Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

1996 rgv250 or 2001 rs250

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' started by jmoot, Nov 21, 2006.

  1. hey guys, im about to by my first bike and there is 2 bikes im looking at..
    a 1996 rgv250 and a 2001 rs250.
    the rs250 will probs cost me close to 1000 more..
    just wondering wat your opinions are on the 2 bikes.. if its worth the extra money for the rs250.. also i know they have the same engine but is the rs250 more expensive to maintain with parts labour etc being an italian bike..

    any info and opinions would be great


  2. This looks much better (Aprilia 125)

  3. Both are a poor choice for a first bike IMO.

    Known weaknesses of the engine are a poor powervalve design, if not regularly maintained, these can fall into the cylinder, with drastic consequences. Maintenance is the key to these bikes, or rather, hom many hands they've passed through that haven't maintained them properly.

    2-strokes aren't built to last, and both of these bikes will be needing money spent regularly if ridded how they're intended. Both models will need engines rebuilt at least every 20k km's if ridden hard. Yes, the aprilia will definitely cost more to service, and for parts!

    Depending also on what you want the bike for, they aren't very practical. Never ridden an rs, but the rgv doesn't much like to sit on 100km/h for any period and will start fluffing around as it starts to drop out of its powerband, and neither will you on top of it (fairly extreme ergos, even for a sports bike)! The range is also limited due to its thirst.

    Any 4-stroke 250 would be a much better choice for longevity and reliability while you learn your craft!
  4. I agree the RS125 looks better, but once he is used to the bike, he would miss the 2 stroke 250 power band.

    I would compare the RS125 to a 4stroke 250 in terms of power.

    The RGV and RS250 I think would come out same in terms of service costs. The most work you are doing is to the engine,chain and sprockets. For a 250, chain and sprockets are virtually the same thing (different teeth but still minimal cost variation).

    The cost would come if you stack the bike, and like you said, the Aprilia will cost more. In terms of servicing, both bikes would cost the same if you do it yourself as you would be able ot use Suzuki parts for both a top and bottom end rebuild.

    +1 for the rideability factor, although if it is not a daily commuter it will be fine, unless he is willing to get used to the riding position.

    2 strokes go through a lot more fuel, but it is fun :) They are a race bike and they are tuned as such, hence the lower reliability compared to other bikes.

    If he is aware and willing to spend a lot of time getting used to the power band and fouling plugs it can be a decent learners bike.
  5. hey thanks for the replies..
    im not planning to use the bike as a commuter but rather a weekend toy.. i am fairly tall and have sat on the 4 stroke 250s like cbr and zx2r.. and they just seem a bit small.. the rgv feels and is just that little bit taller which feels more comfortable.. also my mate had one which i rode and i had the time of my life on it..

    in terms of maintenance costs compared to a 4 stroke 250.. how much more is it? would u say its doubled or not that much?

    if a 2 stroke was not maintained well at one period of its life.. but the most recent owner maintained it perfectly.. had it fully rebuilt etc.. would it be in good condition ?
  6. Hi,
    Rgv's and rs250's are great. I have had one since learners and am having a ball, but have ridden before.
    They are very quick, and the powerbank is fun, but a tad bit dangerous. Def around corners.
    As others have said they do need regual servicing, most things can be done by urself. (powervalve clean,adjust, oil,plugs). they also burn lots of fuel and on top of that oil.
    Sourcing parts can be annoying, deffently second hand ones.
    The rgv is quite small, they are a little taller then the cbr's, but quite narrow.
    If ur using it as a weekend toy, then its better for the bike. Since u smoke the engine cleaner of the oily crap.

    GOod luck
  7. I got a learner mate interested into an RGV and he bought one....he is 6"3'!!!

    Even if the current owner has looked after a bike (all bikes in general), there is no guarantee that he has fixed an issue that may appear in the long run. Having said that though, you will find bikes in general are pretty tough. With the RGV, as long as the bores are checked regularly, the pistons and rings are done and life is sweet :)

  8. well guys ive ruled the rs250 out of the equation due to financial situation.. but now i have been thinking about the rs125..
    wats your opinions on this compared to the rgv250.. i know there is a significant difference in power..
  9. IMO, jmoot, if you intend to play with the power, then perhaps the RGV250 would be better. From what I understand, the RS250 is much better tuned than the RGV250 making for a better riding experience so there'd be a little more power for the high speeds the RS250 is built for. Moving to RS125 would have most of the pluses from the 250 with less power. I think the major issue would probably be the likelihood of theft, though...

    From working on a TZR250, I've found it to have less major work than a semi-current 4-stroke. Less things to tweak, less things to break, I guess.

    As for the fuel efficiency, I get about 22km/L on an '87 TZR250 (140KG bike) and have gotten about 20km/L on a '00 CBR600F (175KG). So I wouldn't know about how much less efficient you mean.