1992 - 1994 Honda XR 650L

Make Model	Honda XR 650L
Year	1992 - 94
Engine	Four stroke, single cylinder SOHC, 4 valve
Capacity	644 cc / 39.35 cu-in
Bore x Stroke	100 x 82.6 mm
Cooling System	Air cooled
Compression Ratio	8.3:1
Lubrication	Dry sump
Oil Capacity	1.9 Litres
Induction	40 mm diaphragm-type CV carburetor
Ignition	Solid-state CDI
Starter	Electric
Max Power	43.6 hp / 32.1 kW @ 6000 rpm
Max Torque	51.9 Nm / 5.3 kgf-m / 38.2 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
Transmission	5 Speed
Final Drive	#520 O-ring-sealed chain; 15T/45T
Gear Ratio	1st 2.66 2nd 1.64 3rd 1.25 4th 1.00 5th .84
Clutch	Heavy duty multi-plate clutch
Front Suspension	43 mm Showa forks, 16-way adjustable preload
Front Wheel Travel	294 mm / 11.6 in
Rear Suspension	Pro-link Kayaba fully adjustable
Rear Wheel Travel	280 mm / 11 in
Front Brakes	Single 240 mm disc 2 piston caliper
Rear Brakes	Single 240 mm disc 1 piston caliper
Front Tyre	80/100-21
Rear Tyre	110/100-18
Rake)	27°
Trail	102 mm / 4.0 in
Wheelbase	1455 mm / 57.3 in
Ground Clearance	330 mm / 13.0 in
Seat Height	940 mm / 37 in
Dry Weight	147 kg / 324 lbs
Wet Weight	158 kg / 348 lbs
Fuel Capacity	10.6 Litres / 2.8 US gal

XR 650L vs KLX 650

For the last two years, looking for a serious dual-sport mount meant looking no further than your Honda dealer. In 1992, Honda reshuffled the dual-sport deck with its XR650L, the most dirtworthy big-bore single we've tested. Armed with top-drawer suspension bits, potent brakes and far better trail manners than anything in anybody else's showroom, the Honda beat all comers once the pavement ran out.

Meanwhile, Kawasaki already had a dual-sport contender in the KLR650. But rather than lose potential sales to riders who figured the big, heavy KLR couldn't handle hardcore off-road work, Kawasaki countered with a dirtier big-bore weapon of

Despite having the same basic electric-start, liquid-cooled, four-valve, 651 cc engine layout as the KLR, the KLX comes from an otherwise blank CAD/CAM computer console.

The KLX design team started with a new steel perimeter frame inspired by Kawasaki's KX motocrossers. In the suspension department, the KLX is blessed with 11.2 inches of travel from a new but sadly nonadjustable inverted fork. The Uni-Trak rear suspension delivers 10.2 inches of rear-wheel travel, allowing for a lower, more accessible seat height. But for all the attention Kawasaki lavished on broadening the off-road side of the bike's performance envelope, we were surprised to find the KLX's 337-pound claimed dry weight was only 1 pound under the KLR's. That's primarily because of the KLR's larger fuel tank and more complete instrumentation. Credit the unexpected heft of the KLX to the more rugged frame and suspension bits, bigger 262mm front-brake rotor and a host of other changes aimed at making sure this bike is up to arduous off-road work.

Though it's hardly noticeable on the street, the KLX's extra pork puts the Kawasaki at a serious disadvantage hammering down a gnarly trail alongside Honda's class-conquering XR650L. Honda's air-cooled, four-valve, 644cc machine scales in at 347 pounds full of vital fluids 32 pounds fewer than the KLX. The KLX's radiator, coolant, pump, hoses and attendant liquid-cooling hardware account for most of the weight difference, along with incidentals like a luggage rack and greater fuel capacity (.4 gallon more).

When it's time to saddle up, Honda made it easier to touch the ground from the XR650L saddle by reducing rear-shock preload, which effectively lowers seat height by .7 inch. But at 37 inches high, it's still about 2 inches taller than the KLX. The Kawasaki has about half an inch less travel at each end than the Honda, which boasts 11.6 inches of travel from its 43mm fork and 11.0 inches of wheel travel through its Pro-Link rear end.

When you get them off the road, suspension performance defines the two bikes. The extra travel and superior suspension rates make the Honda a better vehicle for blasting across rough terrain at speed. Testers from our companion publication Dirt Rider called the XR-L suspension "plush and balanced," although they felt it was just a bit too soft for full-bore charges by top-level riders.

