The RX3 vs the TU250x

[detours]

The US spec CSC RX3 and Suzuki TU250x are both 250cc fuel-injected thumpers with low seat height and low weight. Both are standard bikes with a comfortable seating position. Both have great handling in curves and are easy to correct from a bad line. Both have surprisingly smooth clutch and transmissions with a nice short throw. But they are different machines from each other with a different mission.

The RX3 is an adventure-touring bike. With its large fuel tank, windshield, luggage and fairing, it's designed for long-distance and high speed runs. It also has a top speed of around 84 mph indicated (about 75 actual) and a great digital dashboard with lots of information. All of which make it an excellent commuting and travel bike. However, it has a weak front brake and the stock 14-tooth front sprocket gives it a narrow power band between 5500 and 8000. (A $13, 13-tooth sprocket from CSC fixes this.)

The RX3's weight and cross section gives it an average 65 mpg fuel economy (in my experience) and a nearly 300 mile maximum range (run dry), but with its stiff seat you're going to need a break long before you run out of gas. The RX3 also meets CARB emissions standards, making it a 50 state bike ... unlike the TU, which cannot be sold in California. With its water-cooled engine, high exhaust, 2-inch higher ground clearance and 2 inches more suspension travel, it is also capable offroad.

The TU250x on the other hand, is a retro town bike with highway potential. My wife has put 2800 miles on it so far and we've taken many trips across Colorado over 10,000 ft passes with no problems. My wife says (and I agree) that her TU is smoother and more refined than my RX3. It is air cooled, and Suzuki plates the cylinder with a special coating for friction reduction and heat transfer. The engine and exhaust are quieter and she prefers the feel of her street tires, despite the reduced traction on dirt roads.

In stock form, the TU weighs 60 lbs less than the fully geared stock RX3 and has a lower seat, making it more accessible to a smaller, lighter rider and easy for anyone to throw a leg over. It gets a solid 70 mpg and a 225 mile maximum range (run dry). The seat is also much more comfortable than the RX3. I'm standing on my pegs while my wife sits comfortably during our all-day rides. The TU has a top speed of at least 70 mph where it begins to feel less stable and less comfortable in the wind. The aftermarket flyscreen helps a lot, but there's still a lot of buffeting on the chest and arms over 50 mph. Crosswinds push it around.

By the numbers, the TU has 10 fewer HP and 5 fewer ft-lbs of torque than the RX3. But its lower weight gives it almost the same power to weight ratio as the RX3. And its power band is so wide, it starts pulling from 3500 RPM through at least 7500 RPM. In town, there's no appreciable difference between their power, but climb a pass or push into a headwind and the RX3 pulls ahead. Also, dropping the RX3's engine bars and luggage saves 45 lbs and significantly improves its power to weight ratio.

Pricewise, a new RX3 costs about $1000 less than a new TU250x, and comes with luggage, a windshield and a better warranty. You can of course add those to the TU at an extra cost.

But stylewise, the TU is simply gorgeous. Made in Japan, its fit and finish is impeccable, with polished aluminum, a beautiful chrome trumpet exhaust and seamless welds. It also has lots of aftermarket support for seats, fenders, tanks, lights, luggage and cafe styling. The dash is retro too, with just a speedometer, odometer and a couple of indicator lights. The RX3 looks great in a modern way and has excellent fit and very good finish. But despite the RX3's strong and solid construction, some parts are stamped where you might expect casting, others are bolted where you might expect welds and some welds aren't as clean as I would like. I expect aftermarket support for the RX3 to grow as this bike spreads across Asia, South America, Europe and Canada, but it remains limited for now.

So how do I feel about these bikes? I love having both in the garage, but I prefer the RX3. I love the extra power and offroad ability. My wife adores her TU's style, refinement and size, and its comfortable seat. It's the perfect bike for her. And the RX3 is perfect for me. They make a great match for touring Colorado together.

[detours]

Here are some specs I put together. Each column represents the stock bike. The third column shows the power to weight difference with the RX3's engine bars and luggage removed. Numbers don't tell the whole story, but I think they're interesting

				TU250X		RX3		RX3 (no luggage)

Seat Height (in)		30.3		31.3		31.3
Curb Weight (lbs)		326		386		341
Engine Size (cc)		249		250		250
Fuel Economy (mpg)		70		65		70
Fuel Capacity (US gal)		3.2		4.2		4.2
Range (miles)			224		294		294
HP				14.8		24.8		24.8
Torque (ft-lb)			11.5		16.6		16.6
Power to Wt (HP/lb)		0.05		0.06		0.07
Torque to Wt (torque/lb)	0.04		0.04		0.05
Power to cc (HP/cc)		0.06		0.10		0.10
Wheelbase (in)			54.1		55.1		55.1
Ground Clearance (in)		6.5		8.3		8.3
Front Wheel (in)		18		18		18
Rear Wheel (in)			18		17		17
Front Travel (in)		4.7 		5.1 		5.1
Rear Travel (in)		3.7		5.6		5.6
MSRP ($ US)			$4,495.00	$3,495.00	$3,495.00

[SpudRider]

Thanks for posting the interesting comparison between these two motorcycles. The TU250X is a very nice motorcycle, but I must agree with you; I much prefer the Zongshen RX3.

[Weldangrind]

That settles it for me; I want both of them.

[Louis Angel]

Thnaks for that interesting comparison!

I love the looks of the little TU250. Just not so much that
I care to own one. But I have watched just about all th you tube
videos avalable on them before. :-D

[AZRider]

Thanks for the comparison, very interesting. I do have a couple of questions though, does the USD fork on the RX-3 perform better and is the fuel injection a bonus, especially in the mountains of Colorado?

[detours]

Originally Posted by AZRider

Thanks for the comparison, very interesting. I do have a couple of questions though, does the USD fork on the RX-3 perform better and is the fuel injection a bonus, especially in the mountains of Colorado?

I would say yes to both.

The RX3 fork is worlds ahead. The TU fork easily bottoms out even on manhole covers or coming down speed bumps, while the RX3 can handle rocks and trail bumps pretty easily. The TU forums say the fork is underfilled at the factory. I haven't done this yet, but they recommend a lighter weight oil (7 to 10 wt) filled fully to spec.

Both bikes are fuel injected, and it's so nice not to deal with the problems of a carb tuned to 5000 feet (or worse, sea level) when going over 10,000 foot passes or even changes in humidity and barometric pressure. Last year, my carburated Vulcan 500 and my wife's Madass 125 could barely breathe at high elevations. Made touring really hard.

[katflap]

I certainly would of been tempted to buy a TU250

But not available in the UK

[detours]

Originally Posted by katflap

I certainly would of been tempted to buy a TU250

But not available in the UK

Didn't know that. But you get the Kawasaki W800, which makes me very jealous!

[pete]

Originally Posted by katflap

I certainly would of been tempted to buy a TU250

But not available in the UK

I like the classic styling of the TU..
Kawasaki Estella BJ250 is styled in
the same vain as the TU....

http://www.cpuhunter.com/wp-content/...gine-Cover.jpg

http://data.whicdn.com/images/96618646/original.jpg

Looks like out fit that was making noises about importing
the RX3 here has died a slow death...




,,

[SpudRider]

Originally Posted by pete

...Looks like out fit that was making noises about importing the RX3 here has died a slow death...

That's too bad. I wished them good luck.