both these bikes are legendary kick *** machines... but what are the main diff. and what r ur preferences

 

my prefrence is the search button

 

this isnt gonna be much but here i go

the chassis is similar between the lt and trx but a lot different in the front end
the first 2 years of the lt werent PV 2 strokes and werent fast at all, but the later years were
and I think were a bit faster than the trx's

im 99% sure the trx is ligher, weighing in at only 4 lbs more than a stock blaster (blaster 324lbs, trx 328lbs)
other than that Im not real sure

 

In my opinion, the LT and TRX aren't even close to the same class for competitive racing (other than drag where the LT has an advantage) The TRX is just that much better designed all-around.




not at all. the full floater rear rocker arm suspension is very different from the TRX pro-link and the LT uses a backbone frame while the TRX uses a perimiter design. The later years of LT250R used a rear suspension linkage that was similar to the quadzilla/TRX250R.

well, at first when I read this it seemed like you said the 85-86s weren't 2 strokes which is false, but now it seems you just meant they weren't powervalved which is correct. Just had to say that to clear things up if anyone else was confused by this comment.

the 85-86 were UNDER 300 pounds dry weight stock, but the 87+ were 328 pounds I think.

 

thats for that! hmm...ive always been told for the longest time the lt frame geometry was kinda similar to the trx, my bad :-)

nice lt btw!

 

Yes, the chassis geometry is completely different between the two. The front end is what made the handling differences so noticeable. The Suzuki's frame is almost flat where the a-arms mount, whereas the Honda has much more "kick-up" to the front frame rails (relative to the ground). This helps to reduce bump steer and negative camber by keeping the tires much more perpendicular to the ground during suspension compression. In other words, as the tire moves up and down, it does not follow an arcing path, where the top of the tire leans in at maximum compression. It stays straight up and down. Camber is the angle of the tire relative to a vertical plane when viewed from the front. If camber is negative, the tire leans in, and if it's positive, it leans out. Also, the length of the a-arms is more unequal on the Honda as opposed to the Suzuki. This helps reduce negative camber, too. Bump steer is just that, false steering inputs caused by suspension movement. On the Suzuki, when stock, the fronts of the tires point together a lot more than the Honda at max comp. The left tire turns right, and the right tire turns left. I could get a lot more in depth with the geometry, but I would lose some people along the way. Not saying that y'all are dumb, just that I have a hard time putting things into words. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

As far as straight line acceleration, all things equal (traction, wheelspin, bone stock, etc.), the Suzuki is faster than the Honda. This is only true for the 87-92 LTs because of the power valve. However, if the Kawasaki KXF250 Tecate is thrown in for fun, it would win a drag race. It was the fastest 250 engine of the three, but the bike handled horribly compared to the other two.

 

Well said 69HemiGTX! You are exactly right about the frame geometry's. I have owned both, and still do own my '92 LT. The LT's are lighter than the TRX though, and they do accelerate a little quicker. Handling was the LT's downfall while compared to the TRX. It just beats you to death and wears you out a lot quicker (from my experiance while MX racing).
Now days you don't see many stock LT's or TRX250R's, but it is actually a pretty fair and even race when both quads are modified the same. I would hang and beat many TRX's with full aftermarket frames on my LT with just aftermarket suspension and a-arms. Most people just have the "Honda is the best" mentality. I do have to admit that the Honda is a better MX bike if compared stock to stock or modified, but don't think that an LT cannot be set up to race MX! I'm not bashing or brand biased by any means, this is just my opinion on this subject.

 

LT's are great bikes though. In the open class here, the 3 fastest quads out there are a 330R, LT250 and 1 banshee and the LT almost always wins holeshot. Infact it wins holeshot over modded YFZ's and everything else that steps out there...it's a pretty cool site since I'm more of a stroke guy than a brand guy

 

stock for stock the lt's are faster. But they will never compete with a big bore honda. Stock cyl for stock cyl the honda has more potential as well. I believe GT thunder makes a 330 or 350 kit for the LT while the trx's are getting up to 550cc's.

 

lol. those 550 Hondas don't have very much Honda left to them at all. You could do the exact same to a Suzuki if you wanted to, really. Just modify a jug off of a skidoo or a KTM and stroke the crank or something.

But then you could just (almost) bolt in an LT500 engine and fix it up a little and get a nice 60hp play machine without tons of vibration like a big bore Honda. However the LT500 engine won't make as good a drag motor due to the crappy rod ratio stock. However that could be fixed with some more cubic money...

Hey 69HemiGTX, that's a very good reply. Very nice car, too. One of my many dream cars is a stock, grandma car-looking Roadrunner 440 6 pack with a 4 speed, sure-grip, low gears, AM radio and black steelies with redlines. I absolutely love that car. I nearly got one this year but it was a loaded auto sport sattelite, however I would probably build it into the Roadrunner I described above. Maybe one day I'll have one. But I'll probably just keep dreaming my whole life. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Ask your friend Justin if he wants to trade his sweet 250R for my RMLT... lol! I would take that machine off his hands any day of the week!