KTM’s Smallest XC for 2016
KTM makes no bones about the line they seem the most proud of, the XC group. Especially in the US the company traces its roots to off-road racing and making bikes that are ready to race. The XCs have always been the best selling version of any motor size in the US and bringing an all-new XC out the same year as the all-new SX shows the commitment KTM has made to this line.
The 250XC-F is radically new, just as the brochure claims. There is really nothing shared with the previous version and everything is shared with the new SX save for some of the vital off-road parts that make the XC such a good all-around racing bike. From the power producing side everything is the same as the SX, just without the handlebar mounted switch and air-box mounted switch to activate multiple maps and utilise the launch control. it is in the ECU and there if the switches are hooked up. Otherwise the XC is in the standard map all the time. And for most, that will be just fine.
The power delivery is aggressively long, which for a 250cc four-stroke is impressive and surprising. The pull starts very early for a smaller motor with such a light flywheel feeling. The instant the throttle is cracked the engine makes a growl that is accompanied by torque that seems out of place on such a small powerplant. It is the same noise and feel that factory 250cc race engines make as if there is cheater bar put on a ratchet turning the crank easier at every power stroke. Then comes the length of time and RPM the little motor will pull. On a provided dyno chart the figures show 45 horsepower at peak. The pull starts at 4,000 goes very close to 14,000 on the chart and riding the bike it is very convincing these numbers are accurate. The pull is very linear and the throttle response instant at any point in the spread. Put simply, this 250cc four-strokes takes less shifts to go faster and requires less clutching. Though the clutch (undampened conventional spring design) and six-speed semi-wide ratio transmission are perfectly suited to the power delivery as well.
The 250XC-F also feels, as expected , very light on its wheels, even as the RPMs get singing. It has lot to do with not only the new chassis and the way it was engineered to flex but also the shortening and lightening of a lot of the engine parts that add weight as they start spinning. Usually a 250F just acts light, this one is and you feel it setting the bike back and forth on trails dodging stuff or making corrections on the gas coming out of turns. The XC’s half-gallon larger fuel tank is not noticeable when riding with a total capacity of 2.25-gallons. The 18″-rear tire adds some additional bump compliance as well. But the biggest benefit to the XC is the suspension settings that really do make a difference off-road. It is hard to explain how much better the XC will work on the trails and off-road types of bumps and terrain and still work on a motocross track. It took riding a few of the SX bikes on the off-road loop KTM had set up to see how terrible the SX settings were in comparison and to fully realize the XC’s true versatility. The XC has an aggressive nature that is meant to be pushed and offers more control than comfort or plushness on the trail. On a track the XC is a little plush but not enough to become that dreaded wallowly or bottoming bike you should be scared of.
There are a lot of shared characteristics with the other XC-Fs and the SXs you can read about by clicking here as well as links to the other bike’s riding impressions we’ll be publishing. But if you are thinking about going racing off-road in the 250cc class in 2016, KTM has raised the bar once again.
SPECIFICATIONS
Engine Type: Single Cylinder, 4-Stroke
Displacement: 249cc
Bore/Stroke: 78.0/52.3 mm
Compression Ratio: 14.4:1
Starter/Battery: Electric Starter / 12V, 3Ah
Transmission: 6 Gears, Semi-close
Fuel System: Keihin EFI, 44mm Throttle Body
Lubrication: Pressure lubrication with 2 oil pumps
Primary Ratio: 24:73
Final Drive: 13:50
Cooling: Liquid Cooling
Clutch: Wet Multi-Disc CSS-Clutch, Brembo Hydraulics
Ignition: Keihin EMS
Frame: Central Double-Cradle Type 25CrMo4 Steel
Subframe: Aluminum
Handlebar: Neken, Aluminum Ø 28/22mm
Front Suspension: WP Suspension USD 4860 MXMA 4CS
Rear Suspension: WP Monoshock 5018 BAVP DCC with Linkage
Suspension Travel Front/Rear: 300 mm/11.81 in; 300 mm/11.81 in
Front/Rear Brakes: Disc Brake 260 mm/10.24 in; 220 mm/8.66 in
Front/Rear Rims: 1.60x 21, 2.15 x 18 Giant
Front/Rear Tires: 80/100-21”; 100/100-18” Dunlop AT81
Chain: 5/8 x 1/4 in
Silencer: Aluminum
Steering Head Angle: 26.1º
Triple Clamp Offset: 22 mm
Wheelbase: 1,485mm ± 10 mm / 58.5 ± 0.4 in
Ground Clearance: 370mm / 14.6 in
Seat Height: 960 mm / 37.8 in
Tank Capacity, Approx: 7.2L / 1.9 ga
Weight (without fuel), Approx: 101.4 kg / 223.5 lbs
31 Responses to “2016 KTM 250XC-F First Test Riding Impression”
Jimmy Lewis
Have any questions specific to the 2016 KTM 250XC-F? Let us know, we can most likely answer them here.
