), but hasn't put it on yet because the 606 has been wearing a lot better than he predicted. He has a 30 minute street/highway ride out to my place where the trails are, and he's rode the bike to work (45 mins each way) on occasion.