New To The Sport

[half a tire right]

Hi kids;I'm in the market for a mid to late 90's bike,I have been searching hi and low and "am" finding a few what seem like deals to me,I'd prefer a Beta or a Scorpa but keep coming across mid 90's Gas Gas JT-JTR's 250-270's.Can anybody give me a heads up on these models??pro's and con's ect.. Thanks

[lewis_gasgas]

I had a 1998 for about a year which was great plenty of power ect very reliable never let me down it didnt need any engine work as such only thing i can remeber doing to it mechanically was changing the engine oil and changing bearings and brake pads..excelent bike.

[ridgrunr]

I'm a big fan of the late 90's GG's. The 94's had frame cracking problems. A buddy had a 96 and it had handling issues. Never seen a guy go over the bars so much. The pre '97s have plastic gas tanks. The 97-2001 TXT's had the aluminum tanks. I have a 99 TXT321 and 2000 TXT280. The 98's and '99's (First year of the 321) were the best of the bunch cause they were tougher. In 2000 GG went to a redesigned rear subframe which carried into 2001. The 99 rear subframe was metal and provided support for both the rear fender and the air filter. The rear subframe after 99 was actually just the air filter box. It doesn't hold up real well. In 2000 they changed the rear shock too of which I know of 4 shock failures, ours included. We put a Pro shock on the 2000 280 and haven't had any other problems.

In 2001 GG put a new fork on the TXT line. You can tell the difference when you look at the fork brace. Pre 2001 was a curved unit basically clamped to the forks. In 2001 with the new fork the brace is flat bolted to the new fork. I do think the 2001 fork may have been superior to the previous forks. The 2000 and on TXT's have a different rear fender with a high profile bend so it looks like it has more travel, but they don't, they just stick up higher in the air is all.

The 321 is a better engine for the average rider than the 280. The 321 is smoother and more tractable. If you are a rider who likes a little more explosive power delivery, the 280 would probably be better. Both 280 and 321 are pretty tunable for power delivery by retarding or advancing the timing. The 99 321 is also one of the best turners. I can usually gain a lot of points by being able to make full lock turns the other guys can't make. Good thing it turns, cause I've never had so much as one hop in me.

The TXT line is a little heavier than the Pro line, but the bikes are much more durable. I'm not sure I buy into this lighter is better thing. There's a point of diminshing returns such as reliability, durability and just being able to hold a line and not get knocked around so easily. Not sure where that line is, but we have to be getting close. The Pros start looking pretty ratty after a couple of years of use. Disposable bikes now days I guess. My 99 321 has competed in meets slmost every month since I got it and is still plenty competitive. Plus it's one of the best trail bikes ever made. Across the Five Miles of Hell I can pretty much put it in 3rd gear and forget about it. My son has seriously used the 2000 280 in the Advanced class, and although it has a few dents and dings, it still runs great and is a very solid ride, and he's ridden it very hard.

So far, I haven't ridden a single bike that I'd buy to replace my '99 321, and I've ridden most of them. I do like the 290 Shercos which would probably be my second choice. The 300 Pro's are probably my 3rd choice, but like I said I'm concerned about their durability. I don't care for the Montesas or Betas because I'm not a fan of Aluminum frames. Been there done that with a Beta Zero. Probaby won't again.

I like the TXT's too because they are easy to work on if you need to. Other than routine maintenance, they are pretty bullet proof. Heck you can change the spark plug with a crescent wrench between sections if you need to, but if you run a platinum Bosch plug you won't have to worry about that. Run Maxima lite transmission fluid(I think it's 75 wt)in the tranny which pretty much eliminates any clutch drag. I have had neoprene fork boots on my 321 since the day I got it and it still has the original fork seals in it. They have never leaked a drop. I change the fork fluid every year, ATF. I did put a set of rings in my 321 two years ago because I thought it was getting a little noisy, but I didn't need to.

As you can see, I keep my bikes for awhile. Heck my 1985 Honda v65 Sabre has 52,000 miles on it and I can't find anything that I'd buy to replace it either.

I just wish I could make that 321 dance like Mark Manniko did in the Nationals back in 99. Watching him ride his 321 was why I bought mine, and I've never regretted it.

Hope this helps. My .02 cents anyway.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Ridgrunr

[nsaqam]

Ridgrunr, thanks for the very informative posting! I have a '99 TXT321 too and it's good to hear that they are durable and capable. I have a slight clutch drag issue with mine and I'll be sure to get some Maxima lite oil for it to see if that fixes it. My forks seem to be a little too stiff going by the "push down on the center of the bike and see if both ends move fairly equally" method shown on the Ryan Young and the Mark Manniko/Tommi Ahvala training videos. Can this be adjusted by making the preload spacer shorter or do I need new springs? I have a lathe in my basement so I can make it any length I want. If I can shorten it, how much should I? 5mm or 10mm or more?

Thanks for any info you may have I truly appreciate it.

HATR, sorry for the thread hijack, I'll make it up to you!

[half a tire right]

A lathe aye',,,,,time to make some "real"swingarm bushings for the old IT, ridgrnr; Hell,,what can I say,Thanks! so,,then the 95's sucked?

[ridgrunr]

Can't say the 95 Sucked. He just went over the bars alot, which he didn't do on his 94. Don't know why. They were set up the same. They changed the frame geometry between 94 and 95, and I think again between 96 and 97 then slightly for the 98. When he sold the 95 and bought the 99, the problem ended.

The 95 GG350 was a beast. That's the white tank one. Gobs of power, but one of the hardest starting (kicking) machines I've ever seen. If you got that thing at TDC and tried to kick it, you could stand on that kick starter all day and never get it to go down. That thing would kick back sometimes and about break your leg. The 97's were probably the best of the JTR series. They were the last with the plastic tank, and the ones we've had in the club have been great bikes. Heck a kid from Loa named Mike Peterson still dominates the Expert class on his '97 270 even against all the new bikes. In 98 they went to the Aluminum tanks on the TX, and the frames changed again. In 99 the TXT's came out which I think were the best cause they changed the frame for 2000 and it wasn't as good.

Personally, like I said, I think the 321's were the better motors. The 2001 321 was probably the best handling of all of them, but I think the 99 turns better. Then in 2002 they went to the Pro which had problems.

I've got pics of all the GG's (and the other bikes for that matter)on my web site http://www.geocites.com/utahtrials. Just scroll down to the "pictures of the bikes" section and you can see what they all looked like.

[half a tire right]

Once again;Thanks a ton! Very informative. I'm looking for a bike,and have come across a few 95's here and there in the $1500 range,seems to be the norm.

[dman]

Handling issues?

Its pretty easy to bend something in one crash and that in itself can modify your ride(not the way you want of course).

Or maybe you guys were just doing more dropoffs then usual.