Yamaha WR250R Mega Thread

Discussion in 'Thumpers' started by Sock Monkey, Apr 7, 2008.

  1. Saltydog86

    Saltydog86 village idiot

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Oddometer:
    1,067
    Location:
    Hinckley/Wheaton Illinois
    I use my bike on single track and dual sport rides with the 4.75 and notice no difference in the way it handles. Your already on a 300lb bike, and extra 15 is not going to be a problem.

    On a side note...does anybody else run with the air box door off? I took it off for a ride yesterday and liked the bit of extra power from it.
  2. onetravdown

    onetravdown I can't ride where?

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Oddometer:
    924
    Location:
    .
    Sorry, but I have to call BS on this statement. There is absolutely a noticeable handling difference with the 4.75. Especially on single track. Besides the increase in weight, the big IMS tank has VERY noticeable fuel sloshing that upsets the handling. If you are riding in more wide open spaces going straight, you'll be fine. But anything tighter or more technical, you'll use a lot of energy counter-steering against the sloshing. It got so bad, that I traded the IMS for a Safari. Iit handles much better now.
  3. Nice_Rumble

    Nice_Rumble Long timer

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Oddometer:
    2,326
    Location:
    New London, NH
    +1. Sold the Safari. Replaced it with a 3.1 IMS while retaining the OEM looks. If I need more range I slap on a 2 gallon Rotopax on a emerson.biguns side rack.
  4. SR1

    SR1 Back in S. Korea

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Oddometer:
    4,675
    Location:
    Seoul Survivor
    Which is EXACTLY why I'd love to get one of those emerson.biguns side racks.

    I have the 3.1 tank, I would just like to carry a Rotopax...low.\


    Is there by chance a tank pannier option I could go with, and carry extra fuel there?
  5. GSBS

    GSBS FunHog

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Oddometer:
    3,976
    Location:
    Blount Springs, AL
    Have you considered going to the larger 4.75-gallon IRC tank. I bet you could recoup much of the cost toward the larger tank by selling your 3.1.

    I've had mine for a few months now and would never go back to carrying gas. It just seems silly to me now.

    My low fuel light typically comes on between 175 and 200 miles and due to the different placement of the fuel pump/sensor, I've still got nearly 1.5 gallons when the light comes on with this tank. To simplify things I just plan on filling up every 225 miles and I have plenty of cushion.

    The bike's handling is hardly compromised with the larger tank either. In fact, it's exactly the same size between your legs and only the wings stick out at the front.

    To deal with the extra weight of the gas I just make sure I fill up at least a hundred miles before whatever trail I'm going to ride. Then the weight is about the same as with the stock tank filled up to 2 gallons.

    Anyway, to me, carrying 1.5 or 2 gallons of fuel on one side using a rear rack is much more of a compromise in balance than the same amount of fuel in the fuel tank that is centered to the bike. And most of the additional fuel is carried low in the wings.

    I couldn't be happier with the big IMS tank. It was the final missing piece of the puzzle to make this a great DS, do-anything, go-anywhere bike!

    My 2¢
  6. Rider_WV

    Rider_WV Long timer

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Oddometer:
    2,534
    Location:
    Leon, WV
    i agree 100%

    yes there is some fuel slosh in tighter slow speed stuff with the 4.7gal, it is noticeable in certain situations. Its not a deal breaker for me, I enjoy riding and not worrying about gas.

    If I am riding very technical WV/OH singletrack I leave the WR at home and take the YZ. Its more fun in really nasty stuff. Hell I wouldnt even take the WR on our good single track with the stock tank. too bulky, too heavy and too much work.
  7. IdahoRenegade

    IdahoRenegade Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Oddometer:
    1,667
    Location:
    Sagle, Idaho
    With regard to the fuel sloshing issue in large tanks, has anyone tried the fuel tank foam? http://www.evomx.com/fuel-tank-foam-information/

    I'd like the big IMS tank for some of our longer rides, gas stations are few and far between in parts of N. Idaho. I'm wondering if that stuff works w/o causing problems for the fuel pump or level sensor. I'd hate to have to take it back out of a tank once it was stuffed in.
  8. onetravdown

    onetravdown I can't ride where?

