82 250 CR motors

What is that year of the 250 like for power, was it a good year is what i am asking?
Never been in too small bores, but i got this bottom half of a motor.

Great buy locally at a $115 US but has no cylinder, head and piston. Rod feels great and so on.
Even came with a mint stock pipe in the deal. So i have my 83/84 430 parts bike as a good runner.
If i can find the top end to buy i could swap that 430 WR motor out for a fun gear banging CR.

I recall reading around here some where 82/83 kinda took a dive in performance in the port design?? So what the best to go for in the 82 to 84 models ?

I love the zing my buddies 81 has, but the 83 XC 250 i have lacks some snap even with the fresh rebuild.

Or just leave it on a shelf for parts....

Interesting on your impression of 81 250. Yes have read feedback here before. most said they like the 82 83 better.

They were saying better powerband. But I have a both a 82 and 84wr cylinder. 84 has boost ports. I would like others

to go over their feedback again. Maybe I just do both cylinders and compare. Just like you picked these engines up a great prices

i had always thought the 83-84 engines lacked a bit of bottom end, where the earlier had a bit more. the 83 and especially 84 engines really do rip upper mid to top end tho

My friends 81 250 XC with a pipe goes around my 400 XC on dirt road race so easy lol.
My 83 250 XC is slower than the 400 thats for sure.

I was reading an old test of both the 1982 250 WR and the XC. It was stated that the XC had the same cylinder as the 1982 250CR. It also had the ports at the bottom of the cylinder that made it half case inducted after the reed valve. But even the CR cylinders have had many mods for motocross because by 1982 Husqvarna was losing popularity in both the 250 and 500 classes for motocross. Lack of peak power and slower steering played out heavier than still having twin shock rear suspension until 1985

The 1983 factory mod to the CR made the mid range much stronger than the stock CR. That involved the installation of a 1982 250WR sleeve and modifying the port specs according. I think it is possible to modify a 1982 250WR cylinder by carving in the ports into the bottom of the cylinder and then porting accordingly. My 84 250WR has the 83 CR cylinder from the factory and it may get the mod if I can get just a sleeve

3 basic air cooled designs for the primary kick.
1. no boost holes in intake manifold. no cut out to bottom end through sleeve on intake side. reed into cylinder.82 WR only.

2. no boost holes in intake manifold. but has cut out to bottom end through sleeve on intake side. reed into cylinder.82 CR XC and 83 WR only.

3. boost holes in intake manifold. but has cut out to bottom end through sleeve on intake side. reed into cylinder.83 CR and XC and 84 XC and WR only. 84 CR was water cooled.

is #3 also the only one to have the extra exhaust ports as well?

I really enjoyed my 1982 250XC. For MX, you launch in 2nd gear. As rufo says, first is a granny gear, but enjoyed having it on technical trails and hills. Was a great all purpose bike.

I have a 82 250 XC and a Franken Bike using an 84 250 WR Cylinder. The XC is pretty much original. The WR has a Asch Pipe V3 Reeds and a Lectron Carb. SEM Ignition. Both are running there original pistons. The XC is easy to ride and doesn't have to many surprises. The WR bike is harder to get a good start off the line. One of the guys I race (has a 82 XC) at the NW Vintage MX has beat me to the first turn every time so far. The Bike wants to stall or wheelie. However given the room the it will definitely catch the XC on a Straight. Where the XC wants to be shifted in the middle of the power band the WR wants to be screamed. This is typical of a modified 2 stroke, it makes more power in a narrower range and is faster but harder to ride. That's what I expected when I built it, that's what I got, its got a lot of fun factor on a Vintage Track. Probably not on a single track.

The 84 CR250s I have are def mid to top screamers. No real torque off the bottom. They ride like tuned 125s.

Tested another friends 82 CR250 completely different. Pulled strong and hard off the bottom.

The other thing is the 82 bikes (engines) came with the weaker more spindly selector forks and cooresponding gears(same no of teeth - different gear groove diameter) - upgraded after 82 up to the end of 88....

We always go for the most ports! The enduro bike cylinders have a smaller exhaust port width....

Andy

Once we ride a big bore there's no going backwards. My 250 will be back up or for my lazy days.

i like a good 250. bigger bores are fun but i like a good 250 just as much.

The 83 250 runs like a sick modern 125. No bottom, smooth( but not strong ) mid. All up on top. If you can keep them on the boil near the rev limiter they are pretty competitive. If there is tight, slicksections requiring torque, your dead meat to almost any Japanese 250.

I talked with Eric Gore and George Earl at Uptite about the 83-84 , was there anything they could do to make them competitive with Japanese 250's of the era. They both said no.

I even tried the Husky bulletin mods of putting a WR cylinder sleeve in an xc/cr barrel, porting the cylinder with exhaust boost ports, etc. and shortening the pipe in the neck area 10mm. Added a v-force and a 38mm flat slide, played with the head. The motor made a little more mid range....but went flat on top and was actually harder to ride. You had to shift before the peak or you could feel the motor slow down. Couldn't bounce off the governor like the stock cylinder/head.

I like the 250 out in the open on a GP course, not so much on a technical MX track. Washougal in the dry was a blast. Washougal muddy........not so much.

But ......I do weigh 220+ and have been racing big bores since 1979. I love my modded 83 cr 500, and used to race it regularly against modern bikes in our team races. ( GP/cross-country terrain)

So true, i had to ride the 83 XC 250 back to the truck for my wife.
She bounced off a tree and maybe broke her ankle as she hit another tree on today's ride.

I rode it for a 1/2 hour as she got a ride from a nice guy in a side by side i found to go get her and leave my bike at the truck.

Would not pull a wheel up for the little stuff on the hit of the throttle lol unless you dump the clutch.
My 87 WR 250 does it with just throttle like the 400. Way less in the low end and midrange torque, more like a 175

The 1983 250CR update called for adding 20mm to the CR head pipe or using the WR/XC pipe. That in itself is a prime component of tuning.

The '83/'84 husqvarna 250wr has more top end speed over the Japanese bikes. Nothing even newer could catch my build '81 250cr. The trick is in the porting, timing and that 10T or 11T front sprocket. The UFO was installed in the carb too. The snowmobile technology lets the carb be jetting much closer. It removes the soggy Ness. It smooths out the confusion of the gas flow on the bottom of the round slide. The gas flow hits that vertical wall of the rear of the round slide and comes back towards the carb intake horn.
You probably have 1/3 to 1/2 the gas flow confused. I even ramp the UFO angle wise if there is extra material. It's all about the FLOW not FLO at progressive insurance. LMAO
the carb jetting was around 35 pilot and 390/400 on the main. With boyzeen reeds. Each bike may vary. I can make them run and adjust the suspension the best it could be done. But the AC engine will run.


My '84 250wr AC runs way better then my '83's 250 did.

I seen a newer desert race front line up('98). It was all husqvarna bikes in a row. I wonder what the older line 70's looked like.

When I get time I am going to slip a Honda CR250 Keihin on the 84 Husky. A lot of guys are running them on Elsinores etc.

Got to be interesting to try.