Hi all,

I'm newly registered, however the website and forum have always been a great source of info. I've been toying with the idea of getting a CRM for years now. I've finally made the decision to buy one and so I thought it would be a good time to register and to be part of the forum.
I have always had a soft spot for the 2 stroke engine and have had 2T bikes on the road since I was 16. My last bike was a CR 500 AF SM which I loved but certainly wasn't an everyday bike! Since then I've wanted something a lot more useable and I can't think of another bike more suitable than a CRM. I've decide that I'd like a MK3, however I haven't decided whether it should be a standard MK3 or an AR. Engine-wise, what are the pro's and con's of both? I'm leaning towards a late MK3 for simplicity as I assume the electrics on an AR are a little more complex and therfor a potentially larger source of issues? Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance,

Tom.

The AR is a love hate thing.
I buy bikes on condition and service history personally you could get a money pit Mk3 or AR

I totally agree with buying on condition and history. With that in mind, what benefit does the AR have over a MK3 and vice versa?

They are basically the same apart from the engine. The AR has an advanced 2 stroke engine that in original condition makes less pollution than a conventional 2 stroke. Complicated to keep running perfectly, fragile electronics and expensive to repair.

Agreed and I own an AR.
If you like getting stuck in, problem solving and finding rocking horse poo go for the AR if not go for a Mk3.

That confirms my thoughts about the AR then! Great idea when new but like any other emission control technology, can become problematic as the engine ages and wears.
On paper, power and torque are the same but are there any genuine performance differences between the two like people suggest?

My riding buddy has a MK3 I have an AR, both have had meticulous 100% 'nut and bolt' refurbs. There is little or no difference in performance on the road or on the trail that we can see, we are both experienced off road riders and there's no noticeable difference in performance. The only significant difference that we have found is two stroke oil, my AR uses less than half of the MK3, and the AR is a little bit more economical on petrol, but not by much.

Obviously an AR will be newer than any MK3 you can find, but as already stated buy on condition and use - 'you pays your money and you takes your chance'

Those are my thoughts any way.

Richard

Yes my AR uses very little 2T oil and is good on fuel (10 miles per ltr).

knackeredMk1 wrote:They are basically the same apart from the engine. The AR has an advanced 2 stroke engine that in original condition makes less pollution than a conventional 2 stroke. Complicated to keep running perfectly, fragile electronics and expensive to repair.

Almost correct, but for the small grammatical error, it should have read, {----- running, perfectly fragile electronics-----} .
Mike