New 2011 EC200 Six Days Owner

[Jakobi]

Good point about the entire engine swap! It'd be great to be able to test ride them all before making a choice but unfortunately thats not possible.

If I lead a ride it is as much tight and nasty as I can find. Other times there are lots of fire trail and open riding which doesn't interest me nearly as much. Decisions decisions! I think I'm leaning towards the 200 just for the contrast between bikes. It'll give me a bike to choose for the particular ride.

 

[firffighter]

Just curious why you chose the gasgas over the ktm200?

Seems like the 200 line has been dominated by ktm

 

[Snelens]

Confused

This whole 250 / 300 thing has me so confused I am losing sleep. I haven't had a 2 stroke in 25 years so after 15 years on 400/501/450 Husabergs (real Swedish ones) I am looking to change. I also only enjoy the tight & gnarly riding and would love to compete again. Down here in Victoria the races are generally very tight and rough.
I have asked a few people about the 250 / 300 thing and I am still confused. The softer bottom end power of the 250 would be nice in the tight stuff but owners talk about the torque of the 3's being easier to use in the tight. I like the idea of a well set up 250 so i can get that top end = power to work when it is open enough and the smoother softer bottom end when in the tight.
Any ideas / opinions?

 

[MrBlah]

dont get too hung up on it, you can swap a couple parts and convert a 250 to a 300 or vice versa

cylinder/head/piston kit I believe is what is needed

 

[john01]

firffighter my guess would be better handling and ergos with the GG over the KTM. I know for me I feel better aboard a GasGas.

 

[Jakobi]

This whole 250 / 300 thing has me so confused I am losing sleep. I haven't had a 2 stroke in 25 years so after 15 years on 400/501/450 Husabergs (real Swedish ones) I am looking to change. I also only enjoy the tight & gnarly riding and would love to compete again. Down here in Victoria the races are generally very tight and rough.
I have asked a few people about the 250 / 300 thing and I am still confused. The softer bottom end power of the 250 would be nice in the tight stuff but owners talk about the torque of the 3's being easier to use in the tight. I like the idea of a well set up 250 so i can get that top end = power to work when it is open enough and the smoother softer bottom end when in the tight.
Any ideas / opinions?

I'm in Australia too, however at the other end of the country. From what I gather it mostly depends on your prefered riding style. The smaller the bore the more important to be in the right gear, the more clutch you will use to bring things to life, but the power will be more managable on the pipe. The bike will be more willing to rev and will need to rev to make the same power. The whole range appears to lug down quite well.

When people talk about the 300 being easy to use in the tight they are referring to the gobs of torque available right off idle. You can basically click a 300 into second/third gear, open the throttle, load up the engine in the lower revs and have it keep on pulling smoothly. Great for trail riding. If you want to pick up the pace, open the throttle, and keep the 300 on the pipe you better have your game face on!

The 250 is softer off the bottom with more snap as it comes onto the pipe and is more willing to do this. Think point and shoot. Braap Braap!

 

[fury1]

I have billys burns old GG200..i raced this weekend,studded tires and winter conditions,probably 6 inches of snow,but a nice groove in the woods,was so tough to get traction on the hills or out in the field corners,bike would just light up the rear and basically try to come around on me..i know its got a different CDI and ignition..so that may be the problem in the snow...it hits pretty hard and really comes on the pipe hard,not enough grunt to keep speed on the hills without clutching during the race..

 

[lankydoug]

I have billys burns old GG200..i raced this weekend,studded tires and winter conditions,probably 6 inches of snow,but a nice groove in the woods,was so tough to get traction on the hills or out in the field corners,bike would just light up the rear and basically try to come around on me..i know its got a different CDI and ignition..so that may be the problem in the snow...it hits pretty hard and really comes on the pipe hard,not enough grunt to keep speed on the hills without clutching during the race..

My 200 was like that until I put a 10oz. Flywheel weight on it. It has the lighter 2k ignition as well so that made it spool up quick and bog down quick if it was in the wrong gear. Now with the weight it's smooth and still runs hard on the pipe.

 

[john01]

I've never added a FWW is it hard to do?

 

[Jakobi]

John I'm going to assume the newer models will come with the 2k3 ignition like the 300s have. The added mass from the bigger stator works as a FWW.

 

[john01]

Thanks Jakobi. Is it hard to add a FFW if one was needed? My son is thinking about adding one to his 2011 TM 250.

 

[HuskyDude]

From what I gather it mostly depends on your preferred riding style. The smaller the bore the more important to be in the right gear, the more clutch you will use to bring things to life, but the power will be more manageable on the pipe. The bike will be more willing to rev and will need to rev to make the same power. The whole range appears to lug down quite well.

When people talk about the 300 being easy to use in the tight they are referring to the gobs of torque available right off idle. You can basically click a 300 into second/third gear, open the throttle, load up the engine in the lower revs and have it keep on pulling smoothly. Great for trail riding. If you want to pick up the pace, open the throttle, and keep the 300 on the pipe you better have your game face on!

The 250 is softer off the bottom with more snap as it comes onto the pipe and is more willing to do this. Think point and shoot. Braap Braap!

I was gonna add my 2 cents on this but Jakobi has nailed it.!!

The smaller bore will make you work harder to achieve your goal but will reward you at the end of the day with longer endurance and less fatigue.

 

[lankydoug]

I've never added a FWW is it hard to do?

As stated earlier the 2k3 has the same affect as a flywheel weight but if you were to add one it's as simple as replacing the nut on the flywheel. 5 minutes tops

 

[noobi]

I can see no reason to add a flywheel weight to my 2011 200. It does require a bit of clutch finesse, but I would think a flywheel weight would make it a slug.

