A KTM640 SM as an upgrade to KL650?

Hey guys,

Come November, it will be time to get rid of my 2009 KLR650 and uprgrade to a faster bike. I ride everywhere, almost daily - though I haven't gone on a big adventure on my own continent as I originally thought I would.

I am mainly motivated by economical fun - I want a quick, fun bike with low on-going costs. Because registration here is about $700 per year, I can only own a single motorcycle. For this reason, the 600-800cc class of thumpers appears to be what I am looking for, with the 400s being either too slow (DRZ) or too costly to buy/service (SMR449, SXV, etc).

I currently own a 2009 KLR650 which I bought with a ton of extras, including a bash plate, crash bars, handguards, 705cc big bore kit, Ricor intimators, Ricor rear shock w/ Eibach springs. I thought this would be a great way to get into offroading as well as learning good street-skills, however the bike is just too heavy to have any crazy fun off or on-road without serious risk.

I'm sure it can keep a fast pace by picking good lines and driving strategically, but I can't seem to find a safe (large enough) area to practice powerslides and push it to the limit, and I don't think I could lift the front wheel (can't wind the throttle fast enough) when I actually need to. I've never even seen the point in putting proper knobbies on, as the limiting factor seems to be the weight of the bike and the high COG, combined with power too delayed/low to let me find traction with the bike leaned over offroad, without feeling like I'll lowside.

It could be possible that I'm doing it wrong, however I've pushed this bike somewhat hard in low traction road conditions and found that it feels like trying to steer an elephant on a skateboard. The margin of error in low-traction situations just seems way too small for anyone to actually seek them out! My gut tells me that this bike cannot give me what I want.

I was looking at purchasing a second-hand f800GS, but have decided it would be equally useless as a KLR650. Sure it's more powerful and more complicated, but based on the design and weight, it seems like a prestige version of the KLR650, rather than a bike that can do qualitatively different things. A F658 seems like a better choice, but it doesn't seem like a bike I'd want to push to the limit.

This drew my attention to the second choice, a KTM690. Even on the used market these are still ridiculously expensive. The LC4 can be had at great prices however, and is still about 40kg lighter than my KLR, and probably puts out 15HP more to the rear wheel. Given the market, I'd probably make money swapping over to the LC4.

I've decided that a motard 640 would be a better bet than an enduro as a step up from a KLR650. The motard wheels will let me try technical stuff at lowish speeds on the tarmac, and the weight and COG will probably still make it more competent (and definitely more fun) than the KLR650 on trails with SM wheels. If the SM wheels don't deliver, research tells me I can fit a 17" knobby or semi knobbed tyre to the front if I ever really needed to. It seems like the low traction of the SM tyre would also assist me in developing offroad skills, like finding the balance points of my motorcycle.

While I'd ideally have two sets of wheels for the LC4, there's no guarantee I can find 'tard wheels included in the package. I really want something that is fun to take anywhere, while being pretty focussed/hardcore in allowing me to push the limits reasonably safely while having a blast and becoming a better rider.

I'm seeking educated opinions with respect to my choice of a KTM 640 Supermoto (if I can't get 2 wheel sets). I completely disagree that choosing a bike is a "matter of the heart" as the emotional asshats seem to enjoy repeating, unaware that they are attracted to an image fed to them by marketers and wondering why they feel they need a new motorcycle every year, without approaching the capabilities of any bike.

Anyway, in summation I'm thinking an LC4 supermoto for the following reasons:
1. Low purchase cost
2. Good longevity
3. Fun at lowish speeds (under 64mph, I don't want to be caught breaking the law)
4. Decent offroad. Fun on trails even if a little sketchy.
5. Good power and light enough to slide around and loft the front
6. Lowish fuel consumption
7. Practical enough that I can use it as my primary source of transport

Is my appraisal of the KLR650 valid? Do I just need more practice in a controlled environment?

Thanks for reading, and I'm grateful for any constructive input.

My two cents. I've owned multiple endures in my lifetime. Loved them all, but each does have its own characteristics.
- While the KLR will never act like a MX bike it will behave with aggressive knobbies. Way more so than you'd think. However the knobbies are crap on pavement.
- The SM is totally awesome, in all regards, except for off roading. Those are street tires, meant for the street. The little knobbies you can put on the 17" wheel helps, but forget hit the dirt hard.
You've got to decide, street or dirt.

Thanks for your reply.

I appreciate what you're saying, but it's really about finding the best point on the sliding scale of Street <----> Dirt. The KTM seems to be more competent generally because it's lighter and more powerful - attributes which are important offroad as well as on tight tarmac and during motogymkhana-type activity.

