Does anyone know if there are still spacers available to make our KLX axles fit into the 94/95 KX forks? They're the ones that require the least work to fit our bikes, IIRC. I'd hate to buy a set and then not be able to fit them up for lack of spacers.

 

All of the dimensions can be found here if you know someone that is a machinist:
HOW TO INSTALL KX-250 FORKS ON THE KLX-300

Or, I could turn out a set for you for $40. plus shipping.

Ride on
Brewster

 

Brewster - you da man. Don't do them yet - but I'd definitely trust your work more than the guy down the street.

You'd also be the guy to answer this question. Would it be better to buy a set of 95's and revalve (which I can do) or keep the stockers and gold valve them?

I did a set years ago on my 2001 KLX331 but that's more because it came with a blown/dented/ripped upper tube and they had to be replaced. I was not good at suspension tuning and I'm pretty sure I never got them to perform to their utmost.

I recently put the gold valves in my KLX250S stockers and they were better but I still wouldn't consider them good. That's why I'm thinking a low-cost fork upgrade for the 300R I just bought.

I know a full front end from a later model would be better, but I also know how cheap I am. I also reforked my KDX with later model KX forks and I'm pretty sure the later models weren't a lot better than the 95's.

So what's your feeling for a 55 year old who really only trailrides - although those trails are severely rocky and I like 'em plush. Is it possible with the 95's? Or, should I look elsewhere?

 

For my riding style (moderate) and terrain (varied) , the KX forks are better for me than the Gold Valved forks. "Plush" (soft) isn't always the way to go. The KX forks with no shim changes are a bit firmer than the Gold Valved forks but they make the steering and terrain response better. It may be that the KX forks have better rebound control than the KLX forks (not adjustable).

Ride on
Brewster

 

Thanks Brewster. By plush - I mean that I like to be able to roll over trail trash without deflection. OTOH - I don't want to bottom out on the larger rocks and ledge.

The best I've had were WP forks (the old 43s) but I had to revalve the base and midvalves and then play with the clickers to get the feel I wanted. Trail trash disappeared and I could hit some 10" logs with very little deflection and only barely bottom at that.

WPs aren't the best in general, but if I could get the KYB 43s to perform like those WPs on the cheap I'd be very happy.

 

Well, I did it. Bought the 1995 KX forks. Between the forks and spacers I'll have less $$$ in it than buying the goldvalve kit. It'll be a nice comparison because I have goldvalved stock forks on my 250S.

Brewster - I'm gonna need a set of those spacers - PM'd ya.

I might throw my old KTM stock springs in as well. They're .42s and fit inside the stock KLX tubes but were about 1.5 inches too long. I didn't want to try them on the stockers due to the 1.5" preload. Should be just about right for the KX forks with an automatic 6mm preload.

Is a .42 spring rate about right for KX forks and a 200 lb rider?

Also, anyone have recommendations on a shim stack suitable for woods/trail riding with the KX forks? Lots of rocks for me.

 

The .42's will be a bit light for 200 lbs. .44-.46 might be a better choice. But, you already have them so give them a try. The KX forks with those springs will be longer than the KLX forks so there will be a change in steering geometry.
I have the KLX springs with the fork spacers. The spacers REDUCE the KX fork length to KLX length.
I didn't bother to change the shims in my KX forks.

Ride on
Brewster

 

Yeah, this really points out how different each rider's needs or preferences can be when it comes to valving and fork characteristics. In many cases even the highest end forks are often revalved by a given rider on the best bikes manufactured just out of sheer preference, riding style, and other factors. Even MX'ers at the highest level will often revalve for each track they race on. Most of us mere mortals don't need that level of fine tuning, of course.

I think many seem to fear doing the revalving on their existing KLX fork, because it seems like some "black magic" deal that they'll screw up. I'd contend that if you have the skill to swap the KLX fork for the KX fork, you probably already have the skill to walk through the revalve on the KLX 43mm KYB. That said, one can sometimes find one of these KX forks for darned cheap, and depending on which one you select, you get a stiffer fork with adjustable rebound. I'm decently serious with my KLX, and I find the revalved KLX fork to be quite good...but...people have different needs and wants. It's nice having options.

The issue of fork length as it affects steering geometry and handling is very important as Brewster points out. I don't think the KLX is a very quick steering/handling bike as it sits with stock parts. Raising the front end height might be a real negative. That said, as I've watched some other fork swaps over time, I find it interesting that many of these "upgrade" forks from other bikes with more travel aren't as tall as one might expect. At some point you also have to consider how much extra fork dive you will get with the longer travel fork...and by fork dive I don't mean from soft springs, but instead how much the new fork will compress and thereby lower the bike under a full compression hit. In some cases where the bike may be able to handle the longer travel fork because it's not that much taller overall, it might be a serious issue where the skid plate and cradle part of the frame might be dangerously close to the ground under full fork compression...if you get my drift.

Fork swaps can be a very beneficial and/or expedient move, but one should consider all the variables and not just assume it will be a magic pill to cure all ills.

 

Thanks Brewster. I'm getting raising links from Burkhartcycle for the rear. I know it's not ideal but it'll maintain geometry AND that back end feels too low for me.

I'll also be switching bar risers over from the 250 to the 300S - so I'll have some room to raise the forks in the triples.

 

For anyone using the mid 90's KYB forks for a swap on a 250/300 - here are some details.

I've been perusing the web a lot and I found 2 pieces of info of interest. First, the 1995 YZ, KX and CR 43mm KYBs are the same. The second, from John IIRC at Moto-Pro suspensions says that the midvalve on the 95's is a checkplate only. And for woods/trail riding he recommended no changes to the midvalve or rebound on these forks. I didn't feel comfortable asking John about his suggested shimstack for this fork and this bike (cause he does that for $$$) but he did say that I would want .44 springs for my 200 pound (220 geared up). He said they're very good forks for a swap - the compression valve flows a lot of oil so no need for a goldvalve or ultramax. Just a revalve and shims are readily available.

From other sources on the net it seems that all that is necessary for a revalve on these forks for super plush woods riding is to remove enough of the largest shims 24x10 to leave only 3 of the biggest size instead of the stock MX of 10 larger shims. The rest of the base stack is great. Apparently getting those big shims out makes the 95's extremely responsive to clicker settings.

So, I'll only need to remove the base valve and remove shims/replace the base valves/remove caps/remove the .40 stock springs/replace with .44s replace the caps. Actually I have some .42s laying around so I'll probably try those before spending the $$$ for .44s.

I have the specs for the suggested stack (minus the larger shims) on another computer if anyones interested. Might come in handy if someone's been messing with the stacks already.