....and for the record, the last 3 bikes I've owned, I've installed a lighter flywheel, or turned weight off of the flywheels, and the terrain we ride here in S.W. Washington is as hilly, steep, slick and tight as anywhere I've ever ridden.

The 200 seems to be about perfect.

It's not uncommon to put the 2k2 flywheel with a FWW on the 200, as the 2k3 is a pretty decent weight. It just makes the engine slightly more responsive, less clutch work really.

 

[GMP]

A couple of other points to consider:

235lbs ready to ride vs 250lbs is a major difference when the terrain tightens up. 15lbs is noticeable.

The 200 power delivery is much more comparable to a 125 than a 250/300 class bike.

A lighter rotating mass does make a bike feel lighter.

Combine 15lbs in weight reduction with the lighter quicker reving 200 engine, and the bike does not handle nor does it feel like a 250/300 class bike.... I've never owned a 300, but I have had a woods ready 250.

I have spent time on 250/300 2 strokes, and for the tighter terrain, there is no comparison to the 125/200 bikes.... in my opinion.

The 250 and 200 of the same vintage are not 15 lbs different. Its the same bike. Maybe a couple lbs. tops due to different internal engine parts.

 

[john01]

Thanks Lankydoug. TEricksen thanks again for your info. I'm really leaning twords the 200 now.

 

[noobi]

I still do not understand adding rotating mass to a 200. Why not move up to a 250 or 300 if a lugging bike is what a person wants?

and slowing the power delivery just seems wrong.... In my opinion.

You must have missed it somewhere, but the 2k2 is A LOT less flywheel than the 2k3. So putting a normal 2k2 on a bike makes it like a 125. Putting a smallish weight on the 2k2 gives flywheel effect somewhere between the 2k3 and the 2k2. Lighter than the 3 but heavier than the 2.
In this article the XC is the 2k2 and the EC is the 2k3 http://www.gasgasrider.org/html/flywheel_effect.html

 

[Jakobi]

Yep! Noobi is saying to liven it up slightly more than it is. I was pickin up what ya puttin down mate!!

All these has put me in Johns boat. I think a 2012 EC200 is on the way.

Also FWW regarding the weight discussion, we've been advised the 2012 200 will be the same suspension package as the 250R and 300R. Kick only. As Glenn said the only difference in weight will be the engine internals and a slightly smaller cyl and head.

 

[GMP]

A 2K-3 has close to twice the inertia of a 2K-2 with a 10oz weight. Even on the 250 I find the 2K-3 a bit much, I've had several bikes with both. On a 200 with less torque, where you will go for the clutch more to gain revs, why would you want that response to be slower? The 200 lower end is heavy to start with with plenty of inertia. The 2k-2 + 10oz would be a good combo, and not make it stall prone. You would be much better off going to a G2 throttle with a #200 or #400 cam for more control than a lot more weight. I think many of the low end stalling problems some guys have an all bikes can be traced to imprecise jetting. If you need bright lights then thats an issue easier solved with the 2K-3. You can run LED lights off a 2K-2 and rectifier though. JMO of course, your results may vary.

As far as the weight, I stand firm you will not find 15lbs more on a 250/300 over a 200, even if the fork was different. Pick them up, I have, they feel the same and the parts list backs it up. Don't beleive anyone's published weight specs. My '07 250 fully guarded up, damper, heavy tubes, half tank of gas ready to go weigherd in at 252lbs. I'll weigh the '12 250 on the freight scale at work when it shows up.

 

[lankydoug]

Thank you for the clarification. I did read through quite a few posts over the past month regarding the 2k2 and 2k3 flywheels and weights, and I still have not been able to find a consensus where a 2k2 and weight makes enough of a difference on the 200 to be worth the change. I understand that the 2k2 on a 300 might be a direction I would go due to the low end torque of the engine, and it is a bike that designed to run low in the rpm range.

So far, I do not think a 2k2 alone on a 200 would be for me. The 2k3 flywheel effect seems to be very well balanced for the power, and the tendency to stall when being off just a bit on clutch timing is on the edge of perfect for my riding style. I also would not want to lose any power output as I am running a 55w/55w headlight with the high beam hooked up.

Thank you again for the dialogue.

My 200 has the 2k2 and I've ridden it with and without a weight so I'll try to explain why I like the weight. First of all it would really depend what kind of terrain your riding on. I ride in the MO and AR Ozarks where it's mostly roots rocks logs much of which is hidden under leaves. The problem I was having was since you have to get the 200 on the pipe to climb it would come on the pipe really quick and start digging in throwing rocks everywhere but more or less digging it's own trench in the loose rocks and getting hung up and losing momentum. I ditched the knobby for a Tubliss trials tire and put the small 10oz weight on it. It still comes on the pipe hard but is just calmed down enough to keep the trials tire hooked to the loose and slick stuff. As you may know trials tires don't do well spinning. It also makes it much easier to cross big logs trials style by pulling in the clutch revving it and splatting on the log or step up obstacle.(with no weight it was easy to kill the engine when the rear wheel smacked the step up as it would stop the engine momentum) That being said if I was going to be riding all day in sand with a knobby I would take the weight off and put the stock flywheel nut back on and let it rip. Having the 2k2 just gives you more options since there are FWW ranging from 8oz to 16oz that are as simple to change as replacing the crank nut on the flywheel side.

I agree with noobi that the 2k2 with a small weight is probably 1/2 way between a 2k2 and a 2k3.