Bikes that they shouldn't have stoped making.

[80-85 husky]

where your 510???

[Iain Cameron]

GMC said he wanted the mighty DT400 back 

[Lozza]

Kawasaki Big Horn 350

[davidmc]

MAICOS

[crash n bern]

Suzukis DRZ400 would be the about the only Japanese bike left that could be considered a true "trail bike", there are others close but things like KLX250's and Crf250L's are just too road biased in their appearance and design to tell anyone that it would be a good choice and still hold a straight face.

The KLX250 is under rated today. In the 90's it was considered the best handling 250 on the planet. The release of Yamaha's WR250F stole it's thunder.  I would still consider it a good trailbike.

Yamaha make the WR250R, a more user friendly, low maintenance version of the F, They rate pretty high amongst the small bore adventure bike fans.  They also have the TTR250.

[Nathan S]

There were two KLX250s in 1994 - the plastic tanked enduro version, and the compliance-plated, steel tanked trail version.
The enduro one was a great bike by all accounts, the trail one much less so. Everyone knew that the answer was to get compliance on the enduro version and blow the XR and TTR out of the water, but Kawasaki never did.
The current model KLX is the trail version - most of the complexity of the WR-R with less dirt performance than a TTR...

[crash n bern]

There were two KLX250s in 1994 - the plastic tanked enduro version, and the compliance-plated, steel tanked trail version.

I owned both, at the same time. Well my complianced one was a slightly later 300. The only real difference apart from a bit more weight on the complianced one was the enduro had a steeper steering angle and turned a bit quicker. But riding them both back to back in the bush, I never noticed much difference between them.

[suzuki27]

I always thought the Can-Am case induction two strokes like the 74 TNT's had, were a great motor. Why isn't that used anymore on trail bikes?

[Lozza]

I always thought the Can-Am case induction two strokes like the 74 TNT's had, were a great motor. Why isn't that used anymore on trail bikes?

Mainly reed engines are cheaper to produce, nothing touches a disc valve for smooth power and outright hp

[80-85 husky]

width was another issue with the disc valves although the can ams weren't to bad compared to the early kwaka and yammy rotary valves

[Big John]

The Yamaha 2t WR250, the Wr450 gearbox bolts straight in they also make genuine flywheel weight for them. why dont they still make them? If Yamaha made them with lights ADR compliant I recon they would sell. The US sales rule everythin. There laws on emisions determin up what Japan makes.

Kdx 200 if they had a little better suspension

A softer 350/400 with a broard spred of power 2t trail bike with electric start lower seat hight like the Drz but lighter, KTM have sort of done it with the freeride 250 but its more trials orentated. It needs a better seat and biger tank. something the average Jo can maintain with limeted expens.   

[Nathan S]

There were two KLX250s in 1994 - the plastic tanked enduro version, and the compliance-plated, steel tanked trail version.

I owned both, at the same time. Well my complianced one was a slightly later 300. The only real difference apart from a bit more weight on the complianced one was the enduro had a steeper steering angle and turned a bit quicker. But riding them both back to back in the bush, I never noticed much difference between them.

Tests at the time also mentioned:
steel vs plastic tank,
steel, sealed, non-adjustable vs alloy, rebuildable, externally adjustable shock,
CV vs pumper carb,
non-adjustable vs double adjustable forks;
e-start vs kick-start,
ADR crap vs no ADR crap.

There may have been other things that I can't remember without checking - stuff like less suspension travel, different muffler, extra junk on the frame, rubber coated footpegs, etc.

[crash n bern]

There were two KLX250s in 1994 - the plastic tanked enduro version, and the compliance-plated, steel tanked trail version.

I owned both, at the same time. Well my complianced one was a slightly later 300. The only real difference apart from a bit more weight on the complianced one was the enduro had a steeper steering angle and turned a bit quicker. But riding them both back to back in the bush, I never noticed much difference between them.

Tests at the time also mentioned:
steel vs plastic tank,
steel, sealed, non-adjustable vs alloy, rebuildable, externally adjustable shock,
CV vs pumper carb,
non-adjustable vs double adjustable forks;
e-start vs kick-start,
ADR crap vs no ADR crap.

There may have been other things that I can't remember without checking - stuff like less suspension travel, different muffler, extra junk on the frame, rubber coated footpegs, etc.

Are you sure your not mixing it up with the KLR 250 that was the soft road trail version.  My enduro KLX came with the CV carb. The forks only have one adjustment, and the trick in the day was to put KX forks into it. Apart from the steel tank and ADR gear there wasn't much difference between my two KLX's. The KLR was a world apart with rubber pegs, etc like you mention.

[SON]

I always thought the Can-Am case induction two strokes like the 74 TNT's had, were a great motor. Why isn't that used anymore on trail bikes?

Mainly reed engines are cheaper to produce, nothing touches a disc valve for smooth power and outright hp

PUCH Rotary valved and Reeded???

[Nathan S]

There were two KLX250s in 1994 - the plastic tanked enduro version, and the compliance-plated, steel tanked trail version.

I owned both, at the same time. Well my complianced one was a slightly later 300. The only real difference apart from a bit more weight on the complianced one was the enduro had a steeper steering angle and turned a bit quicker. But riding them both back to back in the bush, I never noticed much difference between them.

Tests at the time also mentioned:
steel vs plastic tank,
steel, sealed, non-adjustable vs alloy, rebuildable, externally adjustable shock,
CV vs pumper carb,
non-adjustable vs double adjustable forks;
e-start vs kick-start,
ADR crap vs no ADR crap.

There may have been other things that I can't remember without checking - stuff like less suspension travel, different muffler, extra junk on the frame, rubber coated footpegs, etc.

Are you sure your not mixing it up with the KLR 250 that was the soft road trail version.  My enduro KLX came with the CV carb. The forks only have one adjustment, and the trick in the day was to put KX forks into it. Apart from the steel tank and ADR gear there wasn't much difference between my two KLX's. The KLR was a world apart with rubber pegs, etc like you mention.

Nope. The older KLR ran from 1984, and is, as you say, a totally different bike.

Through the late 1980s and into the 90s, Kawasaki was big fans of making multiple versions of the same bikes: a decent (or better) enduro bike, and a watered down road legal version (KLX250 & 650, KDX200 and 250).
It probably made sense internationally, but it was a dumb move in Australia.
Apparently KHI specifically stopped Kawasaki Australia from making the Enduro versions road legal, which nobbled all of the bikes in the marketplace.
IIRC, there were actually three versions of the KDX250 - ok, lame and really lame.

In the case of the KLX, the KLX250R would have demolished the XR and first generation TTR, if only they were registerable...

I'm away from my ADB stash ATM, but I will post stuff up when I get home.