So what are the suspension upgrade options for a mid/late 80's Husky????

Yeah, or go on a diet or something huh. No, there are lots of options to strive for out front, just based on peoples tastes, and then it seems a good handful based on performance, etc.

I tried a set of 50mm WP conventionals on my 83 500cr. They came off my 2003 KTM 250SX, origonally off a 98 KTM.

Problem with the Husky was overall length of the fork. They are 1" longer than the Husky so they. slowed up the steering way too much.

The revalved action was excellent, but to mimic steering, you would have to raise the steering head in the frame for geometry to be correct.

I went back to 87-88 Husky forks with the stiffer springs AND emulators.

Thanks much for sounding in scoott, really appreciate it. This is great first hand experience, and very helpful.

Yeah, I can see how an extra inch longer would really make things lazy in the steering. Probably would be the hot ticket if I ever attached that JATO rocket, but till then, not the way to go. Very interesting.

Wonder if that excessive length issue could in any way be corrected. I can't think of any that wouldn't be ridiculus expensive, and or just not the way to go.

OK, well, then this one first hand account sure seems to be a nail in the coffin of that idea. Unless I hear otherwise some how I guess.

Well then, to me this kinda leaves the Suzuki conventionals on the center of the table. I've got to continue looking there. I thought I read something about the RM being one type fork, and then the RMX having some other feature. Like one dual chamber or some such, and then the other cartridge. Forgive me, it's been a long time since I've tried to rap my head around bike fun stuff. I'll get there.



Guess I should go measure my 86 XC forks for length then, from cntr axle to top of the tube extended fully. SO I can compare to the zukie forks. I kinda liked the looks of them better anyways. Though 50mm certainly sounds cool.

DRZ400 conventionals are sounding pretty decent as well. Just barely looked into them. 49mm, and not alot of tube hangin down low.

I am interested to read this information as well, although I am surprised to find it in the vintage left kickers section . I have a '98 Husaberg FE600 that has the original 50mm WP "Extreme" forks fitted and I am thinking of selling the bike to upgrade to a later 650 Berg. I am very impressed with these forks and have read a few comments that they were the best forks ever made . I am considering swapping the complete front end off the bike with a 45mm Marzocchi "Magnum" conventional front end, which I have laying around, that came off a '96 KTM 360. I figure that the 50mm WP's are probably worth more than the complete 600 Berg anyway .

Hey Husky500evo, just out of curiosity, could you measure the length of your WP 50's???? Center of the axle to top of the tube at the upper triple clamps???? I'd be curious if you'd also note whether there is room to raise the tubes in the triples a touch, before they would get into the handlebars, and if so how much?

My stock 40mm jobs, can be raised I'd guess roughly a half an inch before physically touching the bottom of the OE bars.

If I were you, I'd try to keep those WP's, but they do appear available pretty reasonably priced. Fortunately, all the folks parting out the bikes for a living, just think they are old nothing conventionals.

Some info seems to point to the DRZ forks as being the same as the previous highly touted RM conventionals. Or very similar. Trying to nail that down.

My WP 50mm forks measure 920mm from the axle centre to the top of the tube. There is only a very small gap between the the top of the fork cap and the bottom of the handlebar (probably only about 5mm).

Awesome, thanks for measuring.

OK, 920mm is 36.220"

I'll go see just out of curiousty what my OE 86 Husqvarna 40's measure.

Very interesting, I just measured 37.750", from center of axle, to the top of the cap.

Oops, forgot to make sure she was fully extended, and while mine is just a light roller with no engine right now, it is resting on the wheels.

I'll go double check, though it can only grow, so already I'm intrigued and the WP50's may be right back on my list of possibles. Lemme go check again.

Already though that is 958.85mm by comparison.

OK, double checked, she's fully extended just sitting there. Guess it should be, with on fluids or engine, or a whole mess of other parts.

SO yeah, mine is 958.85 mm / 37.750 inches.

Just for the sake of conversation, with rough quick measurements, I just look at the 36.220 as 36.250, which means the OE 40mm Husky forks are a little over approximately 1.250" longer than your WP50's, as far as the bike see's it.

I'll try to get some other lengths from owners as well. This ofcourse doesn't take into account the shape or thickness of the top triple clamp, or any built in rake, or the trail. I'll have to try and rap my head around that later.

Just had a fellow with the 97 Suzuki conventionals get back to me saying the length from center of axle hole to top of tube is 37.500" Fairly close in my book, wonder if that's close enough when combined with the different triples. The zook forks keep looking good to me, but those WP 50 conventionals sure do have some die hard devotees, which is hard to overlook.

