instantly and offers noticeable
connectivity from the throttle to
the rear wheel. Map one is bet-
ter in the mid-to-top range, while
map two offers more punch
down low which transitions nice-
ly to a meaty midrange. Again,
map two was my preferred
choice for its heartier nature and
given the softer track conditions.
Both maps did feel a bit on the
lean side towards the top end of
the RPMs. Riding the power in
the mid-to-top was fine, but the
engine began to fall flat and ping
as I neared the very top of the
range. Granted the bike we rode
was technically pre-production,
and I'm going to believe this will
be worked out come September.
Suspension on all the two-
strokes felt softer than the
components found on the
four-strokes. This is possibly
because the bikes are all-around
lighter than the SX-F models,
but it is worth noting the extra
"squish" in the SXs. Soft loamy
conditions also added to this as
the bikes were diving harder into
the corners and using up more
suspension than the traditional
hard packed conditions back
home in California. This did noth-
ing to hamper the performance
during our test rides, just a note
during our quick spin on all three
two-stroke models.
300 SX
This is the bike everyone wants
to know about. People have
been building their own 300s for
some time now by taking parts
off the 300 XC and bolting them
up to their 250 SX. This was a
relatively good problem solver,
but KTM knew their customers
wanted more. Enter the 300 SX.
Finally, a big-bore two-stroke
that's dedicated to the moto
track.
When it comes down to the
nitty gritty, the 250 and 300
are very similar. In fact, they're
almost identical save the larger
bore on the 300. The 250 bore
and stroke are 72 x 66.4mm
where the 300 is 72 x 72mm.
This achieves an extra 44 cubic-
centimeters and bumps the dis-
placement from 249 to 293.2cc.
The frame, suspension, body
work and cockpit are all identical
on the two larger SX models.
VOLUME 59 ISSUE 25 JUNE 21, 2022 P107
