2 or 4 STROKE DIRT BIKE

[Wild Willy]

It has mentioned that two strokes are easier to maintain

I have been riding a 1985 XR350, for at least 15 years. Other than chains, tires, and stuff I broke by crashing, and oil changes I have done nothing to maintain this bike.

My friends that ride 2 strokes are always rebuilding there bikes.

Besides the high strung 2 strokes are almost useless in the mountains. You have to be wound up to get any power. If you are on a tight trail and have to make a turn jump over a 10" log and then up a very steep rocky hill, when you attempt to get on the throttle the bike either spins out or the front wheel comes up usually causing you to crash. If you are really good at fanning the clutch you can get going. The problem with that is then you will put 1 or 2 clutches a season. On a 4 stroke you just make the turn and ride up the hill. They are way more tractable.

The riding in western Montana is a lot different than most other places. We have hundreds of miles of trails that run through the mountains. You can easily travel 100 miles without hitting the same trail twice. Most 2 strokes are lucky to get 50 miles without gas.

I guess that it is a matter of what type of riding you do. If you ride around a dirt bike park, or race, then get a two stroke.

Just my opinion.

[dallasrick82]

well i owned a ttr 230 and my freind did also and his son owned the ttr 125....i now ride a 2 st. rm 125 and now my freind rides a 4 stroke 450 yz .....personally id rather have a four stoke..because of the way the four stoke is cleaner in trottle all the time , veris a 2 s. powerband...two stoke dosent really have a lot of power in esay riding...like kindda going slow...so yull be popin the clutch to get going u know....4 stoke i belive is ready at any time..........plus the ttr 125-230 are trail bikes...so there set up is different too..theyre front shocks are not as beefy as the mx bikes....i know this cause i broke front and rear spokes jumping the crap out of it lol...so yea kinda in a nutt shell is what it is.

[sh4wnk]

I think 4 strokes is better.

[flidosu]

I accept with information: 2 stroke engines are easier to maintain (less moving parts - no valves, no oil pump, etc.) However, they are less efficient and much worse for the environment, because there is constantly unburned oil and fuel passing through to the exhaust.
A 4-stroke engine is more complex to build and maintain, and will be somewhat heavier than a 2-stroke. It should, however, offer better power throughout the power-band. Most 2-stroke engines are built to run wide open (like a chainsaw motor - it's either running full throttle or idle). A 4-stroke will provde smoother power.

[Rickster]

Originally Posted by flidosu

I accept with information: 2 stroke engines are easier to maintain (less moving parts - no valves, no oil pump, etc.) However, they are less efficient and much worse for the environment, because there is constantly unburned oil and fuel passing through to the exhaust.
A 4-stroke engine is more complex to build and maintain, and will be somewhat heavier than a 2-stroke. It should, however, offer better power throughout the power-band. Most 2-stroke engines are built to run wide open (like a chainsaw motor - it's either running full throttle or idle). A 4-stroke will provde smoother power.

First off welcome to the forum.

Second, I think you better do some research because all 2-stroke motors are not made to be run wide open, outboard motors for boats are one example, and trials bike motors from the 70's are another example, also recent test on some of the larger 2-stroke outboard motors showed that they actually produced less pollutants than there 4-stroke counterparts.

[omegajim]

all 2-stroke motors are not made to be run wide open, outboard motors for boats are one example,

I completely agree, outboard motors are not built to be run wide open for more than 20 minutes at a time.

[omegajim]

the russians are coming! the russians are coming!

sorry, can't read cyrillic.

[donny662]

Originally Posted by Wild Willy

It has mentioned that two strokes are easier to maintain

I have been riding a 1985 XR350, for at least 15 years. Other than chains, tires, and stuff I broke by crashing, and oil changes I have done nothing to maintain this bike.

My friends that ride 2 strokes are always rebuilding there bikes.

Besides the high strung 2 strokes are almost useless in the mountains. You have to be wound up to get any power. If you are on a tight trail and have to make a turn jump over a 10" log and then up a very steep rocky hill, when you attempt to get on the throttle the bike either spins out or the front wheel comes up usually causing you to crash. If you are really good at fanning the clutch you can get going. The problem with that is then you will put 1 or 2 clutches a season. On a 4 stroke you just make the turn and ride up the hill. They are way more tractable.

The riding in western Montana is a lot different than most other places. We have hundreds of miles of trails that run through the mountains. You can easily travel 100 miles without hitting the same trail twice. Most 2 strokes are lucky to get 50 miles without gas.

I guess that it is a matter of what type of riding you do. If you ride around a dirt bike park, or race, then get a two stroke.

Just my opinion.

2 stroke MX bikes are easier to maintain than 4 stroke trail bikes. A top end replacement on a 2-stroke is just a piston and rings; whereas on a 4 stroke, it may include cams, valves, seats, and springs.

4 stroke trail or dual sport bikes are not prone to destroying top or bottom ends. Preventative rebuilds are not usually necessary, which makes them easier to maintain than a 2 stroke MX bike.