250-500cc 1993WXC vs 1999 360WR

so I looked through the threads and can't find any specific comparisons to the engine
I own these 2 bikes different years and totally different handling
before someone gets all butt hurt I will explain what this is
in 1992 Husqvarna took a 1987 250 Cagiva based engine to 350cc and labeled it a 360, the sidestand was old school and mounted to the swingarm, the exhaust pipe fit over the outside of the exhaust port
in 1993 they mounted the sidestand to the frame and used 2 springs to tuck it up to almost vertical, they replaced the pipe to port configuration with an internal pipe fitting that stayed common through the 360 run
the 1992 the 360 had fork preload adjusters they ditched in 93, I had a 1992 also but sold it a few years ago
the 1993 and 1999 have a few things in common but are quite different machines, the 93 is longer and a little more stable at speed but a little tougher in tight terrain, the engine has a much wider powerband
the 99 has pretty good handling but a VERY short powerband
the reason for this post is that powerband, it also had a very difficult starting to go with it
the 93 is easy to start and the 99 is a bitch to start, the porting is different and the cylinder has a different part number, they share a head, piston, carb and pipe
had anyone measured the port difference between these, I would but both run near perfect so hard to justify a teardown as such
I am currently well actually my brother is, working on an auto decompressor and was wondering if anyone tried to modify the ports on the later ones
now don't get me wrong these were built for grunt but at what cost, my 92 was different than the 93 as it had an even wider powerband, that one also ran perfectly so never looked inside of it either
does anyone have port layouts, successful porting mods or port timing change info on these
last year my 3 brothers an I went riding with a handful a friends, there were 2 Husqvarna 360's my 99 and my brothers 98, two other brothers rode KTM 360's a 97 and 96 if memory serves, the KTM's had 5 speeds and as such gave up a little between singletracks
the KTM's were a dream to start and had VERY wide power bands
the other riders were on a 2009 KTM 525, a 1989 KTM 350 (2 stroke) a 1987 Husky 250XC, and a 1999 Yamaha 250YZ
we rode each others bikes and in the end the 1993 Husqvarna 360WXC I took as a spare turned out to win all the riders hearts, it is a dream to ride, but it was the engine that won most people over, wide enough power, easy to start and stable at high speed, the KTM 360s were next and the 99 Husqvarna 360WR was way down
so as the 360 advanced what was the reason to so drastically alter the powerband and does anyone else feel like I do that it might have gone the wrong direction
if I could only keep one, currently it would be the 93, which is also my current avatar

i wonder if my 95 falls closer to the 93 or the later years

your plastic is similar to 99, color is different on some but side number panels and gas tank are the same, spoilers are a little different from both, but the cylinder is the early type

i did a port drawing trace on my 93 cylinder i can photograph and upload tomorrow, its on square paper.
was measuring the port duration.
only got to trace it nothing else i am boosting the compression ratio on my 2002 decomp head from 7:1 with decomp in it to aiming for 8:1
yet to measure.

like the post 2 premo any suggestions or help with decomp just ask

cool, thanks for the info...i wondering how the dynoport pipe i got will work once i have it all back together...should be a fun bike...broad power is definitely where its at...why they would make the power band narrower is beyond me...isnt that the whole point of having a 360?

2premo, are you sure the jetting is the same between the 2 carbs ? I believe they came different from the factory. The trick to making the 360s run correctly was to use the 92 needle.

they were similar for sure on jetting, but exactly,,, not sure
my bikes and manuals are stored due to a fire so access to my jetting will be tough for a few days
I did swap the carbs once to see what was up with the 99 being hard to start, it ran the same as I recall

who knows exhaust port dimensions, such as height and transfer port details

I was reading the intake tract is very restrictive on the wr360 that could explain it.

the 92, 93 and 99 had the same intake, I think it is the exhaust side but have no numbers on this

there's a 99 WR360 for sale in Pullman WA. I've been fantasizing about it. Now I've actually stumbled across some information about it. I don't need another hard starting bike.

That would be cool. Here is a quick one I did of my 2002 cylinder.

I can see about tracing out my '92. It's setting on the bench right now. I'm torn between giving up on my 250 build until I can find an OEM ignition and sticking the 360 back in the '12 frame -OR- putting the 360 back together in it's '92 glory and running it as is for the first 2 months of enduros/harescrambles (starting with Rd 2 of NEPG on the 23rd).


But I'm interested, I'm throwing the idea around of picking up another new frame and building a 360 to it's max and putting together a single purpose baddassery bike. But I'd like to use a 93+ jug for the exhaust options.

Very interesting info. I have a 96 and an 02 both 360s. The 96 has a Mikuni and the 02 has a Keihin PWK. Huge difference in the 2 bikes. The 96 definitely seems to have a wider and smoother powerband. The 02 runs super as well but seems to be quite a bit more explosive in its power delivery.

the Keilhin's an aftermarket add on isnt it?
toataly drew blank at looking for my port dimentions im slack i know, long days at work i blame.

must admit im looking for a little more poke up top im after the ideal poweralve setting at the moment mines set at the lower mid portion of adjustment, and the screws ontop of the valve cover? the ones that stop them falling into the cylinder.

p.s. looking for a new pipe but the gnarly seems the only one i can find available in uk and im after top not grunt the bikes got plenty of that.

FMF makes a fatty for the 93-98 bikes. I've got one and it fits the newer bikes except the stinger is a little short but I think it could be made to work pretty easily.

Don't the screws on the valve cover just set the clearance? If you want to adjust when it opens and closes I think you should play with the linkage adjustments.

yeh linkage settings are what im after. for top end i assume i move the linkage to the top of its travel that will open exhaust ports fully later? is that right.

ahh the fatty thats where im going wrong i always slam 2002 in the search bar. the stinger is too far from the end of the pipe is that what you mean by too short? i dont mind hacking the stinger about and re welding it in the correct place.
did the fatty add much up top or just bling?

I can't recall which way to adjust the linkage but yes, having it open later should increase the "hit"

The fatty is shorter than the gnarly, there was about a 1.5" gap between it and the silencer. I've never run it so i can't tell you if it made a difference

Here is a pic of two pipes



The gnarly is on the left and the fatty is on the right. They are pretty similar. I can't imagine there would be a big difference between them.

the headder pipe on the gnarly is longer it look more like the spec one from this angle. i like the fatty will have to invest some cash into it or a dynoport