How capable is the RX3 for highway riding?
 

The highway is not my favorite, but sometimes it's the best option. How capable is this bike to haul around a 230lb man and all his gear on the superslab for hours on end? I'm not worried about the motor exploding or anything. From what I've read the bike can handle it. What's the *experience* like? Can you compare it to other motorcycles perhaps?

Probably the closest things I've ridden to the RX3 are the CX500, TW200, and EX250 Ninja. The Ninja would cruise at 80mph all day, two up, and have plenty of power for passing. I saw north of 107mph in a full tuck, and I still had a gear left. (I needed to gear it lower, because top speed was achieved in 5th, it didn't have the power to accelerate in 6th). This bike was very relaxing and easy to ride on the highway. It was smooth and silky and refined.

The TW200 couldn't get out of its own way on the highway. 70mph downhill with a tailwind. 65mph on level ground. Struggling to maintain 62mph going uphill. Not ideal. Basically it was all I could do to maintain 65mph with all the headwinds and hill. It was EXHAUSTING to ride on the highway, felt like I got roughed up by a bouncer and thrown out on my arse. But it was also absolutely a pleasure around town and on any kind of little trail. It'd go anywhere and if it got stuck I'd just pick it up and keep on trucking.

The CX500 spins a lot of RPM to maintain any speed, really. 80mph and it sounds like you're hauling ass, engine is really spinning hard. But it'll happily do that for 8 hours straight, and then start right up ready to go again. Redline was 9500rpm, which equated to 100mph. You could eke 105mph out of it before the valves started to float. It's a little tiring to ride on the highway, but it's not terrible. The bike is not refined, but it's not beating me up either. It's not intimidating, and is capable on gravel and dirt roads. (Places I'd never feel comfortable with the ninja).

Now that you've got an idea what I've ridden and how I feel riding it, how do oyu think the RX3 stacks up? Thanks!

Charles.

Given your size I suggest gearing down a bit, freeway or not.
Stock is 14/44 and with a rider of <165 lbs it usually will hit/exceed redline in 6th (level ground, no headwind) which is about 84 mph.

For you it might be wise to put a 46 on the rear which will still allow the bike to exceed 75 mph and do it in 6th. More drastic change can then be done dropping to 13 up front which will really drop your tip speed, but acceleration will be much better. Joe Martin used (I think) 13/45 but he has a lower parasitic power draw factor than you, both mass and area.

Get your hands on 5000 miles at 8000 rpm. Seriously. You will learn so much.

Im about your weight and honestly I sold mine. The bike has no passing power, gasps up hill to maintain highway speed and is tach'd out the entire time at 72 mph which is the actual top speed.

agree with previous post. these bikes are just too small for highways. back roads and off roads where you can live in the 60 or less range will be much nicer to tour on.

Much better on dirt roads than the Ninja. Much better on the highway than the TW. I've done SS1000s and BB1500s on both, and the RX3 is clearly superior to either for long distance highways, but the RX3 is not a coast-to-coast road burner. The TW is slower by about 15mph at all things, is not nearly as comfortable (especially with the thick seat from CSC on the RX3). On the other hand, the Ninja is also a terrible choice for long highway rides because the ergos are closer to appropriate for racing rather than touring--the Ninja kills my back and hands--just does not fit me. But, the Ninja is 15mph faster.

The RX3 is not a crotch rocket, nor a mud hog. It is between the two in all things. The RX3 does quite well at a much wider range of things than the other two, but foregoes excellence at a small number of extremes at which one of the other two are excellent.

Now, any 250 with 25hp is going to be cammy. The RX3 is no different. No 5000rpm powerband like a TW with half the horsepower. However, the powerband becomes stronger and noticeably wider as miles accumulate. The RX3 mirrors the Ninja in output until it runs out of RPM, the Ninja's twin allowing a bit more spin, hence, more top end. The RX3's ergos and accessories limit top end--I expect it's engine would give the
Ninja a tight, fun race if similarly set up in a more aerodynamic frame with matching bodywork.

