I have '03 400i 4x4 auto for me and a '03 250 2x4 for my daughter ... she has never been left behind! that little 250 will go anywhere my 400 will!

 

It's not near the bike the older ones are and it isn't very fast if it will only do 44 with that much smaller a machine and a bigger engine. My 2001 will do 46 mph on the GPS, which is more accurate than any quad speedo. Way less ground clearance and that's important trail riding. My wife is 5'4" and loves riding the 2001 250. She's ridden the smaller, sport rigs and says they won't be worth a darn for real trail riding. New is not always better, just different style of machine. AC should have keep the old 250 and added the Kymco bike as the 250DVX only.

 

If Kymco keeps putting out high quality products, I don't necessarily think they'll merge with A/C, but A/C will certainly contract them to make more quads. My daughter's '06' 250 is a very well made machine. If they offer it in 4x4 - it will be a monster to recon with in the 250-class - it already is IMO.

 

I tend to agree with you on everything, (that's rare and just highlights your wisdom). I do agree that A/C could have kept the old 250/300 models, but A/C was not only streamlining production, but responding to consumer demand.

We are still in break-in mode, but the '06' will easily do 45+. I'm not confident in digital speedos on quads, but I took my daughter on a long straight dirt connector road around here. "Don't go too fast Dad" was her only request. I told her we'd keep it at around 35. While doing 35, I noticed she was riding my tail, so I gave her the thumbs up signal for more speed - she responded with the same signal, so I sped up to 40, then 45, (GPS). When we stopped, I told her that I thought she didn't want to go too fast. She explained to me that "37 was just fine"(we were at 45)....That and her throttle is limited per break-in and my parental choice.

I disagree with you on your thought that "it's not near the bike the older ones are". In some ways I think it's more of a machine. We have an '04' 250 as a camp machine where I ride, (a guy bought it and decided he didn't like it - so donated it to the camp - must be nice to have dough). Anyway, I have a lot of experience on both. No, the '06' is not as beefy a machine, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. With less weight, comes more power-to-weight ratio. ('06'= 477lbs '04'=530) Also, the braking, steering, throttle response and stability of the platform flat-out blow away the old 250 2x4 - hands down. This machine handles like a sports quad, but has features of a utility. I towed a 5x5 foot trailer full of firewood up a steep hill with the '06' in low range and it didn't miss a beat.

"Way less ground clearance is not entirely true and actuually fairly subjective: The old 250 has 8.3'" of stock GC - the '06' has 10.2". Admittedly, it needs taller skins in the rear, as the single-arm drops the ***-end. I haven't measured, but I hear it's 8". Will check that out. Suspension travel on the old shines, but only by 1.5" (6.5" vs.5").

It's also not "way smaller" (45"x 45"x 79.5 '04' 42"x 44" 74" '06'), but is absolutely a more compact package. I'm 6'4" and weigh 270-280lbs. Though the '06' is statistically a smaller machine, I like the ride far better, (though FIS rear would be nicer). I feel comfortable on this quad despite it's smaller size and I also took it on trails that test even my 400 and it did very well, if not excellent on most riding conditions. Line choice is very important with the stock tires - sailing over obstacles on my 400 does not happen with this quad, but on an extremely rocky and varied 12-mile trail, (with my big *** on it), this quad got hung up only a few times and it was all rider error/poor line choice. Low range is awesome in the mud and this quad's intake is far more well-thought than the older models, (no sputter in high speed water). To say this quad is just another "sport rig" is a misjudgement in my opinion.

In my view, for a 2x4, it lacks taller tires, rear FIS, bigger fuel tank, (though this is off-set by really good mpg), cushier seat, on-board storage space, full skids and I question the speedo accuracy.

What it does not lack is power, styling, rack capacity, towing capacity, (both less than '04', but still good), speed, handling, braking, stability, fun factor and it's an automatic, with impressive low range. If they pump this out as a 4x4 for '07' - look out small quad world...

It's a tall order to find anything bad about Kymco quality- (as a quad and a manufacturer). A/C obviously recognized this when they chose Kymco to produce this quad for their line. We had the choice to buy either an '05' or an '06' and we feel we made the better choice. Having ridden both, I feel better as a consumer, (price point, style, features) and as a parent, (braking, steering, weight, stability, safety) that at least in 2x4 Kymco put's out a better product, a much more nimble and stable platform and in potential 4x4, it will ultimately eclipse the old 250.

 

I only left the parts in the quote I will respond to. First, If you want a sport quad get a DVX. The '06 250 is replacing a ute and it just flat doesn't qualify as a ute. I ride fairly often with a bunch or sport quaders and some of them do amazing things with them on the trails, but these new 250s started life as a sporty and unles you redesign, they aren't, then they just aren't utes by antbodies definition.

The ground clearance issue is another bone I have to pick with their specs is that the measure the Ground clearance to the bottom of the frame, where on a solid tear axle the true ground clearance is to the bottom of the sprock or it's skid plate, an I will bet you big money that that true measurement isn't 10.2" (has to be way less than half the tire height).

The old 250 feels much smaller than my 400 (45"x 45"x 79.5 '04 250, 47.5" X 49.3" X 81" '05 400) and those 1.5 to 2" make all the difference in the world. My wife zips the 250 thru places I have to thread very carefully. The gas mileage thing is not gonna fly, the older 250's have the 4.8 gallon tank and get around 20 mpg. I dont think the new, bigger engine (249cc to the old 246cc) will get that much better milage and the new tank is 3.43 gal doesn't compare to 4.8 gal. tank.

Speedo acurracy onevery quad I've seen is not that great. Closest I seen is 2 mph off and they all seem to read to the pump the owner ego side.

 

massmark once you get in click on forums then just scroll down slowly you cant miss it. Also the kymco mxu 250 will go 52mph thats with a 170 pound driver.

 

Found it - thanks! It's a nice looking machine. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] If the price-point is there and the build quality is as good as the 250, it should put everyone on notice - which is not a bad thing. I keep trying to find bad things about Kymco - they're a good looking company compared to both popular makes, (Honda, Yamaha, etc) and their counterparts, (Yamoto Eaton etc..).