Motosportz;112763 said:
Other than the frame I do not think there are major changes. The old frame seemed fine, the new one looks pretty. Nothing wrong with these bikes. If it turns your crank get one

IMHO there are three major reasons to pick the GG over the much less expensive WR. Seat height is a good bit lower, you like bigger flywheel feel to the motor (smooth and semi slow reving) and ride SUPER tight stuff.
John, I'm with you on not liking the super tight woods ... good thing the EC250 does. It's also happy on the more open, flowing sections, or churning through the bogs like it was called on to do at yesterday's race ... after a big holeshot
They aren't as comfortable at speed as some bikes, but they weren't designed for the desert either. I can tell you on a back to back comparison that they are not as nervous as a the 2010 TC250 at transfer section speed. That could be attributed to ride height, or suspension tuning, but its just what I noticed.
The frame was the big ticket item that was new in 2010, along with revised plastics (shape, attachment method). They come stock with an FMF SA, machined triple clamps, coated fork legs, brush deflectors, a glide plate, Nissin brakes, Keihin carb, gripper seat cover etc... things that you might want to add to a WR for the price differential. They are also wired for brake lights and street legality, if that floats the boat.
Things like clutch actuation didn't change because it didn't need to - this is one of the best feeling clutches ever (and that's coming off a long line of Yamahas, Hondas, and KTMs). Pull is about on-par with the 2010 TC250 that you're familiar with, and actuation is like magic.
As far as maintenance, in two enduros (one of which was the Jack Pine, the other of which was mostly underwater), three 3 hr hare scrambles (3 for 3 in the dead engine holeshots) and about 20 hours of mixed trail riding I've had to change the trans oil, clean the air filter, and replace the graphics my knee braces wiped out. Oh, I had to wash it too.