Also, the RX3 has that 6th gear for which TW riders yearn, ratios closing as road speed increases, like a good road bike when it comes to downshifting for a hill or pass or headwind, necessary with all 250s at 70mph. Don't worry about the complaints of narrow powerband--if you've rowed a Ninja 250 gearbox effectively the RX3 is no different, and one of the smoothest shifting transmissions I've ever had.

However, as mentioned above, the final drive ratio is a bit too high for chubby people, especially when combined with the aerodynamic challenges of the fairing, fenders, and luggage. That's a compromise that has to be made for the adventure role. Try loading all that will fit on an RX3 on a Ninja and compare the bikes. Pretty much the same performance, and the RX3 is a lot more comfortable on a long ride.

Also, note the RX3 suspension and brakes are a bit on the weak side compared to a Ninja on the street. However, the RX3 suspension and brakes far exceed the TW's capabilities anywhere except where that 180-80 knobby is really necessary. The TW is a lot more capable in the mud and climbing cliffs than the RX3. Build an equivalent TW for an adventure roll and those extreme offroad advantages a near stock TW enjoys over the near stock RX3 are significantly reduced unless a few $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ are spent to upgrade most every system on the TW, and you still will not have the RX3's ability to function heated gear and artificial daylight.

Avoid comparing apples and oranges, which is what people tend to do. Each of the three serves lists of purposes, and there is a bit more overlap each way with the RX3. Frankly, my modified TW adventure build is just about the same at all things as the RX3, a bit better than the RX3 here and there because the TW is built exactly to my preferences, while I expect your preferences will be different and will affect your comparison of the two. Also, the Tdub2 has three times as much money invested as a brand new RX3, delivered, and registered.

Like other say, it's ok for short runs on the open freeway @ 70 but not for the long haul. Very comfy 60 and below all day. I think many lose sight of the fact it's just a 250.

Yes, a 250 lacks the displacement to chug along a deer trail AND zoom down the highway maintaining 70mph up the hills and into winds, especially when loaded. A 250 can do one or the other, even with a significant load, but not both. The RX3 comes close, closer than anything else

Larger displacements weigh more unless assembled from exotic materials, and then the price skyrockets. It's all about compromises, and the RX3 offers significant and wide ranging capabilities little, if nothing else, offers. That's the beauty if it. If you want to chug better, get a TW. If you want to go faster, get a WR for unpaved, a Ninja for pavement. Just don't compare weights without figuring in similar accessories--the RX3 has many features other bikes don't have, and those features all have mass. No bike does everything for all people.

Cool, this all sounds great. That's a lot of really good info for me to take in. When I plan trips, I usually plan to get out of my home area pretty fast on the interstate to get some distance between me and home, and then I transition over to back roads to go wherever I'm headed. Even on my V65 Magna, I just don't love riding on the superslab and will always prefer secondary roads. I don't care that it takes longer, the beauty is the trip not the destination.

That said, if I can make a 15 mile commute on the superslab to my girlfriend's house a couple times a week, that'd be nice too. And it sounds like all of that is possible.

I love the comparisons to the ninja and the TW, that's really appreciated.

Charles.

The comparison came out better than expected. All three models have been pretty much in class by themselves. All are great bikes, each excellent in its own way. That made the thinking simple. Much more difficult to compare a DT650, a XR650, and a KLR 650.

A 15-minute WFO run will not harm a RX3. We have about the same body weight and I'd highly recommend a couple or three teeth on the wheel sprocket. You'll probably maintain or gain top end, though closer to redline but not over more often than not, under all conditions except down a 4%+ highway grade. If I lived in an area with good roads close to home I'd maybe add a couple teeth more if the grades and altitude would see benefit. Stock final drive is definitely a bit high for us chubby fellas. A taller, more aggressive dirt tire might justify a couple teeth more than the two situations above, but I don't know if such sprockets will actually fit.

