I'm thinking I may just buy a new quad, instead of rebuilding this old quad. The question I have is, which years are the most desirable, and why.
It all depends on what you want to do with it.
For the 250:
85-86 is the lightest of them all, but requires the most work (like strengthening the frame, swingarm, and engine swap if you want more bolt-on go-fast parts)...fortunately a lot of the important parts are interchangeable or easily modified to accommodate from other years.
87 engine has the big reed intake, theoretically better for drags and hillshooting, uses a different piston than the 88-92, all engines from this year forward have powervalves and a 6 gear trans.
88-92 engine has the small reed, better for MX/trails, reeds are easier to find.
87-90 frame is the full-floater rear suspension, just like the 85-86, but with a stronger box-type bearing carrier for the swingarm, a-arms are slightly different and do not interchange with 85-86 years.
91-92 has a no-link suspension, heaviest of the frames (and supposedly strongest), and some came with nice graphics from the factory.
The best year for the 250 is truly personal preference, and the 87-92's all perform about the same, while the 85-86 engine is virtually bulletproof if maintained at mild power outputs.
For the 500's...
The 87 had different a-arms, big reed intake, 6 bolt head, and some other minor things as opposed to the 88-90.
88+ 500's had the small reed intake and a 7 bolt head.
As with the 250's, all 500's perform about the same...big reed or small isn't important until you're at drag racing power output, and even then some small reeds can put big reeds to shame.
Fortunately, the cylinders are interchangeable provided you have the associated components for them (cylinder head, piston, reeds, intake boot, etc.), and that goes for all of the powervalved 250's as well.
KyleT is a member here who's done extensive research on the subject and can tell you if they used a different grade bolt on the fender mounts between year models if you're interested in that info.
Now, a hybrid is a completely different ball game, as you're retrofitting a 500 engine into a 250 frame (or maybe you want to go with something exotic, like a 500 powered Z400?).
You lose weight by utilizing the lighter frame and thus a hybrid will be faster than an identically powered zilla.
You will need some welding and fabbing skills, along with a hybrid pipe and some of the associated 500 components to bolt on your 250 frame.
Again, which year model 250 frame would be ideal for the conversion is also a personal preference...you want a lot of work, a strong frame, or a quick and easy project?
Big or small reed...again personal preference!
Sourcing parts is also a concern, are you going to pass on a big reed that's within your budget just so you can wait for months until a small reed shows up in your price range?
Would you rather use the frame you currently own, or find a frame that's better suited for you?
TL;DR
They're all about the same, they all have their redeeming qualities, find one that suits you personally because there isn't really a top dog here.
Tex, the 91-92 frames do indeed have a link. It's similar to the zilla style link rear suspension.
91-92 is more of an RM link. All 3 generations of 250 frames require gusseting of some sort, especially in the debt end.
Really?
Maybe the one I had seen was modified to a no-link, or I just wasn't paying enough attention to it.
I read somewhere that the rear shock on 91,92 mounted from swinger to frame.
Suzuki called it a cushion link. 91-92 is NOT a no link. This is the 91-92 rear cushion link.
The 87 to 90 is my choice.
The 85 86 is a great quad for playing and trail riding but the swing arm is a terrible weak point. If you want to mod it, this year has the fewest options.
The 91 92 is good as well. If you tear it down on a regular basis, the rear swing arm can be a pill until you get the hang of it. It's also the heaviest. You have a more limited set of options for mod's in the rear due to the swing arm.
The 87 to 90 has the most options for mods. 87 motor being the big difference. I have an 87 250 and 500 motor and I'm still able to find intake parts with out to much bs.
85-86 will take the 87-90 swingarm with very little mod. Insert a 3/16" spacer on each side of the dogbone mount at the swinger. Perfect fit, $1.50 in parts LOL
The first of the month is here and I'll get more money allocated to the quad. I was wanting to buy a new k&n. is there a certain one you guys use? eBay has them listed for it, I was just curious if there is a bigger one you guys run instead of what eBay lists.
If you ride dusty areas, go with a foam filter instead of the k&n. K&N allow fine particles through them. I use an UNI with outerwear, and a light filter oiling before every ride.
Rock roads and trails through woods. I guess during summertime I would get a little dusty going down gravel roads. Right now I have a foam one drenched in a heavy oil. Lol I need to replace it anyways but now I know to get foam instead. One question though, wouldn't it run better off a k&n as long as it got jetted to it? Mind you I don't have much mechanical experience so some of my questions may seem dumb, but I'm learning still. Lol
Never heard any complaints about the performance of the KnN firlter. The issue is dust. Whatever filter you choose, remove it after a dusty ride and check the carb and intake for dust.
if you need one, I think I may have a brand new in bag UNI foam filter for the 250
If performance suffers from a filter that separates fine particles, it's because the filter isn't sized large enough for the engine.
K&N's biggest claim to performance increase is because it flows more air for a given filter size.
While that's important for guys that want to drop in performance instead of buying or building a larger airbox in their car (or there's not room), it's not the least bit important for applications that aren't restricted in size.
So if filter size isn't a concern, then their performance increase is negated.
Simply a matter of the filter's CFM rating that determines power gains.
If a K&N flows twice the air that a paper element will, then you'll get roughly the same power gains if you double the size of the paper element.
It's not like a K&N filter injects an oily red magical nitrous mixture into the engine LOL
I ran a K&N filter on my 250 for a few hours, then I took it off for some reason and noticed that there was sand and dust coating the intake tube and carb.
It was a brand new filter, and was oiled correctly.
Switched to a larger UNI filter and never saw debris in the carb again.
Never trusted the K&N filter, or any filter for that matter which had holes in the element 5x bigger than the grains of sand and dust that it was supposedly "filtering" out.
Sure, the oil does a lot to trap the sand and dust, but it doesn't do anything for that errant particle that gets sucked directly through that hole in the mesh, completely missing the oil-soaked element.
At least with a foam air filter there's not a direct route for the particles to follow, it has to pass through a winding tunnel of sorts (don't know what else you'd call a path through foam mesh) to get through, and with oil covering the walls of every passage you're a lot more likely to trap that particle in oil.
I have used k&n filters racing for many years. I like how easy they are to clean and reoil. A lot of times we never ran a pre filter, so I know they work.
Maybe there is an issue with under oiling?