I know for sure that I will probably never be bothered changing the tyres to suit the terrain while using a bike as a commuter. If I had another set of wheels, I'd probably do it occasionally however. If I'm only doing street, fireroads and dry-trails (no deep sand or mud, and only recreationally), it seems like I'll have a lot more fun with 17"s rather than a 21" knobby - though I am surprised that you imply a KLR with a 21" knobby will do better than a 640 with a 17" knobby.

I've watched a lot of Youtube videos and I haven't ever really seen a KLR rider go faster than an enduro-derived supermoto offroad. I've seen a KLR rider drive fast offroad once, and that was pretty much in a straight line. If I look at videos of the KTM, I see people jumping, sliding and climbing, even though it's a comparatively dated bike next to the 690. This is all something I've never seen the KLR do unless it has a clear line, even surface and enough momentum.

I have a 1st gen KLR. Love it. An absolutely faithful, trouble free bike.

It's ugly.
It's heavy.
It's under powered.

It SUCKS in the sand It will go places that most people claim the bike "wasn't meant to go". I have been thru a few of those places.

I LOL'd when I read your thread title. Of course the KTM is an upgrade! (But I'd take a KLR with proper knobs in sand over any SM with a 17" front, no matter the tread design)

BUT, I have seen plenty of guys ride SMs of all types on dry, hard packed dirt and gravel with street biased tires. I think it would be ok.

Oh...My pig has caught air many times :) After I completely compressed the suspension upon landing twice in a row, I figured I better slow down before I broke the bike or myself

I'm looking at a 1998 enduro with relatively low miles. Is there anything I should look out for when I inspect?

Does the 1998 perform worse in any appreciable way? Bikez.com doesn't have reliable information.

Does it make less power than the 2003+ LC4? Does it weight more?

EDIT: The bike is pretty much the same from 1998 --> 2007. Differences are small or cosmetic

Here's a potential solution; move to QLD where it's $240/year to register a bike, buy two bikes and you'll still be a couple of hundred better off...
Seriously though, you put forward a solid argument for a KTM640. But here's the sticking points I think:

You say you've never ridden the KLR with knobbies right? You would be amazed how much more confident on the dirt you'll find the bike, it is literally like riding another different bike.
I went from the Trailwings on my DR to D606's and could confidently rail gravel corners without a worry. Shit, a set of 606's of MT21's is $200 fitted and balanced, you might as well give it a go before you piss the KLR off.

I think that you'll find that your KLR is more than up to the kind of dirt you'll be riding,at least that what comes across in your post. Yes, it is heavy and underpowered, so why would you hamstring it even more by not at least fitting dirt-orientated tyres?

PS, knobbies are fine on the tar, I chicken out well before the tyres run out of grip. Just don't ride like a fuckwit in the rain and you're golden.

Let's compare your KLR to your checklist:

1. Low purchase cost
KLR is obviously by far the best option, since you have already bought it!

2. Good longevity
Many well known high mileage KLR engines have been reported in the US

3. Fun at lowish speeds (under 64mph, I don't want to be caught breaking the law)
I enjoy my DR at these speeds, and it certainly hasn't been overbored like you KLR

4. Decent offroad. Fun on trails even if a little sketchy.
A set of knobbies will set you back $200 but will give you so much more confidence.

5. Good power and light enough to slide around and loft the front.
A 16 year old thumper might not be exactly pulling the glossy mag hp, but it will certainly be light than the KLR, that's a given.

6. Lowish fuel consumption
Ahhhh...no? Should be about the same as your KLR. Runs the same carb that's on my DR I believe, so should get around the 15-20km/L? I'd be happy bo be corrected by KTM 640SM owners though.

7. Practical enough that I can use it as my primary source of transport
Again, the KLR would seem to be the epitome of a comfortable transport bike. It even comes with a big fuck-off fairing.

Finally, the KTM 640's are fairly old now and although I am sure that they are mechanically reliable etc if it does come down to getting something fixed, I would assume the KLR spare parts would be significantly easier to get. Mainly because a) it's incredibly popular in comparison and b) it's been around for like 20 years and is still getting sold in basically every market.

Oh and while a KTM640 would be awesome for dirt riding, don't forget that the SM version on most bikes (such as the DRZ400 SM) usually have a reduced suspension travel and 17" wheels, which do decrease the dirt-worthiness of the bike. They can go anywhere, but really if you're getting to the point of selling your KLR to get a better dirt bike, don't half arse it, get a proper dirt bike.

In conclusion, I would stick to the KLR. It's not as powerful or light, but it is by far the cheapest option and ticks most of your boxes. Normally I would say 'if you want the KTM, then fuck it, get the KTM' but you did say that passion should be ignored this time round, and instead focus on the facts. And the facts are saying 'the KLR is fine'.

Good luck with the search, I'll keep an eye on this thread and I hope you come to a happy decision.

no matter what kinda tires, 17" ain't gonna work in real dirt..... there's a reason for 18"/21"......