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Oddometer:
    924
    Location:
    .
    Again, this is not accurate. I addressed the handling difference in a previous post. But also, the tank is noticeably wider than stock. In fact, if you are standing and riding in technical terrain, your knees will bounce off the tank constantly. Make sure you are wearing knee pads.

    The weight may be close, but then you get lots of fuel sloshing from all the empty space.

    That's great if you have a YZ at home and are riding local. Not very practical if you're far away and/or only have a WRR.

    I'm glad those that have the IMS 4.75 are happy with them. But these kind of statements are misleading to someone thinking about purchasing one. It may be great for long distance or wide open spaces, but for anything tight or technical, you're going to notice a difference. Whether that be handling or ergonomically. It just depends on the type of riding you plan on doing are worth the compromises with the big tank.
  9. onetravdown

    onetravdown I can't ride where?

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Oddometer:
    924
    Location:
    .
    I was going to get some of that before I found someone to trade tanks with. I hear from some people that use it that it works great. Others say they would never put that in their tanks. But I suspect they've never tried it.
  10. skierd

    skierd Wannabe Far-Rider

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Oddometer:
    3,009
    Location:
    Fairbanks, AK
    Unless you ride like a maniac when traveling, you're gonna average the same 55ish mpg you probably do now, if not better. I averaged closer to 65mpg on the tat for a variety of reasons, mainly taking a leisurely sightseeing pace.

    I get not wanting fuel up high, so don't fill it up till you need it out west. Towns are only 90ish miles apart in the east and I managed fine on the stock tank through to salida never touching my extra gas. Keep the 3.1, buy a 1gal or a 2gal jerry can in Oklahoma just in case, and bungee it to the tailrack for the western portion.

    Keep in mind too that the tat is more road than trail, its about distances and endurance not technical terrain. Stop worrying so much. ;) you're not going to find 1000s of miles of singletrack track and downed trees, hell I went most of a week without seeing a tree lol.

  11. GSBS

    GSBS FunHog

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2005
    Oddometer:
    3,976
    Location:
    Blount Springs, AL
    So are you really saying that you think hanging a Rotopax, plus the weight of a rack to hold it, with a couple of gallons of gas on the left side is going to improve handing over the larger IMS tank?

    I never said the IMS tank makes the WR into the ideal woods weapon for single track or full-out racing. If I wanted a race bike, I doubt I'd buy a DS bike like the WR.

    But for a DS bike you can take into places you wouldn't want to take a larger DS bike, plus still have the range and versatility and reliability of the WR, the IMS completed the package for me.
  12. skierd

    skierd Wannabe Far-Rider

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    Oddometer:
    3,009
    Location:
    Fairbanks, AK
    Ps the first long stretch without gas is boise city Oklahoma to Trinidad. 155 miles, made it on the stock tank... its also the first real technical portion with the climb out of phantom canyon but if the weights really bugging you it should be far enough in to dump most of the spare fuel in the tank. Ymmv and all that
  13. onetravdown

    onetravdown I can't ride where?

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Oddometer:
    924
    Location:
    .
    No, what I was "really saying" were the statements stating that the 4.75 is "exactly the same size between your legs and only the wings stick out at the front" or that it doesn't affect handling are just not accurate for someone thinking about purchasing it. That's all.
  14. The Breeze

    The Breeze Been here awhile

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Oddometer:
    246
    Location:
    Utah
    My $0.02,

    Just got back from a mini TAT (Utah and Colorado) and a full CDR trip. My intake/exhaust, etc. is bone stock. Twice I filled up the tank up, at the end of the day, and put in 3.7 gallons of gas (3.69 and 3.72 to be exact!). Ya, the 3.7 gallon Safari would have brought me in on fumes.....but I would have been stressing the entire day. Was really glad I had the 4.7 gallon IMS........worked like a champ :evil Nothing against Safari tanks....I have the 9 gallon fuel tanker on my DR650 :lol3. It's not a matter of brand, it's a matter of capacity.

    For what it's worth, I'd either get the 4.7 gallon IMS....and never worry about fuel, or stick with your current setup and get a 2 gallon bladder from Justgastanks and rokstrap it to the back of your bike (full on the longer stretches and rolled/stowed on the shorter stretches).