Be considerate that 13-teeth countershaft sprockets do see a marked reduction in chain and sprocket set life on bikes ridden distances on highways. 14 is my personal minimum, 15 is better, but I don't see space for clearances for a 15. Neither can I make the judgement on wheel sprockets to keep the final drive ratio lower even with a 15 teeth countershaft sprocket.

In my area with lots of hills, standard gearing is the max I can go cause not enough power to pull more gearing with hills and head winds. Always down shifting to 5th. My bike does seem to be under powered a little because when riding with other RX3 on Baja or Destination trips I always seem to lack power a little on top end that others have. Going up hills or into wind, they pull away from me. Maybe I've just got more junk on my bike making more wind resistance?
Fuel filter never changed maybe a culprit also. 16400 miles on it. Have new one just need to switch it out.
I can say that when I did the 24hr iron butt 1000 on it and when I was going through the desert in 104 deg temps the motor never whimpered at all. And this was running near wide open on the throttle. My bike seems to go only so fast with throttle 9/10 of the way open and that's all its got at 70-80 mph. I cant over rev it without dropping a gear. But down in the 55-60mph range it runs all day happily.
Anyway , the bike can go all day on the freeway near full throttle as it proved on the iron butt ride. But that was not by choice as I was trying to keep up with the other guys on big Harleys and Yamahas. It will do it but not the best choice for that type of riding if that's all you do.
I don't like doing single track dirt riding with it but I think Joe Martin has proven it can do it but again , not the best choice.
I think this bike was designed to put many miles on pavement and dirt roads at 50-60mph with the occasion blast down the freeway and occasional fireroad exploration. Just my 2, rj

I don't know why CSC still advertises these bikes top speed at 85 or whatever when it's well known it's not. Rant aside the bike chugs along nicely at 70mph(~65actual) Problem is people that have to share the road with you won't appreciate you going the speed limit. I always feel rushed when on the freeway and it takes away from the enjoyment. I take side streets and back roads whenever I can.

And yet mine hits redline (sometimes above) in 6th gear on level freeway.
Stock gearing 14/44 with all original equipment on, luggage, etc.
Rider (me) at 72" and about 150-155 lbs suited for riding.

So I am doing the listed 84 mph on occasion when I don't pay attention and have to slow down. Admittedly on steeper inclines it won't break the red. But it's a moderate 250, I acknowledge that and accept that.

Jay, throw an additional 80 pounds of luggage aboard and wear a set of football shoulder pads to simulate the aerodynamics of broader shoulders of us bigger guys, then see if your bike will still do 84mph. You are the perfect size for the RX3. I'm envious.

Jay - is that per GPS or the Speedo?? My stocker can only get to 80, 81 maybe with a tailwind down hill per GPS.

I'm going by the tach reading. With stock tires and gearing then red line should be 84, yes? And it exceeds red line in 6th if I don't pay attention. Rev limiter appears to kick in about 10,500 rpm.

The bike's measurements are WAY off. That's not true speed as it the bike is not calibrated correctly (most motorcycles share this same issue). Closer calibrations if the 19" front rim/tire is put on it. The bike can do ~80 max when measured with GPS. When I did the bike review, we conducted a series of highway tests to ensure we were getting a true sense of top speed of the machine. 77 mph was able to be obtained fairly quickly (in RX3 terms) and up to 80 took a while, in a tuck and did not stay there - waivered back between 77 & 80 depending on various environmental factors.

With the 19" front wheel and OEM tire my speedo reading was within 1 mph of GPS @ 70 or so. The 18" front tire gave me at least a 10% error. I would not trust the tach to be accurate enough to translate that into mph speed. The factory does test each machine on a dyno. As I recall, the machines that do not reach 84mph are sent back for re-work. Remember, that 84 mph is on the dyno...no air drag, no wind, no hills. I think it's safe to say that the stock bike with an average rider will top out around 75 mph. Of course YMMV.

Peter Y.