The 1998 I am looking at was originally an enduro has a set of dirt/enduro and SM wheels. For most of the years the enduro and supermoto versions have the same suspension. The supermoto has a 4 piston front brake vs the enduro's 2, and the supermoto has a cush drive. I think these are the main differences.

Fuel economy is slightly better (roughly equivalent_ with the KTM 640, and I don't want to worry about losing traction and lowsiding in the wet with knobs (has happened once with DS tyres at a harmless speed while I was new to the bike and was making a sharp turn).

I think the main thing is that I'd never permanently have knobbies on the KLR. Too much unnecessary tyre wear and trouble for the street where I'll be riding 90% of the time anyway, at least to start with. I'll be rocking dualsport tyres on the SM rims rather than slick tyres. Probably full knobs on the second wheel set.

Ultimately, I bought the KLR because my license was subject to a restriction, and would have gotten something with a little more snap if this wasn't the case. I don't see myself ever building up the skill to wheelie the front wheel over small obstacles offroad, and I think the combined lightness and power of the KTM will let me develop my skills in a more predictable way.

I'd probably make a small of money on the trades and the bike I'm looking at has less km on the clock than my current KLR.

If I'm getting two sets of rims, the only issues are maintenance which I generally do myself when able, and whether there is something which might be more appropriate than the KTM.

I don't think I'll be pissed off with the switch to be honest, unless I end up sinking money into the KTM for maintenance. Generally it seems that the LC4 engine hasn't given people too many headaches at high kilometres.

Thanks for your post.

Ok,

I've got a deposit down on a 2005 625sxc with about 26,000km on the clock for a fair price (for the Australian market, people from the U.S will laugh). Luckily it comes with an 18l tank and a bashplate, and a rear cush-drive hub, which is about all it seems to need.

I think it will be a great bike, the specs aren't really that far off the 690 Enduro.

I've been looking into supermoto wheels for it. The KTM spoked wheel sets are prohibitively expensive, and going the secondhand cast-wheel route might mean that I end up blowing my limited disposable income on something that wont fit.

I was going to think about whether I really want another wheelset over the course of 6 months, but then I saw someone selling unused rims, tyres and tubes for $200 shipped. The tyres are new, taken from a new motard. This means the rims are also likely to be decent quality.

The 640 Enduro/Adventure models have 36 spoke hubs on the front and 36 on the front.

Will this be a problem if the rims I am looking to buy are for 36 spokes on the front and 32 spokes on the rear?

Thanks for reading.

I havent ridden a KLR650, but I have a 600, and also a 2000 LC4 enduro.

I think you are in for quite an upgrade when you get on your 625

that model has the Keihin flatslide carb doesn't it?

I would say just get used to it on the 18/21 to start with, you might find you dont even want to supermoto it, my 640 on worn out bridgestones has way more grip on tarmac than I have the bottle to use.

wide open throttle on an LC4 motor is quite an experience, mine doesnt even have a tacho they were so confident we wouldnt be red-lining them all that often..

edit. so it looks sort of like this then? http://www.advrider.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16585139&postcount=131

edit edit. i missed this..

this is easily possible on my 600 but takes more skill, with the KTM you just cruise up to it, blip the throttle (standing up, obviously) and youre over.. it makes it easy for you, like MX bikes do. However I would say that if you are new enough to riding to not be confident of small obstacles on the KLR, then you want to take a good amount of time to get used to the KTM before starting with tricks, because things can go wrong horribly fast on them.

I agree that a healthy respect is needed with respect to this power-weight ratio. While the KLR won't jump out from under you, I've found the sheer heft and lack of braking power of the KLR can make it dangerous when ridden fast. My understanding of the XR600 is that it has about 6HP on the KLR (stock) and weighs almost 40KG LESS! (nearly 90lb). I wouldn't compare your athletic XR600 to my whale of a KLR! I need to nail everything perfectly and rev the crap out of the KLR just to loft the front wheel, and even then it only comes up a few inches before I run out of space. Way too difficult to be useful, let alone offroad!.

Consider that it weighs about 177kg dry. With 22kg fuel, 7kg of crash bars 3 kilos of bash plate, and a topbox with basic tools at the very least, that's about 214kg all up. In terms of danger, I'm more worried about this weight falling on me then I am about the power of the KTM. If the KLR slips off-road and the crash bar falls on my shinbone , it will almost certainly snap.


FCR!!! Haha yes! NO THROTTLE LAG. It felt amazing, but not overwhelming. I went down a deep ravine of egg-sized rocks during my test ride. Trying to get back up on the KLR would have been like trying to claw my way out from a pit of hell.

While the rear of the sxc slid around a tiny bit looking for traction, it was easy to climb back out (dualsport tyres). I now feel lied to by the people say the KLR can do everything. It can't. The KLR is fine for cruising, but it suffers from throttle lag and low power-to-weight. After squeezing the front brake on the KTM, the KLR brake seems outright dangerous.

