Page 1 of 3

front fork question

Posted: 12:02 pm Aug 15 2010
by kdxmaniac
how good is the 93 kdx forks{the upside down blue forks} would it be worth putting 93 trees and forks on my 96? what years 500 works..............................any opinions....


93 forks and trees?
fork springs for mine?
kx conversion?
kx 500 forks?

to many options! i dont know what direction to go......
if i go with 500 forks, will all my parts work? can i just put the forks on, or do i have to change anything?

Posted: 05:58 am Aug 16 2010
by Julien D
any year 500, but you need the complete front end. Skip the KDX USDs. Basically the ame internals as your current forks, just flipped around. KX125 would be best if you can find a good deal on them.

check the fork conversion forum for many different methods.

Posted: 11:44 am Aug 18 2010
by kdxmaniac
what would i need to put kx125 forks on.......... i need to know everything, and what years to look for........so i can just put all of it on and go.......i have read alot on the fork conversion section.....but i cant understand it all, waayy to many options.

inda..........if you need to move this to the fork section........i understand.....i guess thats where i should have put it in the first place. :oops:

Posted: 07:18 pm Oct 09 2010
by kdxmaniac
did my conversion today.........i bought a whole kx250, robbed everything off it, and bolted the frontend on my kdx! i got one question tho........ whats the difference in kx250 forks, and kx500 forks........... i have read that the 250 are to stiff for woods? just curious>>>>>

Posted: 07:31 am Oct 10 2010
by KDXsg
are you pretending that you dont know? how can you bolt everything up and still dont know? i am amazed..

Posted: 07:38 am Oct 10 2010
by kdxmaniac
well...........whats the difference, big boy!..................be amazed... i have read on here that the 500 forks bolt right up.......nooooo, wait.......oh yea! you need the wheel, forks, triple clamps......thats the same thing i needed for the kx250 swap! tell me no-it-all......... whats the difference in the 2? like valveing, inverted, conventional, steering race bearing size, axel, brake caliper, brake braket, brake line, ect,...... what the hell is the spacer everyone needs for?

Posted: 07:50 pm Oct 10 2010
by kdxmaniac
does every kx frontend set higher on the 200? or is it just my imagination? seems to handle good like this, but i cant tell if its the height, or just the forks :cool:

Posted: 11:50 am Oct 11 2010
by Slick_Nick
Hope those forks don't come flying off without the spacer.

Posted: 01:27 pm Oct 11 2010
by bmiller
Are you talking about the wheel spacer? The forks won't come flying off without the wheel spacer, however, the wheel will wobble like a motherf***er.

Posted: 05:27 pm Oct 11 2010
by Slick_Nick
I think we're talking abotu the top hat spacer on the stem.

Posted: 08:24 pm Oct 11 2010
by kdxmaniac
i used 91 forks{rebuilt}......... everything is the same from a 91 kx as my 96 kdx{as for bolting the trees up}..... the bearings are the same, the stem is the same size and height......... i used the whole front end.. wheel, brake caliper, brake line, and took the the frontend and bolted it right up.... no spacer needed. the neck on the frames even measure the same lenght.

Posted: 07:39 am Oct 12 2010
by Varmint
Are the 91s from a KX250 even worth putting on a 96 KDX? Most people opt to put a newer set of KX125s on. Hence, all the talk about spacers and such since new KX forks do not just bolt right on.

Posted: 09:09 am Oct 12 2010
by Tedh98
>|<>QBB<
Varmint wrote:Are the 91s from a KX250 even worth putting on a 96 KDX?
I wouldn't think so.

Posted: 11:16 am Oct 12 2010
by kdxmaniac
>|<>QBB<[quote="Varmint"]Are the 91s from a KX250 even worth putting on a 96 KDX?


why do you ask? is something wrong with this modle fork?

Posted: 11:38 am Oct 12 2010
by Indawoods
91 technology... same as the KDX forks... no gain.

Posted: 01:11 pm Oct 12 2010
by Mr. Wibbens
dummazz

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Posted: 06:55 pm Oct 12 2010
by kdxmaniac
>|<>QBB<
Indawoods wrote:91 technology... same as the KDX forks... no gain.

how are they the same? the kx are bigger, and inverted, and valved different....... my kdx forks sucked! i am 200lbs, and they would bottom on about everything...... with the kx forks, the bike handles good, and dosent bottom now........plus i only gave $300 for the complete kx250 bike..running. swaped the forks, and have a complete bike.....like i said, all for $300. i really dont see where i went wrong. im not going to put $600 in a fork swap, when i have 5 other bikes to ride.

Posted: 07:15 pm Oct 12 2010
by Indawoods
So... your saying you have rebound and compression settings?
The fork tubes are bigger than 43mm?
You have no undehang?

Same as the KDX... sorry.

We have discussed this to death... If your going to do the conversion... you should be using 96 and up KX forks to gain from the technology.

Posted: 07:38 pm Oct 12 2010
by kdxmaniac
yes, they do have rebound and compression settings.....aint that what the swews are for in the top that says "h..s." and in the bottom that says "h..s."???....... they are 43mm.......... and laugh if you must...but what is underhang???

Posted: 07:43 pm Oct 12 2010
by Indawoods
43mm is what the KDX forks are.

I never heard of 91 KX forks having both adjustment.

Underhang is what is hanging below the axle....