CR vs Wr 1982 250

[Eurofreak]

Looking at period reports (few) the 82 CR motor had decent low end, less flywheel, and a 17" rear tire vs the Wr250. I had an '85 WRX with poor low end and weak mid range to compare it to Husky-wise.
My '02 WR250 had a great motor but that's apples and oranges.
So...any comments? There's a real nice '82 CR250 available I'm interested in.

 

[disonny]

I have a 83 wr250 and the low end is poor to say the least. Word by some very husky savvy people say the 82 cylinder is the one you want to get good low end.

 

[Eric The Leg]

Might be more broad than you're looking to hear, but here goes.
CR stands for Close Ratio, WR stands for Wide Ratio (as far as gears go). The CRs were the MX bike because closer gears equals better acceleration in the tight corners/etc of MX type racing. The WRs were used for Enduro because the wider gear ratios built up to a higher top end speed in the open runs, and other gear such as lights and speedometers. The WRX you mention had the first 3 gears in a close, CR type configuration, and last three gears spread out in a WR type configuration, with the intent of providing the close acceleration across gears at the low speeds/close quarters, and more room between gears at the top end to achiever higher top speeds. Along with the lights and speedo.

As the WRX is liquid cooled, and neither of the '82 bikes is, you would have some overall difference in experience between them. The air cooled bikes would have a little more pep at the start, but might lose more of it as they heat up.

The CRs tended to have a simpler ignition that didn't support lights, and often a lighter flywheel, helping with the low end/acceleration.

If you're concerned about low end power, CR would always be the option to take over the WR, you can always get a larger rear (and/or smaller front) sprocket to up your low end.

As far as comparing to a newer bike, keep in mind you've got static timing and there's no powervalve. As a result you have a narrow, but extremely strong, powerband, and you get your best acceleration by using your shifter to stay in it.

 

[justintendo]

as far as swedes go, the single shock liquid bikes are lighter than the dual shock air bikes..not sure where the liquid/dual shock bike stands.

 

[Eric The Leg]

as far as swedes go, the single shock liquid bikes are lighter than the dual shock air bikes..not sure where the liquid/dual shock bike stands.

Thanks for the fact-check. For some reason I was thinking the cooling system put them over, but I suppose they would have made up for it elsewhere.

 

[justintendo]

according to the husqvarna tech bulletins,
84 wr250 air cooled dual shock.. 238 lbs
87 xc250 liquid single shock.. 218 lbs dry

not sure if the 238 is wet or not...but the single shocks do seem lighter when getting them stuck in the woods or loading. i would imagine the 82 would be somewhat close to the 84 in weight.

 

[suprize]

probably the biggest difference is the internal vs external flywheel. the internal provides for a quick revving motor while the external provides for a torquier run with less stalling out characteristics for tight rocky sloppy going...

 

[Eurofreak]

Thanks guys. What I'm hoping is by gearing lower it will be fine in the woods. I just Like the year and appearance of the 80-82 bikes. I already have an 86 enduro.
I live a few hours away from Unadilla so I could ( possibly) run this and my old Triumph at the vintage race.
My 300 weighs more like 230 ish so nay of them are a bit lighter than what I used to race. I'm not looking to smoke the crowd, just ride with some cool bikes and have fun.

 

[suprize]

id go the cr, add the big flywheel ign and go cow trailing... (why you guys want to follow cows I just cant figure...)

 

[Eurofreak]

We follow cows because the pigs don't make good trails... the cowpies are great to hit and spray the guy behind you.
True story- We hold a hare scrambles race on a 650 acre cow farm in western NY. There was this lady loudly complaining before the start about the piles of manure in the field.
She was worried about her kid getting sick from falling in the manure. So we made signs for the piles-"Danger! Manure! Do not consume!"

I wonder if there's a flywheel I could add on to the CR ignition. I could probably make one.

 

[jimspac]

I have a 83 wr250 and the low end is poor to say the least. Word by some very husky savvy people say the 82 cylinder is the one you want to get good low end.

The 1983 250WR came with the 1982 WR cylinder. Your's was likely swapped to a n 83 250CR cylinder based on your powerband observations

 

[suprize]

We follow cows because the pigs don't make good trails

we rode a pony express in a farm paddock many moons ago and a very large, very dead porky pig was located on the entry to the swamp section.

someone..blew the corner and used the carcass for a berm with catastrophic results.....

 

[Joe Chod]

1983 WR250 cylinder is not at all like the 83 WR250 cylinder

 

[disonny]

1983 WR250 cylinder is not at all like the 83 WR250 cylinder

Now thats something to ponder

 

[oldbikedude]

Yeah, cause one has a 19 in front of it.

 

[Joe Chod]

i meant 82 vs. 83

 

[disonny]

Joe, What is the difference from 81 to 82 CR/WR?

 

[Joe Chod]

seriously? how about all new motor in 82....geez

 

[disonny]

I've always been told I'm not paid to think!!

 

[jimspac]

The 1982 250WR & XC engine number is 2089 and so is the 1983 250WR & XC. The 1984 250WR is the one that got the CR cylinder and thus has a different engine number because of the transmission difference(not a CR).