2010 Yamaha TW 200 vs 2009 Honda CRF 250X
Full specifications comparison •
2 motorcycles
Full Specifications
Differs
Same
| General |
| Colours | White/Red | Red |
| Dimensions |
| Ground Clearance (in.) | 10.4 inches | 13.4 inches |
| Ground Clearance (mm) | 264 mm | 340 mm |
| Seat Height | 790 mm / 31.1 in. | 958 mm / 37.7 in. |
| Wheelbase | 1,326 mm / 52.2 in. | 1,481 mm / 58.3 in. |
| Height | 1,120 mm / 44.1 in. | - |
| Length | 2,090 mm / 82.3 in. | - |
| Width | 820 mm / 32.3 in. | - |
| Weights & Capacities |
| Fuel Capacity | 6.81 litres / 1.80 gallons | 7.19 litres / 1.90 gallons |
| Wet Weight | 126.6 kg / 279.0 lbs | 114.8 kg / 253.0 lbs |
| Engine |
| Bore x Stroke (in,) | 2.6 x 2.2 inches | 3.1 x 2.1 inches |
| Bore x Stroke (mm) | 67.0 x 55.7 mm | 78.0 x 52.2 mm |
| CO2 | 69.8 CO | - |
| Displacement (cc) | 196.00 cc | 249.00 cc |
| Displacement (ci) | 11.96 cubic inches | 15.19 cubic inches |
| Engine Type | Single cylinder, four-stroke | Single cylinder |
| Fuel Control | SOHC | SOHC |
| Stroke | - | 4 |
| Fuel System | Carburettor. Mikuni® 28mm | Carburettor. 37mm Keihin flat-slide |
| Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 12.9:1 |
| Fuel Consumption | 3.01 litres/100 km (33.2 km/l or 78.15 mpg) | - |
| Ignition | CDI | CD |
| Starter | Electric | - |
| Drivetrain |
| Clutch | Multiple-disc wet clutch | - |
| Final Drive | Chain | Chain |
| Gearbox | 5-speed | 5-speed |
| Chassis |
| Suspension - Front | Telescopic fork | 47.0mm inverted Showa cartridge fork with 16-position rebound and 16-position compression damping adjustability |
| Suspension - Rear | Single shock | Pro-Link Showa single-shock with spring preload, 13-position [low-speed] and 3.5-turn [high-speed] compression damping and 17-position rebound damping adjustability |
| Rake | - | 27.5° |
| Trail | - | 118 mm / 4.6 in. |
| Wheel Travel - Front | 160 mm / 6.3 in. | 315 mm / 12.4 in. |
| Wheel Travel - Rear | 150 mm / 5.9 in. | 315 mm / 12.4 in. |
| Wheels & Brakes |
| Brakes - Front Diameter (mm) | 220 mm | - |
| Brakes - Front Diameter (in.) | 8.7 inches | - |
| Brakes - Rear Diameter (mm) | 110 mm | - |
| Brakes - Rear Diameter (in.) | 4.3 inches | - |
| Brakes - Front | Single disc | Double disc |
| Brakes - Rear | Expanding brake (drum brake) | Single disc |
| Tyres - Front | 130/80-18 | 80/21-21 |
| Tyres - Rear | 180/80-14 | 100/18-18 |
Verdict
🏆
Winner on specs
2009 Honda CRF 250X
The 2009 Honda CRF 250X edges out the 2010 Yamaha TW 200 thanks to its dual front discs, greater ground clearance, higher rear wheel travel and higher front wheel travel. Specifications are one part of the picture - dealer support, parts availability, and intended use all matter too.
Key Differences
2010 Yamaha TW 200 - Advantages
- 📏Lower seat height: 790 mm vs 958 mm - accessible to a wider range of rider heights.
2009 Honda CRF 250X - Advantages
- 💿Dual front discs: Greater stopping power and better heat management under hard braking.
- 🏔️More ground clearance: 340 mm vs 264 mm - better clearance over rocks and obstacles.
- 🔄More rear wheel travel: 315 mm vs 150 mm - absorbs bigger hits and rough terrain better.
- 🔄More front wheel travel: 315 mm vs 160 mm - greater compliance over rough surfaces.
2010 Yamaha TW 200 vs 2009 Honda CRF 250X - FAQs
What are the engine differences between the 2010 Yamaha TW 200 and 2009 Honda CRF 250X?
The 2010 Yamaha TW 200 uses Single cylinder, four-stroke, while the 2009 Honda CRF 250X is powered by Single cylinder.
Which bike is better for shorter riders, the 2010 Yamaha TW 200 or the 2009 Honda CRF 250X?
The 2010 Yamaha TW 200 has the lower seat at 790 mm, making it more accessible. The 2009 Honda CRF 250X sits higher at 958 mm. A seat height below 800 mm suits most riders; above 820 mm shorter riders may need to tiptoe.
Which should I buy, the 2010 Yamaha TW 200 or the 2009 Honda CRF 250X?
Both are strong choices. The 2010 Yamaha TW 200 has the edge in lower seat height, while the 2009 Honda CRF 250X stands out for dual front discs and greater ground clearance. Visit dealers, arrange test rides, and factor in local parts and service costs - these often matter as much as the spec sheet.