2010 Yamaha TW 200 vs 2013 Honda CRF 250L

Full specifications comparison • 2 motorcycles

Comparing 2 motorcycles
2010 Yamaha TW 200 2010 Yamaha TW 200

Enduro / Off-Road

Engine
Single cylinder, four-stroke
Power
N/A
Top Speed
N/A
Weight
279.0 pounds
2013 Honda CRF 250L 2013 Honda CRF 250L

Enduro / Off-Road

Engine
Single cylinder, four-stroke
Power
N/A
Top Speed
N/A
Weight
317.5 pounds
Full Specifications
General
Comments-Model ID: CRF150RB
ColoursWhite/RedRed/white
Dimensions
Ground Clearance (in.)10.4 inches10.0 inches
Ground Clearance (mm)264 mm255 mm
Seat Height790 mm / 31.1 in.875 mm / 34.4 in.
Wheelbase1,326 mm / 52.2 in.1,445 mm / 56.9 in.
Height1,120 mm / 44.1 in.1,195 mm / 47.0 in.
Length2,090 mm / 82.3 in.2,195 mm / 86.4 in.
Width820 mm / 32.3 in.815 mm / 32.1 in.
Weights & Capacities
Oil Capacity (l)-1.80 litres
Oil Capacity (Quarts)-0.12 quarts
Fuel Capacity6.81 litres / 1.80 gallons7.70 litres / 2.03 gallons
Wet Weight126.6 kg / 279.0 lbs144.0 kg / 317.5 lbs
Performance
Max Torque-22.00 Nm (2.2 kgf-m or 16.2 ft.lbs) @ 7000
Engine
CO269.8 CO72.4 CO
Displacement (cc)196.00 cc250.00 cc
Fuel ControlSOHCDOHC
Bore x Stroke (mm)67.0 x 55.7 mm76.0 x 55.0 mm
Bore x Stroke (in,)2.6 x 2.2 inches3.0 x 2.2 inches
Engine TypeSingle cylinder, four-strokeSingle cylinder, four-stroke
Displacement (ci)11.96 cubic inches15.26 cubic inches
Fuel SystemCarburettor. Mikuni® 28mmInjection. Programmed fuel injection system (PGM-FI)
Compression Ratio9.5:110.7:1
Emissions-Consult owners manual for optional racing parts.
Fuel Consumption3.01 litres/100 km (33.2 km/l or 78.15 mpg)3.12 litres/100 km (32.1 km/l or 75.39 mpg)
IgnitionCDIFull-transistor battery ignition
StarterElectricElectric
Valve System-4
Drivetrain
ClutchMultiple-disc wet clutchWet multiplate with coil springs
Final DriveChainChain
Gearbox5-speed6-speed
Primary Drive-Constant mesh
Chassis
Frame Type-Semi-double cradle. Swing arm: Rear wheel travel.
Suspension - FrontTelescopic forkTelescopic (Inverted) 43mm diameter slide pipe
Suspension - RearSingle shockSwing arm (Pro-link suspension system) 40mm diameter cylinder
Rake-27.0°
Trail-113 mm / 4.4 in.
Wheel Travel - Front160 mm / 6.3 in.61 mm / 2.4 in.
Wheel Travel - Rear150 mm / 5.9 in.282 mm / 11.1 in.
Wheels & Brakes
Brakes - Rear Diameter (in.)4.3 inches8.7 inches
Brakes - Front Diameter (in.)8.7 inches10.1 inches
Brakes - Front Diameter (mm)220 mm256 mm
Brakes - Rear Diameter (mm)110 mm220 mm
Brakes - FrontSingle discSingle disc. Hydraulic. Two-piston calipers.
Brakes - RearExpanding brake (drum brake)Single disc. Hydraulic. Single-piston caliper.
Rims-Brakes Front
Tyres - Front130/80-183.00-21
Tyres - Rear180/80-14120/80-P18

Verdict

Too close to call

The 2010 Yamaha TW 200 and the 2013 Honda CRF 250L are evenly matched across the key measurable criteria. Your decision comes down to personal preference, riding style, and which brand's dealer network best suits your location.

Key Differences

2010 Yamaha TW 200 - Advantages

  • Lower seat height: 790 mm vs 875 mm - accessible to a wider range of rider heights.
  • More front wheel travel: 160 mm vs 61 mm - greater compliance over rough surfaces.

2013 Honda CRF 250L - Advantages

  • Fuel injection: Precise fuelling, better cold-start reliability, and lower maintenance requirements.
  • More rear wheel travel: 282 mm vs 150 mm - absorbs bigger hits and rough terrain better.

2010 Yamaha TW 200 vs 2013 Honda CRF 250L - FAQs

Which bike is better for shorter riders, the 2010 Yamaha TW 200 or the 2013 Honda CRF 250L?
The 2010 Yamaha TW 200 has the lower seat at 790 mm, making it more accessible. The 2013 Honda CRF 250L sits higher at 875 mm. A seat height below 800 mm suits most riders; above 820 mm shorter riders may need to tiptoe.
Which should I buy, the 2010 Yamaha TW 200 or the 2013 Honda CRF 250L?
Both are strong choices. The 2010 Yamaha TW 200 has the edge in lower seat height and higher front wheel travel, while the 2013 Honda CRF 250L stands out for fuel injection and higher rear wheel travel. Visit dealers, arrange test rides, and factor in local parts and service costs - these often matter as much as the spec sheet.