Is this a concern when buying this bike?

Back when I was a nipper the biggest bike I could ride by law was a 250. We used to ride our 2 stroke 250s all day and every day. Most of my mates used them as daily commutes as well as evening and weekend hooligan bikes. Striving for a low miles bike is great but don't be scared by high miles. I'm pretty sure that engines are built to be run, not sat in a garage being looked at. And I'm confident the Japanese know a thing or two about building bikes by now and can produce a bike which lasts more than 10000kms.

As for "staying away from highway kms" can you provide any proof of the damage they've caused the bike in question? Have you been monitoring the bikes owners top speed? What gear he uses? His general riding habits? No you haven't. You're repeating some anectodal crap and passing it off as fact.
 
Just as a side note, I would stay away from highway kms
That is the time that the engine is revving over 9K, if not 11.... for hours.

Mine lives above 8K RPM practically everywhere. Highway or not. Half the fun of this bike, is riding it like a hooligan and staying within the speed limits
 
As for "staying away from highway kms" can you provide any proof of the damage they've caused the bike in question? Have you been monitoring the bikes owners top speed? What gear he uses? His general riding habits? No you haven't. You're repeating some anectodal crap and passing it off as fact.


All I said was, "A Ninja 250 revs over 9K at speeds over 100km/h".

Now let's try it again - Is that "some anectodal crap", or a fact ?
 
I got 30k on my 250 and it runs mint.
I think more then the kilometers its how the bike is maintained.

Is it not true that a bike that is used is better off then a bike that sits around a lot?
 
I currently have approx. 12,500 km's and my bike runs perfectly no noticeable change in engine noise which is usually the first sign that the valve clearance should be checked. Although the manual recommends checking it at 12,500 km's, I'm probably going to wait until 20,000 km before I schedule my first check. Unless I start noticing changes in the engine noise or performance of the bike.


Actually that is a fallacy and why people often should find a qualified and honest mechanic to do or assist with the maintenance.

If the valve(s) is tigthening up then there usually will be no change in engine noise! There may be a noise out the muffler or in the air intake if a valve is really tight. Tight or loose refers generally to the clearance betweeen the valve`s stem end and the valve rocker, shim or bucket depending on the design.

Tightening of any significance is not good because it means the valve's face contact to the head's valve seat may not be sealing tightly on each other anymore and this is how a burnt valve begins to be created as gases are forced through that tiny crack so to speak. This is because the valve is not allowed to close all the way. Eventually if it gets too far along the valve never seals sufficiently against the head and you loose compression (engine power). By this time some irreversible damage may have occurred and the valve face and seat need to be reground or replaced via removing the cyclinder head. Also a motor with tight valves can run hotter as it is not getting a clean flow of clean fuel into the cylinder and then flushed out the exhaust. This can also change the fuel mileage.

However, if a valve becomes noisy (ticking, rattling type sounds) the valve is likely sealing good but may not be pushed open as far as it is designed to be and a loss of power can occur. This loss may or may not be noticeable to most riders, however when it is noticeable to most people the valves are generally very loose. This often can be corrected via a valve adjustment to bring the clearance back into spec provided the noise is not from worn valve guides or valves for example. A motor can run hot due to insufficient flow of gases through the motor due to the valve(s) not opening all the way.

Hope this is helpful.
 
Last edited:
All I said was, "A Ninja 250 revs over 9K at speeds over 100km/h".

Now let's try it again - Is that "some anectodal crap", or a fact ?

That's not all you said. You also said;

That is the time that the engine is revving over 9K, if not 11.... for hours.

So I'll ask again. Where's your proof of this? And what proof do you have the engine may have been damaged because of this? You have none because you made up an assumption and passed it off as fact. Which isn't helpful to the OP and perpetuates a myth.

Now let's try again: where's your proof of your statement?
 
Back
Top Bottom