Husqvarna WR 125 2009 vs. Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Husqvarna WR 125 2009

Husqvarna WR 125 2009

Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Loading...

Overview - Husqvarna WR 125 2009 vs Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Husqvarna WR 125 2009

Husqvarna WR 125 2009

Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Technical Specifications Husqvarna WR 125 2009 compared to Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Husqvarna WR 125 2009
Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Engine and Drive Train

BoreBore54 mmBore72 mm
StrokeStroke54.5 mmStroke72 mm
StarterStarterKickStarterElectric, Kick
DisplacementDisplacement124 ccmDisplacement293.2 ccm

Suspension Front

BrandBrandSachsBrandWP

Suspension Rear

BrandBrandSachsBrandWP

Brakes Rear

TypeTypeDiscTypeDisc

Dimensions and Weights

Front tyre diameterFront tyre diameter21 inchFront tyre diameter21 inch
Rear tyre diameterRear tyre diameter18 inchRear tyre diameter18 inch
WheelbaseWheelbase1,465 mmWheelbase1,482 mm
Seat HeightSeat Height975 mmSeat Height960 mm
Dry WeightDry Weight101 kgDry Weight104.6 kg
Fuel Tank CapacityFuel Tank Capacity7 lFuel Tank Capacity11 l

Pros and Cons in comparison

Pros and Cons in comparison

Husqvarna WR 125 2009

Husqvarna WR 125 2009

Unfortunately, our editors did not test this model.

Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Husqvarna TE 300 2016

Completely new engine for 2017! Lighter and quieter thanks to the balancer shaft, the two-stroke has also been lightened, with the 300 now weighing in at 102 kg. The choice for Erzberg, Romaniacs and Co!

Much quieter due to balancer shaft

powerful engine

best balance of weight and performance

I would prefer a four-stroke on smooth and easy tracks

Price Comparison Avarage Market Price Husqvarna WR 125 vs Husqvarna TE 300

Price Husqvarna WR 125

Model year
Current average market prices

Price Husqvarna TE 300

Model year
Current average market prices

Alternative Comparisons