250r year
#11
11-05-2004, 12:02 AM
250r year
motor builder may "think" what he wants. But an exhaust bridge doesnt strengthen the intake side of a motor. Think about it, why would it strengthen the cylinder on the opposite side. Here is some proof that the bridge does not increase the structural strength of the stock 250r cylinder
http://www.planetsand.com/memberphot...enSoldiers.jpg
That is my buddies personal 250's. Both had exhaust bridges.
This is the main reason the pro-x jug was first built. When it was first constructed it was never meant to be made greater then 350cc's. Its greatest benefit was to cure the broken cylinder problem by increasing transfer so the cylinder walls would not need to be ground out so far.
http://www.planetsand.com/memberphot...enSoldiers.jpg
That is my buddies personal 250's. Both had exhaust bridges.
This is the main reason the pro-x jug was first built. When it was first constructed it was never meant to be made greater then 350cc's. Its greatest benefit was to cure the broken cylinder problem by increasing transfer so the cylinder walls would not need to be ground out so far.
#12
11-05-2004, 12:35 AM
250r year
Originally posted by: DaBeechMan
motor builder may "think" what he wants. But an exhaust bridge doesnt strengthen the intake side of a motor. Think about it, why would it strengthen the cylinder on the opposite side. Here is some proof that the bridge does not increase the structural strength of the stock 250r cylinder
http://www.planetsand.com/memberphot...enSoldiers.jpg
That is my buddies personal 250's. Both had exhaust bridges.
This is the main reason the pro-x jug was first built. When it was first constructed it was never meant to be made greater then 350cc's. Its greatest benefit was to cure the broken cylinder problem by increasing transfer so the cylinder walls would not need to be ground out so far.
motor builder may "think" what he wants. But an exhaust bridge doesnt strengthen the intake side of a motor. Think about it, why would it strengthen the cylinder on the opposite side. Here is some proof that the bridge does not increase the structural strength of the stock 250r cylinder
http://www.planetsand.com/memberphot...enSoldiers.jpg
That is my buddies personal 250's. Both had exhaust bridges.
This is the main reason the pro-x jug was first built. When it was first constructed it was never meant to be made greater then 350cc's. Its greatest benefit was to cure the broken cylinder problem by increasing transfer so the cylinder walls would not need to be ground out so far.
I stated a bridged INTAKE from the start???
Am I missing something here??[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]
#13
11-05-2004, 12:48 AM
#15
11-05-2004, 02:21 AM
#17
11-05-2004, 05:18 AM
#18
11-05-2004, 07:42 PM
250r year
I have owned an 86, 87 and 88 250 R. I found that the 87 had the best over all power and transmission gearing for the sand dunes. I could pull 4th gear easily going up comp hill. However, on my 86 I installed a 310 kit because I am 6'2" tall and weigh a clil over 200 lbs. The extra horses helped me keep up with the tricked out banshees and with my years of riding (grew up in Yuma, AZ 15 minutes from the dunes) I was usually the first over the whoops!
Any one ever ride a 250 R with a 310 kit?
Manny
Any one ever ride a 250 R with a 310 kit?
Manny
#19
11-05-2004, 07:53 PM
#20
11-05-2004, 09:16 PM
250r year
Originally posted by: scrambler
mANMUTHA YOU ARE THE HOTTEST BABE IVE EVER SEEN WILL YA GO OUT WITH ME [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]
mANMUTHA YOU ARE THE HOTTEST BABE IVE EVER SEEN WILL YA GO OUT WITH ME [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]