The Honda's more composed, compliant suspension makes truly heinous terrain more manageable for less aggressive riders as well. And even though the Kawasaki has a more rigid, solid-feeling chassis, its suspension always has the bike feeling a bit less poised in the dirt. We found the fork's harsh initial travel delivered a rough ride over sharp hits. The rear shock in particular provides poor control and is quickly overwhelmed during aggressive high-speed use. Hammering through big bumps, the KLX's rear end bottoms against the inside of the fender.

In the slow stuff, the XR-L's extra height can become something of a liability for shorter humans. All but our tallest testers preferred the KLX to the Honda when plodding through a rocky stream bed or switchback-infested trail. Such situations make the KLX's lower seat an important advantage, especially when you want to take a dab on the low side. The Kawasaki steers more accurately at plonking speeds, thanks in part to a lower center of mass. It also emerges on top on fast, smooth fire roads, where its rigid chassis and lower height give it an edge.

Another mark in the KLX's favor is the riding position. The flatter seat lets you put your weight where you want it. The Honda feels roomier and works well when you're standing on the pegs, but it slides you into single position when you're seated.

The two machines are remarkably similar in terms of absolute power. The Honda provides better off-idle throttle response, warming quicker from cold. The liquid-cooled Kawasaki gets better fuel mileage, which combines with its slightly greater fuel capacity to offer almost 50 percent greater range before you need to switch to reserve. The Honda normally drank its main fuel supply in about 80 miles of off-road riding, but the Kawasaki logged over 110 miles before sputtering onto reserve. This turns into an extra-large off-road handicap for the Honda since riders couldn't get much farther than 50 miles from a gas station when exploring new trails. Out here in the wide-open spaces of the western deserts, that's just not enough. On one particularly hairy ride, the few street upshifts. As the miles mounted, the gearbox seemed to smooth out somewhat and required less pressure to switch cogs, but it still didn't shift as smoothly as the Honda after 1500 miles. Both clutches worked with comparable consistency.

Though they are a major improvement over KLR brakes, the KLX stoppers lack the power of the Honda units. Still, some riders felt they offered better control than the XR brakes. We got the KLX's binders to fade slightly during hard street use and on long off-road downhills.

Both bikes use the same tires—Dunlop K850As—front and rear, although the Kawasaki Takasago alloy rims are wider (1.85 versus 1.60 for the 21 -inch fronts and 2.50-17 versus 2.15-18 in the rear) than the XR-L's D.I.D hoops. The tires are about as dirt-oriented as a motorcycle intended for any kind of regular street use can realistically carry. Predictably, most riders wished for more aggressive tires off the road, but those are available in a growing number of aftermarket choices. On the street, the tires can't match the sheer grip of average standard-issue street rubber and are quick to tell you when they're nearing their cornering limits.

With more street-oriented rubber, these two motorcycles could provide impressive performance on kinky roads, though again, the lower KLX has a marginal edge. It dives less under braking, and a lower center of mass makes it a bit easier to flick around. Because these bikes are so light and narrow compared to the average pavement-only mount, they turn quickly enough and lean far enough to embarrass the Alpines-tars off unsuspecting sport-bike pilots through a tight set of esses.

Both of these dirtworthy dual-sports make excellent day-to-day traffic scalpels with quick, broad-band power delivery and the extra visibility afforded by tall seating positions. All that suspension travel makes it easy to negotiate those bottomless potholes. And with the added bonuses of street-only fuel-consumption figures over 50 mpg and relatively low insurance rates, both provide practical transportation too.

Neither one makes a good long-distance runner the way some other dual-sports, notably the KLR, do. They vibrate a bit too much, offer little wind protection and are too narrow in the saddles. However, if you're happy on them on the open road, the big singles seem content to putt along all day.

Since it's little changed from the KLR, the KLX engine should wear well. On the other hand, just changing the spark plug requires fuel-tank removal. The air-cooled XR-L may need slightly more regular attention, but it's much easier to work on.

Neither of our test bikes required more than regular service, and aside from a KLX inner rear fender that was eventually eaten up by repeated arguments with the rear tire (Kawasaki is fixing this under warranty, and the fix includes a new rear shock—standard on the '94 model with about .7 inch less wheel travel), nothing failed.

