MudDuck Posted December 6, 2004 Report Posted December 6, 2004 My buddy is looking at one that has some good parts with port work. Whats the good and bad about these things? Hes got a Blaster with a 240 bigbore kit from Vito's right now. Would the 250 be a downgrade?? Quote
slowpokebanshee Posted December 7, 2004 Report Posted December 7, 2004 I like those old suzukis, a few of our group still ride them, they dune good, hold their own at the hill, but I don't know how to adjust the "powervalve" any one help? my pal just did a top-end, and we dont know what we're doing with the adjustment not to steal your thread, but I am curious? Quote
sanddevil111 Posted December 7, 2004 Report Posted December 7, 2004 yea the suzuki would be a big downgrade. those 240 blasters are peppy little bastards. But he could just bore the 250 out to a 265 or 300 or somethin and kick the shit outta that little blaster. I think It would be cool to have one cus noone else does. I would never choose that over my shee but it would be cool to have somethin different. Quote
bansheefreak Posted December 7, 2004 Report Posted December 7, 2004 87 's are not powervalved... not a bad machine it would be bigger so if he is a bigger guy and blaster is small for him he would like this... Quote
zilladude Posted December 7, 2004 Report Posted December 7, 2004 87's ARE powervalved, & to set the valve, turn the adjuster 1 full turn counterclockwise (make sure the retainer plate is on correctly- 0 down 250 up). start at 0 & end at 0. Quote
lt250r Posted December 7, 2004 Report Posted December 7, 2004 (edited) yes they are powervavled i had one and it was sick ..... id spank any BLASTER .. blaster suck there for 8 year old kids .. or MIDGETS .... ask shellby my 87 keep right up with his 250 R he had before he got his shee ... 87 are the fastest year and well worth it over a blaster ..>LOL that made me laugh Edited December 7, 2004 by lt250r Quote
bansheefreak Posted December 8, 2004 Report Posted December 8, 2004 ok sorry i was wrong it was 86 and 85 ..that was not powervalved.... i was thinking first yr(87) cus of banshee on the brain.... i have had both 85 ans 86 lt 250's Quote
STLBILL Posted December 8, 2004 Report Posted December 8, 2004 Hi everyone: Former Q-Racer owner and rider here too. I had a 250 as a teenager and a 500 in my early 20s (1994ish). The 250 was a nimble bastard compared to the four-wheel-drive quads my uncles had. I know, that isn't saying much but it's all I had to compare to. The 250 toasted on me from old age. Not being a gearhead I sold it to someone who was. I sold the 500 to buy my ex-bitch an engagement ring. Amazing the things you'll do when you are PW. The 500 was just plain top end fast. Banshees would eat me alive in trails but I made up for it on dirt roads. The 500 was just too darn big for most trails. It was lowered with 250 front shocks and final drive (chain) geared for all out top end. I bought it used. It had some engine work but I don't know what. I am a rider not a mechanic... Back to the point... Blasters are air cooled. Although I've seen some seriously built Blasters the sterotype is that they are an entry-level teenager sport quad. I think the air cooling would eventually become a problem. The oil injection is also a notorious problem (get a block-off kit). As for the water-cooled LT250R, on-the-other-hand, it seems you are a little more limited in overboring the cylinder. You don't want to make steam... Overall - between the Blaster and the 250 if prices were the same... I would take the 250. Regards, Bill Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.