New CSC TT250/Hawk BETTER than 1970s Japanese bikes?

[enewmen]

I'm keen on the TT250/Hawk because it's similar to a bike I had in the mid 80s and I wished I kept it and took better care of it.
Anyway, the point is: IS there reason to think the "clone" TT250 and similar CG250 bikes are better- MUCH better than the bikes 50 years ago?
In the 2020s compared to the 70s:
Better materials.
Better quality control.
More precise machining.
Better understanding of engine design/physics to "tweek" old designs.

Transistorized ignition.
Better understanding of maintenance (and people today care more).

People today ride & keep bikes for far more mi/km than decades ago?
My guess is a new CG250 clone bike will last much longer than if I tried to keep an original if I did all maintenance correctly.

I know I'm just thinking without facts, but does all this seem correct??
If I get a TT250, I hope to keep it for more than 30k miles and take the bike to very remote places.

Thanks!

[Bill Hilly]

I don't know about the quality control difference, but I would think that the old Japanese bikes probably had better rims, but they would have also had drum brakes, and mostly 2 stroke motors, and probably even shorter rear suspension travel. I don't know what size 2 stroke bike would be comparable to a 229cc CG , but probably a 175, or so. I think that a modern Chinese TT250, or similar would be a lot less expensive, and less PIA to operate, and rack up a lot more miles under common sense operation than a "brand new "early 70s, Yamaha, or Kawasaki, or Suzuki 2 stroke Enduro, but I don't know how they would compare against a similar Honda 4 stroke from the period.

[superjocko]

My initial impressions of the quality of components on my TT250 was better than expected. The swingarm and axle adjusters/plates are the only really glaring cheesy quality parts. The assembly quality is somewhat suspect with tool marks on certain fasteners, etc. Overall though, especially given the reputation these CG engines have, I think it’s reasonable to expect long reliable service from this bike as long as you stay on top of keeping it looked after. If you were to just take it out of the box and ride it without any TLC then I’m certain things would start falling off at a rate higher than ‘70s Japanese bikes. Just my opinion based on my own experience.

[Thumper]

Monoshock and swingarm design alone has improved immensely, but many chinese bikes still have the box steel design (like my Storm), so yes and no there. Hollow cast steel alloy swingarms with SOLID axel slots welded to them are available on some (Templar, KPX, for instance). These are stronger. Some Chinese bikes still have standard forks, but others like Hawk DLX, Bashan Storm, Brozz, Recon have inverted forks. Templars too. But bearing fit, slop is variable. So it is a mixed bag on suspension.

The engines we buy today are based on much more modern 4 strokes, and they are fundamentally better engineered/cloned, BUT we see bad Zongshen and Lifan engines periodically here, so QC is NOT necessarily better than the 70s. In fact, I would say QC is definitely still an issue.

I had a mid-seventies Suzuki TS250 2 stroke. It was more powerful than the 4 stroke 250s we see today, and much more dependable statistically. But not so much torque at low rpm that a 249cc ZS172 can make, which is crucial for off road stuff. It was still amazing fun. The suspension was meh, and the bike was heavy and not so stiff back then (Yamaha seemed to make more progrees here)..

I would say mixed bag, but when you factor in price, the bikes we see today from China are head and shoulders above those 70s Japanese bikes in many ways. But QC on parts and build quality are still major issues. You have to go over everything and be ready for anything.

[enewmen]

Thanks for the posts! It seems a clone bike is better in most-ways. Specifically the improved suspension and brakes on the TT250. The CG clone engine also seems better than the original. The TT250 (in this case) should last for tens of thousands of miles if well cared for. I don't know what I'm talking about and just summarizing what other wrote. But it makes sense.

[Thumper]

Yesterday, I discovered why I was getting rattling sounds from under the tank on my Templar X. The air louvers on both sides had come apart in different ways. On the right, the lower mount (an 8mm bolt through a grommet) was totally loose. There was no washer under the bolt, and it had a plain bolt instead of one with a built in stand-off. On the left side, the plastic mounting pins had dislodged and the Louvre was not planted at all in the metal frame. I got it all back together.

These are both QC and fit/finish issues. Before that, the mounting tab on the horn broke. It was making an odd thunking rattle while bouncing around in the space between the triple clamps held on by the two wires! I thought it was something in the head coming apart. I pulled it off and still have no horn!
The engine sounds fine and everything is secured again.

[Megadan]

The quality of these bikes is nowhere near the same as the Jap bikes of the 70's. The stuff from the 70's was built better. No argument at all on that either. Consider that people upgrade Hawks by using 1970's and 80's Honda motorcycle parts? That should explain everything.