Choosing the right dual-sport becomes a matter of matching what you want with what the bike can do. Both of these machines fall far on the dirt end of the dual-sport continuum, but the XR650L with its great suspension still sets the standard for off-the-rack dual-sport dirt work. At $4799, the XR-L costs $100 more than the KLX, but the KLX650 is better for riders who are shorter of inseam, planning to ride on tight trails, want more responsive street manners or

just need that extra range. Neither of these 650 thumpers offers the range, comfort or multitask capability of the KLR650. But if you want electric starting and big-bore power in a bike that leans toward the dirt, you're looking at a field of two. And for our money, the Honda narrows it down to a field of one. M

Source MOTORCYCLIST 1993

Dirt Rider Honda XR650L vs Suzuki DR650S 1992

Although they aren't written anywhere, and no one carried them down from any mountain top, they do exist. Since ancient times, there have been the Ten Dirt Bike Commandments. You know them, although you might not know you know them. The first is, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's premix"—a good commandment because you never know if he has mixed it yet or what the ratio is. Then there's "Thou shalt honor thy motocross socks and keep them holey." It might be possible to ride without holes in your socks. We're not sure; we have never tried it.

There are others like, "Thou shalt not pass on yellow" and "Thou shalt not wheelie in the pits," but by far the most important commandment is, "Thou shalt not ride a 650 in the dirt."
Like the other commandments, this is just good advice—but this is a new age and the ultimate commandment might be outdated. Last year we agreed that the Suzuki DR650S was the best heavyweight dual-purpose bike available. Of course, it still wasn't very good, but it was certainly better than Honda's plastic-wrapped NX650 and Kawasaki's giant KLR650. Being the best isn't the same thing as being good.
Now the Suzuki is back with a handful of changes. Also, it has a new challenger: Honda's new XR650L. Is the Honda now the best? More importantly, is either bike good? We had to know.

JUST THE FACTS

Suzuki has had a big thumper motor for a long time. Back in the late '70s, the DR370 came out and it was later turned into a DR400 and a street-legal SP400. Eventually the DR and SP500 came out, followed by a 600cc version. The current DR shares a lot of design philosophy with those early DRs, but it's now the product of more than a decade of evolution.

The Suzuki has a monstrous wet-sump motor. That means that the oil is carried in the engine cases instead of in the frame. Suzuki's small-bore four-strokes have dry sump motors and carry the oil in the frame, while Honda's line is the exact opposite—the 650 is a dry sump and the 250 is a wet sump. Wet sump motors generally are bulkier and run hotter, but can be lighter. The Suzuki 650 has an oil cooler to get rid of some of the heat.

Suspension-wise, the DR is primitive. It has an old-style, non-cartridge Kayaba fork with less than ten inches of travel. The rear shock is a non-adjustable, non-reservoir Kayaba that supplies less than nine inches of rear-wheel travel. This year the Suzuki gets a smaller fuel tank that is much less obtrusive than the old one.

The Honda, of course, is brand-new and the source of all the latest dual-sport gossip. On paper, it blows away the Suzuki in every respect. It has a cartridge fork. It has a modern, reservoir, fully adjustable shock and—here's the big news —an electric starter. Does it weigh more
than the Suzuki because of the addition of the starter and the battery? No. The XR is about 30 pounds lighter than the DR. IS IT A SLAUGHTER? Yes. In stock form, both bikes get slaughtered off-road. The XR might be light compared to the DR, but that doesn't mean it's light compared to anything else on earth. By the time you get some gas in the Honda it weighs in around 350 pounds, and that's heavy.

The DR is heavier and feels heavier. We must admit that this year's DR is lighter-feeling than last year's. Why? Because of that smaller tank. The earlier DR had a 55-gallon drum mounted behind the handlebar. Paris-Dakar styling never really caught on in this country and we are glad. We really don't want tanks that big or (ugh!) fairings.
Okay, now that we have established that neither of these bikes is exactly nimble, we will just lower our standards and pretend like all bikes weigh this much. The next big problem is the tire selection. Stock, both bikes come with street tires that are so bad that ranking them is pointless. These tires probably are used because any of the modern semi-knobbies would wear out too fast. So the stock tires will be on the bike, making you miserable that much longer.

THINGS THE SUZUKI DOES BETTER

Right off the bat, you should know that the Suzuki sells for $3799. That's $600 less than the Honda. Even though the Suzuki is heavy and has bad tires, $600 will make up for a lot of dissatisfaction. Also, there are some things we liked about it. We need to admit that we entered this comparison with certain preconceptions. One of those was that the Honda would be better than the Suzuki at everything. It's not. The Suzuki engine actually works better than the Honda's off-road.