This is all good, keep it coming. Fork length is indeed important to consider, but even more important from a safety standpoint is what happens at the other end... when the forks are fully compressed. You don't want the wheel bottoming into the fender at full compression and coming to an instant stop.

ANY front end swap requires a complete trial assembly without springs, so the forks can be fully compressed and wheel clearance verified. I even do this to EVERY stock bike I own. You'd be surprised what you find.

Make darn sure that when the forks are smashed to their mechanical stops that the wheel clears things like the frame down tube, fender, and the fender mounting bolts up underneath. THAT is the time to determine how high you can raise the tubes in the triple clamps.

I'm not trying to sound like a smart-@$$, know-it-all, or nay-sayer. It's just that I see guys bolting on this stuff and NEVER checking. Ugliness, waiting to happen!! We don't want that.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE check?

Great points. I was actually thinking the same thing really. Was just going through it in my head on the tire getting into the fender & bolts.

What else will I need to compare to stock? Fork angle with front wheel and bike at rest. Are triples always holding the tubes parrallel to the stem, or is there occasionally some additional angle in how the tubes are held, compared to the angle of the stem/headtube???? Then trail right, which is the angle taken from how far out in front the axle is, in relation to what???? Draw a strait line on paper from axle up to handlebars, or top of stem, or bottom of stem or???? And find that angle, is that right???? And then maybe same thing forks fully compressed to mechanical stops? I will take all appropriate measurements from stock first ofcourse.

As for the fork end no mention of the steering stops that I detected and I think I read the whole thread. If the bottom triple clamp is straight across you will be fine however a lot of the more modern right side up forks the bottom triple clamp goes up where it clamps the legs. In order to use the forks of my 1998 husky with the marzocchi 45 magnum with separate c and r. on the earlier frame I ended up welding on a tab to use the stock steering stops on the lower clamp. I never liked those forks and the tab I made wasn't robust enough.

Take the offset of the spindle to the center of the tube and the center of the tube to the center of the axle and that is what you probably want to match.

The whole assembly forks wheel axle brake from a 1999 husky transfer over real easy and are cheap used if you don't already have some. I think I used a 2002 wr360 clamp and left the 1999 clamp on the 1999 frame to 1982 husky swap seemed to me real close. The 1982 to 1986 offset of the triple clamps isn't the same though. By say 2004 the wr/te ones use the same bearings as Swedish stuff but cr/tx and now all don't use the Swedish neck bearings. Ktm 48mm (plus wheel axle brake plastic guards etc.) like off a 2004 and perhaps up to current need different bearings in the neck and the seals can get a little tricky with any of these things but you don't generally get them used as cheap. The ktm has the option of quite a few different offsets of stem to tube triple clamp out there in the used market. Another thing to keep in mind is that the modern forks flex less and attach to frames which flex less as well.

As for the rear I do not like the 85-86 frame or linkage and if you want to take the effort and search out my prior posts. You should look at your frame then an 88 one and then say a 1999 or so one on a four stroke model. Look at what supports the swing arm pivot rod or bolt and how it attaches to the backbone of the frame.

Thanks for the input fran...k.. Great pointers! I thought the frames were roughly the same up to about 89. Guess I need to look for some more to compare. I've got a swingarm and linkage on hand from an 88 oh ......I think it was a WR430. Was now thinking of trying to get the swingarm, linkage, wheel etc., from a 91, to adapt the rear disc. I've spotted some 91 Husky's where the frame looks still real similar to mine. Especially at the swingarm pivot.

I had some conversation with a fellow who has several 85/86 500XC's, and has swapped to a rear disc on one previously. He was the one that pointed me towards the very early 90's as an easy doner. Really was just confirmation of what I thought I might be seeing as similarities. Won't know till I have parts in front of me to take measurements myself I suppose, on some of these ideas.

Been thinking about other things, so these options have been on pause in my head for a few. But I'm still thinking of the TC 49mm Showas from a 98 RM specifically, or possibly a DRZ400 front end. THe DRZ front end would make running a speedo easy if I ever wanted to go that direction. The DRZ forks are actually a popular upfit on certain bikes too.

The spedometers are best left in the box or on the shelf in my exprience. The odometers however are quite reliable over the years and can be re set in either direction which is what you need when you are following a route and miss a turn.
The speedo drive for the more modern cable type husky and most european stuff is geared the same as the vintage left kicker stuff.

85-86 has a hemi joint at the bottom of the shock more modern stuff the hemi joint is in the linkage. Wr shock is shorter than xc shock. 14 mm swingarm pivot bolt up to 1999 havn't studied the parts sheets but it gets thicker at some point.

Fran