    Regarding weight... if the Rotopax is full (+ the weight of the Wolfman rack), it's probably going to weigh as much, if not more, than the 4.7 IMS when full... If it's not full, it seems like a lot of stuff to be lugging around without any purpose. If I was dead set on a Rotopax, I'd mount it to the tailrack (I know it sits higher....but it saves you from adding the bulk/weight of a Wolfman rack). Just my opinion.

    FWIW, the toughest single/double track/no track!, I experienced on the trip, was in Black Dragon Wash....didn't even notice that the 4.7 gallon tank/fuel was there.

    I think that this whole tank size/weight issue is a matter of perspective....If you're coming from a 650cc dual sport bike (which I was) or bigger, the WR with a 4.7 gallon tank seems really lightweight, small, and nimble..... If you're coming from a 250cc, full on dirt bike, and ride primarily single track, then the WR with a 4.7 gallon tank seems big, bulky, and heavy.

    For me, I hate worrying about fuel....
  15. Pantah

    Pantah PJ Fan from Boston

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Oddometer:
    10,793
    Location:
    India Wharf

    Is there really that much sloshing going on in those winged tanks? I have a Safari and the wings are pretty thin. The only place there seems to be enough volume for sloshing is the top where the stock fuel cell would sit.

    Seems a bigger concern than an actual problem. :scratch
  16. Cycle Sector

    Cycle Sector Aka Disco

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Oddometer:
    78
    Location:
    San Diego
    Not sure if you guys saw my GPR Group Buy thread but through this week we have mega savings on GPR dampers for the WR250R'X's. Please shoot me a message if you are interested in one!
  17. ironbrewer

    ironbrewer Hopefully Riding

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Oddometer:
    4,021
    Location:
    Was in Colorado now in The Northwet, Washington

    I have to agree. In August I rode my KLR650 fully loaded with camping gear etc about 1200 miles around Colorado. It did great, but was a heavy pig. I picked up my new to me WR250r in Sacramento, and rode it home. It already had the IMS 4.7 gallon tank. I put on Wolfman racks and drybag panniers, plus a dry bag on top. I road Highway, slickrock(with the gear off), La Sal, Engineer, and Imogene passes. It was a great way to get used to a new bike. The WR250r, geared up with a 4.7 gallon tank felt way lighter than my KLR650 did without gear.
  18. DougZ73

    DougZ73 Fading off.........

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Oddometer:
    7,458
    Location:
    NJ
    In terms of the tank and the sloshing, I can attest to the effect, being one of the guys that rides with Trav most weekends. When he goes form one weekend with the smaller tank and me trying my best to keep up with him, to the following weekend with his bigger tank and more fuel, and me actually being ahead of him in the trail..it is having an obvious affect on his riding.

    What people have to understand, whether it be the fuel sloshing issue, stock tires or stock rear shock..what is fine for 95% of people that ride the bike, is not fine for the other 5% of us that push the bike and the riding to the limits. Are we expecting too much from our dual sport bikes....probably..but that does not change the fact that these are the bikes we have and what we ride, whether its a weekend of tight technical whooped out sand riding, or a leasurely 200 mile loop of dirt roads we could easily do in car.

    The truth is, if we could have small light easy to ride MX/2 stroke bikes to ride in the stuff we do....we would..and we'd save the WR for the easier riding dual sport trips. But, we need the bikes to be legal, do it all bikes, and take care of us on the trial, but then do just as well when we have to jump on the highway and have the same bike get us the 50 miles home.
  19. onetravdown

    onetravdown I can't ride where?

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Oddometer:
    924
    Location:
    .
    Sure, everything is subjective. But I came off a DRZ400s and an XR650L with a 5 gallon tank. :huh

    Yes! The IMS wings are huge and the fuel sloshes really bad. Enough that you are trying to get the bike to go one direction and it wants to go another. The Safari tank does not slosh nearly as bad as the IMS. The first ride I had with it, I was noticeable faster with less work and was more in control the entire ride. And I wasn't last.:D

    Here's a side by side comparison I did a while back of the two tanks to give everyone an idea. Not like most of you don't already know.
    [​IMG]
  20. Pantah

    Pantah PJ Fan from Boston

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Oddometer:
    10,793
    Location:
    India Wharf
    Picture is worth a lot of words...:D

    Still doesn't seem like much volume for sloshing, but I can see now why I don't notice on my Safari. Plus that fact that I'm clearly in the 95% group. It wasn't always that way...:wink:

    Thanks for pics.