Well, here's a couple that have no complaints about their RX3 on the highway.
http://californiascooterco.com/blog/?p=28042

Dug up this old thread because it has a reasonable discussion of top speeds under different circumstances. Rode I26, I40, and TN22 from Saluda NC to Midway TN, the last 6 hours in constant rain. Rolling through the mountains at first light, 96mph indicated down hill. No problem maintaining 70mph (speed of traffic on the interstate) most of the time now that the engine is broken in. Need a GPS on the bike to get accurate speeds, but I'm too uncaring about such pickiness to blow the money.

i found a used speedo dv something can't remember what it's real name is there is a thread on it but now speedo is right on was easy to install and can program for different tire and sprocket combinations SpeedoDRD that's it

SpeedoDRD. I had one on my RX3 and it was easy to make the speedo perfect. Since it requires splicing into the speedo wires, you can buy the bare wire kit from them OR any of them with a plug for any bike and just cut off the plug...It may be a way to save a few bucks. Spud put a good tutorial on how to wire in on this forum.

I use Kentucky Windage on the speedo.

Oh, guess I should mention at over 80mph with a heavy load in the bags the front end gets light once a couple gallons of fuel is used. Bad wobble. Refill the tank, no wobble, no butt pucker. I think this might be what put me in a coma for 5 days when I landed on my head at 65mph. I have installed some significantly heavier headlights (pair 4x6 45w LEDs) and will see how that does next chance I get to ride.

Got the bike to 75 ish (per GPS) with the 13t front sprocket and it really didn't do much for me down low compared to the stocker. So lost about 5 mph with the change.

Highway performance is a tricky area on all bikes that aren't designed for it. Remember, in a lot of countries outside the US it's not uncommon to see 125-250cc bikes everywhere as they're in a cost bracket most can afford; just like the US bigger bikes get considerably more expensive. In Southern Spain, you might be surprised to see midsize scooters on the freeway, usually pushing 65ish. One difference is drivers are used to this, and do not expect them to keep pace. In the US drivers can become very dysfunctional if they have to interrupt their phone usage to pass a slower vehicle. Also in many places abroad tractor trailers are restricted to 56mph/90kph so they're much less intimidating on the open road. Differential traffic speeds seem much more commonplace elsewhere. At least in my experience.


The starting point is what you consider highway capable. Average speed of traffic, average low speed, or average high speed? In theory any bike capable of the average low should be absolutely fine. Some consider this dangerous; that's a matter of judgement and experience.



What's also interesting is that I ride with several friends that have supernakeds and they hate them on the highway: Just because you have enough power to cruise at 85mph effortlessly does not necessarily mean it's at all pleasant to do so. 70 is the sweetspot before wind starts creating a fatigue problem after more than a half hour.

My Ninja 300 can cruise at 85 and has good wind protection, but I can't ride it for more than 90 minutes at a time as my legs and back start to let me know in no uncertain terms that they're not having fun. Bear in mind that there are still people that don't consider the Ninja 300 highway capable, because it can't hold a 100mph cruise. This is considered the minimum performance level for parts of Texas. I think that's insane, but I don't live there.

I have not ridden an RX3, but if you can find a torque/power curve it's almost identical to the Ninja 300 up to 9000rpm, so it performs dead-on where most 250 street bikes are, like the TU-250X (which I know pretty well). Not terribly quick, but good enough. In other words, they'll get you there.

The 300cc phenomenon has been driven by the track in Kawasaki's case, but it's also been very positive for the US market as it's allowed full interstate performance for small motorcycles. There's still going to be compromise, though. Looking at the X-300, I still don't think I would choose it over an RX3, unless it was a strict commuter, but that's my choice.

Good input, Sully. Places like Texas have long ways between stops. Hence, speed is a real time saver. Try riding across Texas at 55mph. You are looking at 13 hours drive time on the quickest routes, not counting traffic slowdowns, fuel stops, or potty breaks. Frankly, if you can't make time better have lots of it.