rugmandu
Can you comment on the stock 4CS fork performance, specifically its viability in tight, rooty/rocky singletrack? Most tests that are out there regarding the 2015 XC-F forks politely describe them as “not plush” in the rocks. I’m wondering if that weakness has been addressed at all on the new bike, or should east coast off-road guys still expect to drop $1k on a revalve on top of the $10k for the bike?
Jimmy Lewis
For sure the fork is better than the older version right out of the box. KTM understood the complaints and without saying they were valid definitely took measures to address the harshness complaints with the setup, a lot of it through the balance of the chassis and getting the shock to work better–it puts less (or more in this case) pressure on the fork. There are a lot of setup things that you can do to a 4CS fork that most riders do not understand or even try before just sending them off to a tuner. And a lot of the tricks tuners are doing are really robbing Peter to pay Paul with adjustable base valves. They work at one thing but tend to cause issues someplace else. The fork is a stiffer setup but at a race type of pace it is just what a rider needs. But it will never be an open cartridge XC-W plushness which it tends to get compared to.
Mike Sheetz
I might be the only one, but I really liked the 2CS forks on my 2013 350 XC-F. Never came to grips with the 4CS fork last year. And ended up on a 300 XC-W (the only 300 I could get my hands on in time for racing) with fear and trembling about the suspension. Well what do you know? I love it. It bottoms more frequently, but it eats bumps and goes straight. I do not moto, but I do ride AA class in enduro and off road events. I’m converted to a W Fan now after avoiding them for years. I think my ego was bigger than my needs.
JB Wagner
You recently tested the 2015 250 XC-F which is the bike I own. How does the 2016 compare with the 2015?
Jimmy Lewis
The 2016 feels lighter and shorter, mostly. Then the engine has a more aggressive bottom-end or off-idle torque feel with what seemed like a little more power at all RPM levels. Which means that it is really hard to say how much faster it is unless you had them back-to-back. But in this era of mostly small changes, it is a leap between these two bikes.
Kel Postel
Awesome write up – I think this might be my next bike if I ever get back on two wheels!
Dan
Do you feel the 2016 handles as good or better than the 2015 yz250fx? I’d love to get my hands on a KTM if so…
Jimmy Lewis
We know how it handles compared to the 2015 http://dirtbiketest.com/fresh-dirt/comparison-ktm250-xc-f-vs-yamaha-yz250fx/, but without riding the 2016 in more conditions an actual direct comparison will have to wait.
The 2016 KTM acts lighter and feels a lot lighter plus the engine has a little more power everywhere, so you could factor that in.
Dan
Why the heck hasn’t KTM ditched WP by now and put KYB SSS forks on their bikes? I mean this makes no sense to me. If there’s one thing everybody (magazine and riders alike) say is that the KBY SSS is pretty much the best fork on the market. Why wouldn’t KTM have switched by now if year in and year out that is their major downfall? On a sidebar, the air forks are garbage too, its just recycled technology that didn’t work the first time around either.
motorambler
Because Stefan Pierer doesn’t own KYB, he owns WP.
Dan
Well now I know.
motorambler
Jimmy,
Would you take this new 250 XC-F over the Sherco 300SEF if all you were riding was extremely technical mostly 2nd gear rocky rooty trails?
Jimmy Lewis
I have not ridden the Sherco so I can’t comment on that.
mel22b
Great info and love the bike. I have to ask about seat height since I am a smaller guy. KTM has it at 992mm on their website and here its 960mm, do you know which it is?