They both have good bottom-end power, but the Suzuki seems to keep on pulling after the Honda flattens out. The motors actually are very similar—that is, they both are great. The powerbands are so wide you almost forget to shift. It's just that the Suzuki's is a little better. If you could somehow put the DR powerband into a 210-pound motocrosser, you could win world championships on it.

Even with such incredibly wide power-bands, though, both bikes suffer from one terrible fault when ridden off-road: They both are geared way too tall. The Honda seems to have the same gear ratios as the dirt-only XR. Then, to make the bike acceptable for street riding, the primary and final drive ratios were made much taller. That leaves the machine with a super-tall first gear—the bike can hit 40 mph before you shift to second.

The Suzuki is no different. It doesn't even have the excuse of using a dirt bike transmission—it was originally designed as a dual-purpose bike and so should have a much-wider-ratio gearbox. Both bikes have about the same top speed, right around 100 mph (don't ask us how we know).

Back to things the Suzuki does quite well: It will start when the battery is dead; the Honda won't. Even though we really like electric starters, they make us nervous. The Honda doesn't even have a kickstarter, so if the battery is dead, so are you. Come to think of it, though, starting any big four-stroke makes us a little nervous.

The Suzuki is a perfect example. In the garage it starts first kick, as long as you kick it really hard. On the trail it starts second kick. In a ravine on a 100-degree day when flies are attacking your eyes, ears, nose and throat, it can take from three to 100 kicks. To tell the truth, we would like to see a big thumper come with both an electric starter and a kickstarter—and maybe someone to start it for us.

THINGS THE HONDA DOES BETTER

The Honda does everything else better. The biggest difference between the two bikes is in the suspension department. The Honda's is good, really good. We have even thought about taking the XR fork and putting it on a CR motocrosser instead of the mediocre upside-down units that all MX bikes are stuck with these days. It might be better.

It's interesting that the Honda actually has stiffer spring rates than even the dirt-only XR600. The street-legal version weighs about 40 pounds more than the dirt model. So, effectively, the dual-sport bike is just as stiff as the off-road XR. We will go so far as to say that the XR has the best overall suspension of any dual-sport bike ever. In whoops the bike tracks straight, yet it still manages to cushion impacts from rocks and small bumps. The only faults in the Honda's suspension package are associated with the bike's weight and tires. The tires make the bike wallow in loose dirt, which makes the back end do weird things, and the weight makes everything hit bottom in gullies and G-out ditches.

The DR suspension does fairly well, considering it's the cheapest stuff that Suzuki had lying on the shelf. It's way out of its league compared to the Honda, though. The bike just doesn't have enough travel to be really effective in big bumps, small bumps or any bumps. Even if the shock and fork were of high quality, there is only so much you can do with eight inches of travel.

WEIRD TALES

These machines come with some really strange smog equipment. In order to make them pass EPA tests, both bikes have devices that pump air into the exhaust systerns.

This doesn't result in any fewer hydrocarbons being spewed into the air but, since more clean air is being emitted from the tailpipe, the percentage of smog is lower. The bottom line is that these pumps don't make the air any cleaner, they just make the bikes pass tests. Such is the danger of having bureaucrats meddle in motorcycle engineering.

Actually, the Suzuki has other weird things. It has a 17-inch rear wheel, which makes it very difficult to find decent tires for the bike. Pirelli makes some. Both bikes have great brakes and need them. When you get that much mass in motion, it takes a lot to slow it all down. Suzuki also was at a loss on how to make the bike even heavier, so a luggage rack was added.
Honda tried really hard but couldn't find a clumsier place to mount the battery. It's on the left side of the bike—just look for the huge bulge.

WHICH WINS?

Do you really have to ask? The Honda is a dirt bike made into a dual-purpose
bike. That's a good approach. The Suzuki, on the other hand, is a dual-purpose bike designed to be inexpensive. It was just by accident—or rather by default—that the Suzuki was the best of the big-bore D-P bikes in past years. There was nothing serious to challenge it.
The best news is that now the ante has been upped. Other manufacturers will soon start making dirt-worthy 650cc D-P bikes. The Honda XR650L is just a set of tires and sprockets away from being a truly good dirt bike. The Suzuki, on the other hand, really can't be made into a serious off-road bike.

It costs tons less than the Honda ($600—okay, so that's not exactly tons, just megapounds), but you couldn't fix it even for three times that much. The Suzuki remains what it has always been: a good bike for the price. The Honda, on the other hand, is something quite different: a great bike at any price, and a good reason to break the ultimate dirt bike commandment.