help to choose between wr250r and xt660z

Hi,
I'm want to buy soon dual sport, enduro bike and been thinking seriously about wr250r and xt660z
but cannot decide. Both yamaha singles but one have some advantages over the other
in different areas. What would you choose if I prefer riding offroad, trails, woods, beaches
etc but I need also be able to cruise on the tarmac from time to time. Technologically tenere
looks dated, not sure about the wr250r is it relatively new engine and other guts?
Also I'm worry on the motorway wr250r will be too light not to mention about smallish tank.
So is wr250r only fun bike or can be useful for enduro?

My brother-in-law has a XT_Z and loved it. This puzzled me because the guts of the XT_Z is basically the XT660R/X and having owned the XT-R back to back with the WRR I can honestly say I "Hated" the XT. For a number of reasons in fact - it is too wide for comfortable standing. Too heavy for offroading of any serious intent, worse build quality, and gutless performance. The only thing I liked was the fact I sold it for the same as I bought it after 2 years of ownership (what's that about?). To top it off I practically cried when I mistakenly took a KTM690SMC for a test ride and could not understand how two similar motorcycles could be so different - and mine was the shit one. I almost left the XT in a ditch.

You may ask, what's this got to do with WRR? The reason is that the 250 is better offroad and almost as good on road (at less than 80). Small but perfectly formed. The build quality is lovely on the R - no wonder they cost so much new. I would ride my WR around the world (again) in a flash.

edteamslr wrote:

My brother-in-law has a XT_Z and loved it. This puzzled me because the guts of the XT_Z is basically the XT660R/X and having owned the XT-R back to back with the WRR I can honestly say I "Hated" the XT. For a number of reasons in fact - it is too wide for comfortable standing. Too heavy for offroading of any serious intent, worse build quality, and gutless performance. The only thing I liked was the fact I sold it for the same as I bought it after 2 years of ownership (what's that about?). To top it off I practically cried when I mistakenly took a KTM690SMC for a test ride and could not understand how two similar motorcycles could be so different - and mine was the shit one. I almost left the XT in a ditch.

You may ask, what's this got to do with WRR? The reason is that the 250 is better offroad and almost as good on road (at less than 80). Small but perfectly formed. The build quality is lovely on the R - no wonder they cost so much new. I would ride my WR around the world (again) in a flash.

thanks for your opinion, that what I was afraid of - the build quality. Probably because xt is made in Europe and wrr if I'm not mistaken in Japan?
It's expensive indeed comparing to crf or klx counterparts but according to you wrr is worth the money as I understand.
Is this bike convenient in use as enduro bike with small tank, no fuel gauge etc? each day I'm leaning towards wrr more and more anyway.

I think as long as you go into this with your eyes open:
> the WR is a beautiful bike to own on many levels - just looking at it in the flesh should make you smile.
> the WR can do highway/motorway but most mortals need the seat concepts seat (I did Moscow to Belaruse/Poland border in one go and then Poland to Calais Ferry Port a couple of days later!!!)
> the fuel range is annoying so I bought a Safari tank
> if you are unable to follow the discipline of packing light then the WR is not for you either. Too much "stuff" ruins its simplicity.

I was thinking about what I missed about the performance compared to my KTM690 (which I can't get on with on-road) is that the WR feels very road friendly. The handling is entertaining, you don't need to prove yourself, the throttle response is perfectly adequate, it is gentle on its consumables but it does lack the grunt to take on sand or deep mud. The revy-ness is actually fun on the road.

The XT is a prime example where More is not Better.

edteamslr wrote:

I think as long as you go into this with your eyes open:
> the WR is a beautiful bike to own on many levels - just looking at it in the flesh should make you smile.
> the WR can do highway/motorway but most mortals need the seat concepts seat (I did Moscow to

Read some of your blog..epic rider ... what is the wr250r experience with the low octane gas in some of your travels .? Were you just lighter on the throttle to save detonation ping or drive per normal and hope for the best??

I didn't have any issues with low octane fuel on the trip. It was hard to tell what the fuel really was at numerous places on the route through central asia. It is worth bearing in mind that poor quality did have the bike stuttering a bit for one tank in Krygizstan but it soon passed and the high altitude reduces the effective compression ratio which offsets the lower octane rating of the fuel. The FI helps to offset the lack of power at that height but it was still pretty gutless on the longer climbs. The descents were fun though because the handling and brakes were up to the challenge.

Being a 2008 bike I also changed the fuel pump before I left.

is your opinion the same about much lighter xt660r version?

My views (above) are really based on the XT660R. The Z is really a heavier, sexier version of the R and X.