[krat]

The local state approved motorcycle training center runs a fleet of Suzuki GS125 learner bikes.

They quit making those back in 2000. Every bike in their fleet is now 24 years old minimum and they are ridden all day, every day, with the center being booked solid 6 months in advance for the past 15 years. They were booked solid all the way through COVID !

No CSC bikes, no Hawks, TT or any Chinabike. He tried a couple of Kemco bikes out of Taiwan but they would not hold up to the daily grind, and they are much better than the run of the mill Chinese products we deal with. He just keeps searching out the Suzuki 125 bikes and rebuilding/repairing them when needed.

As a side note that model GS125 was made in a Suzuki factory in Viet Namn for its whole production run from the 1980s until 2000, but it was made to Japanese QC standards.

The Chinese, Thias, Vietnamese, Koreans or Indonesians can build a bike, but only when the contracting company holds their feet to the fire and that costs money. That is why Hondas and Tryumphs made in Tialand still cost Hondas and Tryumph money.

[enewmen]

Originally Posted by Megadan

The quality of these bikes is nowhere near the same as the Jap bikes of the 70's. The stuff from the 70's was built better. No argument at all on that either. Consider that people upgrade Hawks by using 1970's and 80's Honda motorcycle parts? That should explain everything.

I understand and it makes sense. However, there have been huge engineering advancements since the 70s. I'm just surprised the clone bikes are not using new techniques and materials to make the clones better than the originals.

[Megadan]

Originally Posted by enewmen

I'm just surprised the clone bikes are not using new techniques and materials to make the clones better than the originals.

I'm not. Most of these bikes, especially the Hawks, are built as cheaply as they can be made. It's not about innovation or integrity, but about churning out thousands of bikes for cheap.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the Hawk for what it is, and it can be an incredibly reliable machine as long as you are willing to put in the work to do the initial PDI, keep up on the maintenance, and work out a few bugs along the way.

[2LZ]

The new clones are definitely better in certain areas. I used to do a bore, piston and rings every two years, if not seasonally. Just the long term general reliability of the CG motor alone, and the utter lack of oil burning and especially leaking. All of my 70's Japanese bikes leaked. My CB350 Honda had to live on a chunk of cardboard.
The suspension on my old Enduros was "good for the time" but the new China bikes are definitely more forgiving in the suspension department. The big BUT....we're comparing bikes from 50 years ago.

[Bill Hilly]

I think that the "better" CG bikes are about at the end of their new sales in America, because of the bikes now offered with the OHC, 6 speed, and I think that the Brozz has probably already stopped being sold here, BUT the CG bikes that had BOTH the inverted forks, AND stouter swing arm, like the Brozz, were probably the best of the Chinese CG Dual Sports. I honestly don't know why the TT, and the Hawk DLX never improved their rear swing arm. I realize that the old RPS Hawk is built cheap, to sell cheap, but as Dan stated, they can be reliable, and useful if maintained, and properly improved. I have very little cash invested in my Hawk, and it now has all the range that I need in a bike, since I warmed the motor up, and am now running higher gearing. I guess it all boils down to each individual, and their weighing the price against the build quality, and if course their understanding of the limit of abuse the rims, and suspension can take.

[ChopperCharles]

Maybe? Japanese bikes were made for performance, and they used higher quality materials than the manufacturer does in the TT250 and SG250. Better metallurgy out of Japan for sure.

The big thing you need to realize about the SG250 is that it's way smaller than the 1970s bikes. It's just about a 3/4 scale motorcycle. The seat looks like it can accommodate a rider and passenger, but it can't. Your butt will take up the whole seat. It looks almost Grom-ish under a tall or heavyset guy. That said, it's nice and light because of that. So if you're okay with that, go for it.

Charles.

[enewmen]

Originally Posted by Megadan

I'm not. Most of these bikes, especially the Hawks, are built as cheaply as they can be made. It's not about innovation or integrity, but about churning out thousands of bikes for cheap.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the Hawk for what it is, and it can be an incredibly reliable machine as long as you are willing to put in the work to do the initial PDI, keep up on the maintenance, and work out a few bugs along the way.

I did some more checking and reading between the lines. This is what my tiny brain came up with: It seems the clone bikes have reliable components (which can also be upgraded). What's lacking is assembly. So common problems are wire/cable routing, screws coming off, bearings needing grease, etc.. So if the owner is willing to go through this level of detail, route all wires/cables correctly, add Loctite to screws where needed, make sure all nuts/bolts have correct torque, make sure all moving parts are well lubricated, etc. Then the clone should last for tens of thousands of miles. Even the CG engine is built well if it does not overheat. Do you think my casual observations are correct? Thanks!