Cycle News is a weekly magazine that covers all aspects of motorcycling including Supercross, Motocross and MotoGP as well as new motorcycles
Issue link: https://magazine.cyclenews.com/i/126920
The Kawasaki's nimble handling, smooth torquey motor and small overall size makes the rider want to try almost anything. (second gear) to semi-tight (third and fourth gear) sections. The KDX doesn't have to be shifted or dutched nearly as much as the Can-Am, and it can be lugged much lower from second gear on up. The first gear ratio is lower on the Can-Am, making it easier to ride in super-slow stuf£. The Can-Am takes a little getting used to. On semi-tight trails with a gradual incline, the Can-Am really loses a lot of ground to the Kawasaki. The Can-Am revs too slowly out of the turns compared to the Kawasaki and has to be cI u tched for fast getaways. But to make matters worse, the clutch is ex.tremely hard to pull, taking at least two or three fingers to ~et the job done. The Kawasaki has a Jight clutch pull. On level ground, or going down hill, the Can-Am's motor is more enjoyable. In fast sections, the CanAm likes to be revved out and works on par, if not better than the KDX. But for plain 01' trail riding, the Kawasaki's motor is much more fun to ride. It pulls strongly, it's torquey, it's hard to stall and doesn't vibrate nearly as much as the Can-Am, except for when it's completely revved out. Both the Can-Am and Kawasaki 'have good, smooth-working transmiSsions, but missed shifts did occur on bOth bikes now and then. When it comes to suspension, steering and overall handling, the two' bike are more closely matched. The Kawasaki's front end 'is very sensitive and twitchy, while the Can-Am's steering feels slower but more controllable and stable. Much of this has to do with tires and. the Can-Am's 2.8-inch longer wheelbase. The Metzelers on the Can-Am stick to the trails far better than the KDX's Dunlops on dry, hard-packed, rocky ground and are about equal on the wet, muddy stuf£. The Can-Ant does have a steering (Jaw, however, and it'sa big one. The ASE doesn't have nearly enough lockto-lock turning and has a wide turn- ing radius. In really tight, switchback turns, we found the Can-Am's triple clamps hit the forks stops way too soon. We fell over a couple of times in these sections becuse of this problem. You can remove the little plastic stops on the frame to help fix the problem, but then the forks will hit the gas tank. Riding over a rocky section, the Can-Am feels more stable and holds a straighter line than the Kawasaki; again, the longer wheelbase plays a role here. The Can-Am is a little less bouncy when slamming into rocks and roots, and, even though the CanAm weighs slightly less than the Kawasaki, it/eels heavier. Lifting the Kawasaki's rear end is also easier since there is a comforta hIe grab point on the rear frame section; on the Can-Am, the rider has to grab the narrow edge of the rear fender, which .(Jexes and digs into the rider's hand.' Both front and rear suspension - work well on'both bikes. At speed, the Can-Am holds a straight line, kicks every now and then but generally is very stable and. absorbs the bumps nicely. The Kawasaki's UniTrak rear suspension is slightly plusher than the Can-Am's QuadLink II but tends to bottom at high speed. Up front, we found nothing· to complain about - the forks on both bikes work smoothly, but the Kawasaki's forks were slightly softer than the Can-Am's. In tow-speed situations, the bikes are equal in su~pen sion, but on high-speed trails, the Can-Am works better. Brakes are strong on both bikes, but the Can-Am's rear brake loses. some power after crossing a stream and getting wet. Plus, the rear brake on the Can-Am is much more sensitive than the Kawasaki's. and tends to lock up. When stream crossings were really deep. the Kawasaki would cough but didn't die; the Can-Am purred through. Wheelieing the Can-Am is hard Can-Am's new 200 ASE has many strong points such as good suspension,.stable handling and predictable cornering. compared to the torquey Kawasaki. The KDX has better throttle response to pop the front wheel up over rocks, and the from end feels lighter as well. The Kawasaki has a more comfortable riding position than the CanAm, but the KDX's handlebars are too wide and uncomfortable when standing on the footpegs. Our biggest comfort gripe on the Can-Am concerns the airbox, which sticks out on the right side of the bike and rubs against the rider's leg. And the Can-Am's kickstand has a strange bend, sticking out too far in the up position, and is too long. Unless the ground is perfectly (Jat, or a slight downhill slope: it's tough to get the Can-Am to balance itself. The Kawasaki's new hand guards (which the Can-Am doesn't have) are a smart addition to the KDX; unfortunately, they're poorly designed. Any hard impact causes the guards to pivot on their mounting bolts and rest against the from brake and clutch levers. The only time the hand guards work wen is when riding in thin brush; they're useless if the riders hits a thick tree branch or heavy brush. Both the Can-Am and Kawasaki are first-class enduro motorcycles. But the Kawasaki is still the champ, and it's the KDX's motor that clinches the title. If the Can-Am's motor performed like the Kawasaki's masterpeice, a coin toss would be needed to determine the winner of this bout. The smooth, torquey, wide powerband of the Kawasaki makes the KDX a perfect motorcycle for any competitive enduro or weekend play rider, while the Can-Am's high-revving motor is more suited for the experienced and serious enduro competitor; one who can keep the Can-Am moving at a fast pace, in the top of the powerband, where it works best. As it stands now, the KDX still reigns. • Kawasaki KDX200 Engin. type _. Air-cooled, reed-valve, two-stroke single Bore II stroke . . . . . . .. 661168mm Displacement •........... 196cc Compreesion retio ...••...• 7.7:1 Carburetor . . • . . .. 34mm Mlkuni H_power .. ' NI A Torque .........•........ N/A Starting -vatem Primary kick Ignition CDI Lubrication.. . .. .. • .. Premix Primary drive ..• Straight-cut gaar Final drive ..•........ #520 chain Gear ratiOs Primary 63/22; 2.863:1 Final. ......•. 48/13; 3.692:1 6th 20/23; 0.869:1 5th 25/24; 1.041:1 4th 21/17; 1.235:1 3rd 23/15; 1.533:1 2nd 28/14; 2.000:1 1st 35/13; 2.692:1 Frame Single downtube. split double cradle Rake 26·.5° Trail 5.3 in. Front suspension type ....• Tetescopic fork Fork tube diametar ••..•.• 43mm Front wheel travel 10.6 in. Raar suspension type • • •• Singleshock swingarm Raer wheel travel .•..... 11.4 in. Front brakes •......•. 8.7-in. disc Rear brakes Drum Front wheel 1.60x21 in. Reer wheel 1.85x18 in. Front tire 3.00-21 Dunlop Rear tire . . . . . .. 4.00-18 Dunlop Clai.med dry _ight. . . .. 228 Ibs. Overall length 86.0 in. Overall width ...•....... 35.0 in. Overall height 49.2 in. Wheelbase 56.7 in.. Seat height , 36.5 in. Ground clearance 13.4 in. Fuel capacity 3.3 gal. Col'ors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Green Retail price $2049.