Worst thing on long, lonely highways are road trains. Some smaller ones, doubles and triples, can pop up almost anywhere in North America. Some longer rigs are occasionally seen in Canada and western U. S. of A. in remote areas.

Australia is worse--road trains at 160kph on gravel. Talk about getting pounded! One learns quickly when motorcycle touring rural Australia to watch for road trains, and when you see the dust rising get 50 meters away from the road and marvel at so much mass going so fast. Not unusual to see trains with 6-12 trailers. Record seekers have hooked 120+ trailers to a single mover and driven them short distances. That's a rig just shy of a mile long rolling down the highway.

So, lots of miles brings out some solutions that seem silly to people who live in places crowded with traffic and everything within a few miles of home.

80mph is my limit on the highway, less if a significant headwind. Without a windshield the wind blast wracks my neck. With a windshield can't hardly keep a bike with upright ergos heading in the right direction. Wind and turbulence from passing vehicles compromises stability. Definitely a safety issue. Doesn't seem to mater if I'm on a RX3, CB550, Nighthawk 750, or most any other bike with upright ergos. That's why I ditched the windshield on my RX3, replacing it with a flat visor held on with the stock hardware through holes drilled in the right places.

My last ride was 8 hours at 70mph, with the last 6 hours in steady rain with temps between 40* and 50*F. The RX3 was capable and confident as long as I kept her below 80mph to avoid speed wobbles. The RX3 performed well until I go bad gas. No more Shell for my little Chinese honey.

Oh, got a 300 jug and piston for my RX3 on the way. Still going up a couple teeth on the rear wheel sprocket, too. Ought to pull well out of the hole.

I put the idea of an RX3 on hold, and snagged an SSR Buccaneer 250i. On this bike I've been greatly enjoying riding on the backroads, and it will do highway travel with varying degrees of success. In medium traffic on flat roads, it's perfect. I can use cars as a wind break and easily hang out in the fast lane at 75-80mph. But on lonely interstates with only slight uphill grades, I'm doing 65-70mph flat out. If I'm running up a bigger hill I have to downshift to 4th gear, which tops out at 70 indicated (66 actual).

I *could* tour on this bike, if it were equipped with bags and a rack, but this is slightly below where I consider comfortable. Short stints on the highway aren't a problem, but I'd not really want to tour on it. At least not on the highways. But it has helped me consider what I'd need a bike to be able to do.

To be adequate, I'd need to be able to easily hold 75mph (actual) on a highway with mild hills. I'm not talking steep grades, I'm talking hills you don't even realize are hills until you're on an under-powered 250. Central NC piedmont hills. Ideally I'd like it to do 80mph, but adequate is 75mph in these conditions.

To be exceptional, it needs to be able to hold 75 up steep grades on I40 around the eastern Asheville area. I don't expect this from the RX3. I'd call it adequate and be happy if it can do 65mph up those grades. There are a lot of cars that can't manage that.

Thoughts?

Charles.

Note that as my Buccaneer broke in, it holds speed better. Also, going to a smaller rear tire (equivalent of 2 more teeth on the rear sprocket) completely changed the bike. It holds speed far more easily now, and tops out at 88mph indicated.

Charles.

You Need A Bigger Bike
 

You need to be looking at a larger class of machine, if a steady 75-80 MPH is what you want from a bike without stressing the engine or the rider. Assuming that low cost is one of your primary criteria, then one of the new Royal Enfield 650cc twins, either the Continental GT or the INT, should be on your list, if it has to be a new bike . The RX4 should do it also, but a twin would be much better at it. Otherwise, look at a used Suzuki VStrom 650 or Kawasaki Versys 650. I have the Versys, and I can vouch for the fact that it will do 75-80 all day long, with luggage, and not break a sweat. You can find low mileage, 1-2 year old Vstroms and Versys' for around $5000-$6000. Many come with luggage. Here is a 2017 Versys 650LT, with 5600 miles on it, in your neck of the woods:

https://raleigh.craigslist.org/mcd/d...858681703.html

Other used bikes to consider would be the Yamaha FZ-07 or the more touring oriented FJ-09, now known as the MT-07 and Tracer 900, respectively.