I'm more interested in motard wheels for flickability and learning 'tricks' rather than grip, but I will probably take at least 6 months before I make any decisions regarding wheel swaps. Learning to lace my existing hubs seems like a very cheap and easy way to convert it, but having a lighter bike probably means I'm not going to need to hang off the side to push it into the twisties.

Hopefully I can keep this bike for a long time without needing serious engine work.

that is a nice bike amigo.. first thing I would be doing (money no object) is a set of Continental TKC 80s and you would be set for all terrains and all tricks.

and sorry if I wasnt clear, my 600 is a KLR600, but still lighter than your 650, no doubt. power to weight ratio probably about the same.

ps.. I personally still find the LC4 pretty overwhelming in 3rd and 4th gear and I only have the BST carb :eek1

my 640 actually doesnt have as good tyres as my project KLR now (TKC 80 rear, MX front) and you can hardly touch the throttle without fishtailing on dirt, as you say, its ok, the bike comes back to you, but it took me a while to get used to and confident of that..

and then given that they dont want to run anything like acceptably smoothly (in the loosest possible sense of the word) below 2800rpm and are really only happiest at wide open throttle, you (I) often end up very grateful for the excellent suspension and brakes to get me out of it.

tricks wise you dont need a supermoto, that can do everything you want to pretty much right now I would bet.

have fun, try and remember to ride it like you just bought it, rather than just stole it for a while

edit, speaking of tricks, here's a few on a 620

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4CwqynYPA8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7QxOBZwnYc

Haha thanks Kevsta. It's an exciting time.

I suppose the aggressiveness in the dirt can be compensated for by re-gearing the bike, and always staying in a lower gear than normal. I never left 1st offroad, I found 2nd gear to be uselessly tall offroad, which is exactly what others have reported. Given that I'll rarely be on 100kph, I might go up to 45 teeth on the rear. We shall see.

Ah the 620 Supercomp. I saw those videos while I was deciding on what should replace my KLR650. The attraction of the motard is being able to mess around in industrial blocks at midnight hour. Trails aren't too far away for me, but it's still about 200km there and back.

before you spend lots of money, put some real tires on the klr, then ride it side by side with a 640 and see. I have most of the same mods (Gen I) and tell the truth... when I did it, it wasn't different enough to make me want to switch. my friend with the 640 Adv agreed. mebby the SM is lighter, etc.... no experience with that one. the 690 however.... now thats a whole different deal.

also, I have 2 sets of wheels, but you can get by with just a spare rear & leave a good knobby on the front.

I'm not keeping both bikes. That's just about the most uneconomical thing I could do.

The KLR will be listed for sale and de-registered as soon as I get the 625. I'll wait several months after getting the 625 before I even consider relacing the hubs. I'll wait until the tyres are gone at the very least.

I test rode that bike in January this year and nearly bought it.

I bought a late 90s 640 Enduro with nearly double the mileage instead. It came with a fair few spares, steering damper, big tank, rack and motard wheels. I've since done quite a bit to it. Sorted some old junky wiring, built a better rack which is more compact, lighter and more solidly mounted, fitted an FCR-MX 39 and a different exhaust.

Mine is an absolute riot with the motard wheels and would be no good at all for my preferred off road riding with them fitted.

After all I've done I kinda wish I'd bought that 625 now. Mine was less to buy initially but sourcing a set of motard wheels would have nearly been covered by the extra I've spent elsewhere.

You also beat a mate of mine to it by hours. He'd been deliberating about the bike when it was listed a few weeks back but then it disappeared from bikesales. It reappeared and he spoke to the owner about an hour after you'd come back to buy it on the weekend.

That's eerie.

I was also looking at a late 90's 640 with cast motard wheels. I didn't really trust the odometer, and it was pretty rough. Too many things made me feel uncomfortable with buying it.

How has your 640 been MacMan? Has it needed any engine work? What does your motard setup look like, and how worthwhile would you say it's been?

Guess it's too late now, but a KLR with a set of Karoos or 606 Dunlops will go anywhere you want to go on a dualsport bike. They also require one hell of a lot less maintenance than an LC4 KTM.

KTM will bring the thrills a lot more readily, but there's nought wrong with a well-ridden KLR.

Nobody ever wants to hear it, but riding skills are about the best investment you can make on any motorcycle.

The later Adventures with the 48 mm forks have different front wheels to the Enduro, including a second brake disk. The difference in holes vs spokes sounds like a problem to me. Also, at least the later Adventure front wheels are Euro-indexed (spokes right-cross??) whereas the rears and the other bikes' fronts are Jap-indexed (spokes cross the other way) so the hub holes will be facing the wrong direction.

This kind of swap will require careful inspection and/or professional advice. Try Woody's Wheels, they know all about this stuff and are very helpful.

Codswallop.