Jimmy Lewis
They often have some errors in the press info or on the web site. I believe it is 960mm.
Jimmy Lewis
The new KTM 350XC-F is notably lighter feeling due to the reduced weight and mostly the new chassis. That said any time you add power to a bike it seems to add weight feel. Even on a bike where the architecture of the engines (250 and 350cc KTMs) is so similar. Same thing happens in big bore kits and can be felt in back-to-back riding. There is more mass in motion inside going up and down or spinning and this is what creates this feeling.
Jimmy Lewis
The SX is 1.9 and the XC is 2.5, claimed.
Brandon Calhoun
I just bought a ’16 250xcf last week and raced it the next day. The forks started out feeling ok, then seemed to get harsher as the day went on. What sag numbers did you test the bike at and what (if any) clicker adjustments to the forks? Thanks
Jimmy Lewis
We were in the 100mm range for the sag. It seems the bike is pretty particular but this was not a test bike, just a one-day impression so we did not really fiddle with it that much. Yet the thing about the 4CS fork is that the adjusters need to be looked at a little like ride height (mid and high-speed) adjustment more than traditional low speed compression. So in stiffing the compression and rebound you are actually getting the fork to ride a little higher in the stroke and most of the time this will make it act softer and less harsh. Right up to the point that the stiffer valving kicks in too strongly at the higher-speed hits (usually this has been 5-8 clicks from standard). Another thing we have tried is running negative pressure in the fork chamber by bleeding the air from the fork with it compressed 1-3 inches in the stroke. Both of these things will work but it is a game of playing around to find the right setting.
Rob
I’m very interested in the discussion on how light and agile the ’16 250XCF feels – I bought a ’16 recently and I totally agree. But I’m finding myself wanting more power… I ride rocky, steep Colorado mountain trails – i am 145 pounds (for what it’s worth). I came across a 2014 450sx that has been outfitted for trails with electric start, off-road specific set up with re-valved suspension, etc. The weight difference is only 13 pounds, but… is this bike going to feel like a tank in comparison to the ’16 250XCF?
Jimmy Lewis
Short answer is yes. The power and the inertial weight inside the motor make a difference that will make 13 pounds feel like 30. And watch out for the gearing on that for off-road, the tall first gear could give you fits in technical riding.
Rob
I have a 2016 KTM 250XCF and i agree, it is very agile and light feeling. Yet a 450 is only 13 pound more. I’m feeling like I need more power but other 450’s that i ride feel like tanks in comparison to my 250- they just want to go straight! Is there really a big difference in how light and agile the bike feels going from the 250 to the 450?
Jimmy Lewis
Yes, the power and spinning things in the engine add mass feeling. Remember, there is a 350 that fits right in the middle!
Michael Merkley
I have a question regarding the 250 XC-F vs the XCF-W. Im looking at buying my first bike and was curious which you think would be a better bike for me starting off? It seems the W is a bit more plush feeling but eventually I would like to do some desert racing for fun. Thoughts?
Jimmy Lewis
The W is a more friendly bike and can be raced just fine.
Jon W
I can get a pretty good deal on a new 2016 250 SXF at my dealer. I’m wondering your opinion on the SXF vs the XCF for offroad. I live in high desert. I do not ride moto. My first concern is the 5 speed vs the six in the XCF. I’d get the suspension revalved for my size and riding area. Any thoughts to share?
Jimmy Lewis
The transmission will only be an issue if you need a lot of range between first and fifth. Otherwise you can usually gear it for your needs.
Jimmy Lewis
Do you have the switch to change the ignition curve? If so it the wheel in the air box set to change it to the aggressive map?
For the handling, where is your ride height set at?
Chad
No I don’t have the switch I was told the 250 xc-f don’t have them I never adjusted the sag still how the bike was set I did play around with compression and dampening on forks didn’t help any .
Jimmy Lewis
They have the option for them then, it is a KTM HardParts item and will help getting you the hit you are looking for.
You should watch a YouTube video on how to set the sag. It is the single most important adjustment in setting up a bike and nothing else in the handling or suspension area matter till you have the ride height where it should be. I’m betting you will find you are way out of range. Get it close and the bike will start working better.