83 250wr

The 1983 WR cylinder is ported totally different than the 83 XC/CR cylinder. The 83 XC and CR are the same cylinder.

Marty

So should I look for a XC cylinder? Is it worth the swap?

No, the WR is better for low end, the '83 XC/CR was even more mid-top than your engine.

Dale
83 WR is basically same as 82 CR/XC CR/XC got the boost ports from the reed housing in 83. the 84 WR got that in 84 as the XC stayed same and CR water cooled in 84. Best is an 82 WR tough find as a 1 year only.
Joe

Great job at Cayuga dude!

- nice work taking it up to the modern bikes. I have no doubt that the period of huskys from 83 on are just as good as modern bikes except for the brakes. ( for older riders) big statement but they are so easy to ride c/w the moderns

Suprize, yeah, brakes are an issue. The back was working great but the front was not up to the task. I have to do some work on the front. I bought one of those nice aluminum rear pedals and that helped the rear.


Thanks Joe. it was a blast. Same trails from the 2 day.

Did the '84 liquid cooled 250cr come out in '84 and the 250wr was ac till '84 1/2 then it was LC?
My '84 250wr ac isn't like my two '83 250wrs. My '84 has some more rip to it.

yep, I believe the 84 a/c wr used a cr barrel till the lc turned up. could be wrong but I know there is more go in an 84 a/c than a 83. other more knowledgeable folk may set us right

it must be a cr cylinder it has too much pep. I need to pull the head soon for a c/r.

We've already been over this many times bill. The air cooled '84 was built out of leftover '83 parts, WR chassis with the 30.5 degree rake and '84 bodywork, and '83 WR bottom ends with '83 CR cylinders, mid year the '84 LC 250WR came out and it was a real '84 with the sharper rake frame.

thanks for that, my mind wanders a bit and it takes time to find it....

I believe we have new information if you check on the husky bulletin and compare. The 84 wr twin shock and feedback from Rick Horvat may have
a lower exhaust port height than the 83 CRs giving a slightly wider power band. This is why others and have said the 84Wr may be the best of mid 80s

Note. I am in the process of ordering new sleeve now as I am building that engine.

This is the same (looking up for later to verify) 1.5 to 1mm lower height. Which means longer from the top of cylinder sleeve. Now whats in debate was the port
height lowered in mid year for production on CR ? Based on Huskies own bulletin ?? Creating all these questions?

Updated below - more clearly I hope

Yes seems to be verified by huskies own bulletin. March 15 1983. So it looks like many could been produced at the start of production run for 83 a CR with the different peaky
power band port timing profile.

And could have been changed after March of that year.

Please note that it also says to add the two additional exhaust tunnel ports on each side of the new smaller/ lower exhaust port. These tunnel ports
were called the three port exhaust. The tunnel port timing would also be the little bit better or little bit wider power band. So with so many mods what was standard at beginning of year ?

Please note Mag tests
and feedback says still has a peaky style powerband.

So I believe some folks who purchased early in 83s year had the old porting and later that year husky must have adopted the new mods as standard for rest of year.

I have the 84wr stock cylinder here and have to order new sleeve its cracked. So thats why i have been looking and looking at all this feedback on
83 CRs etc. I keep getting a hold of different porting on 83cr cylinders I am finding.

So who got what at the dealer is the question after this bulletin. Thats why this question keeps coming up.

It is very confusing, that is for sure.

The 1984 250 MM, (Mish Mash)