I never felt comfortable on my RX3 at sustained 70+ mph runs. The bike just didn't feel right and it was thumping the engine.... No.... Daily sustained speeds you're talking about would surely be handled better on something a bit bigger.....just an old fat mans opinion.

I've do 70 to 75 GPS bike registers 78 mph but I am running a 110/100/17/8 front and a 150/70/17 rear shinkos 705total weight is over 360 lbs two people on it flat ground no wind but I average 50 mpg only and RPM never go above 8,000 no power to pass or stong head wind won't do over 70 mph but I love my 2017 RX3 china BLUE 12,0000.0 miles trouble free

I've got a speedo corrector, before that it was reading a little more than 10% over real speed. I've got a 100/90-19 front tire. My "highway" usage is still just around town, I'd never consider a long ride on this thing. Our traffic tends to flow around 70 most of the time, and I can keep up with that easily. It will give a little more as needed. I'm also running one tooth down in front, that's almost a must-do, especially with a little altitude. We're only around 1500 feet, and it's a noticeable change from sea level where I bought it and first rode it.

Even if you can hold the speeds you’re looking for, perhaps with a big bore for example, the RX3 is too light to be comfortable on the highway for anything more than short stretches, IMO. Lack of power combined with the lightweight, should have you looking for a bigger bike. It wouldn’t be a consideration for me. Especially in my case at high altitude with long sustained hills, strong winds and 80mph speed zones.

100jmph or 65 miles per hour long term is the absolute limit for this engine
If that’s what you need to do it’s not the right bike
It’s a light low cost adv style bike
Not true adv not true speed limit bike as such
Still for me in china this is plenty in this crazy world

My longest ride on the RX3 was about 90 minutes at 70-75 the whole time, and I was done for. As a comparison, on my CBR1100XX I would routinely do ten hour days. Maybe I'm a sissy, but this will never be a road bike for me.

Well, the 8000rpm book by joe berk says they'll do highway though. I dunno, I guess I'll have to actually ride one to see if it'll be acceptable.

Charles.

Yes, they will; and yes, you'll definitely need to ride one to see if it works for you, considering your speed criteria for highway use.

Personally, I find it capable of highway use, but I ride sedately, without needing to pass everyone in front of me. I pick a speed and stick to it; usually between 55-65 MPH, with little to no passing. I don't have a problem staying in the right lane on multi-lane highways with higher speed limits. If you want or need to ride faster than that, my original recommendation of a bigger bike stands. As to the weight and how it relates to comfort, I find the RX3 to be a lot more comfortable than my 100+ lb. lighter TT250, which in itself is a surprisingly comfortable bike. It has enough weight not to be pushed around by crosswinds and vehicle wind blast as much as a lighter bike, although it is not in the same class as my 1990 Gold Wing at 900 lbs. or so.

Still, it holds it own it own in 55-65 MPH traffic. Above that, a bike with a twin cylinder engine, either parallel or V, is what you should be considering.

Riding 55-65 on highways here will get you killed. So that part varies by location I guess.

I couldn't agree more. Short stints is one thing but it seems that "we in general" are always looking to make a little, lightweight 250 do more than it was really made to do. If freeway is going to mostly be your thing, get a bigger bike. Even just moving up to a 400cc bike would be an improvement.

Most assuredly. Anything over 65 MPH where I'm at, and the highway patrol or sheriff will be slamming on the brakes, making a quick three point turn and running you down for your autograph. We only have a handful of highway stretches with 70 MPH limits, and those are divided, multi-lane highways in rural areas, and interstates. Anything in metro areas drops down to 50 MPH or lower, no matter what type of road it is. I'm starting to see red light and speed cameras more and more, also. It seems to be a feature of smaller towns, with major highways running through them.