300ex all the way!! the only one plus that sticks out on the blaster is the price. the 300ex costs more because almost everything on it is higher quality. the 300ex also has rock solid durability.

 

hands down the 300ex is a better bike. the blaster has cable disc brakes, air cooled 2 stroke, oil injected, no reverse.....etc. the blaster is a low budget, entry level machine. if you want to save 2000.00 I am sure the blaster will hang with the 300ex on most terrain, but it won't be as comfortable.

as far as the warrior goes.......that thing is an over priced slug, unless they have dramatically improved since 1990 when I last rode one.

 

hey 2PUNKSDAD u dont know what u r talkin about
i have a warrior that will blow anything away that u got
YAMAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YAMAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

All I can say is its up to the rider. Ride them both before you make up your mind. I was luck I had two friends I planed on riding with one owned a early 90's blaster and the other owned a 94 300ex. Though the were both still stock and very used the difference was still noticible. The 300ex had alot better ride as far as comfort and stability. The only thing I liked about the blaster was the 2 stroke but the 4 stroke is alot better in mind on the trail. The blaster will test your skills alittle more as fare as error goes but the 300ex is alot more fun to ride and leaves plenty of room for error. When I say error I'm regarding to lack of experience and common screw ups. The 300ex in my mind just plan kicks some BEEP. But its all up to you the rider.

 

sterm,
i DO know what I am talking about. I rode a fairly new Warrior a few days ago, and I still think it is an overpriced slug. If you DO have a warrior that will smoke my 400ex, then you dumped too much money into an overpriced slug.

heck, my wife's stock kawasaki lakota will run with a stock warrior anyday. the warrior is a slug out of the crate, and to argue that, you show your inexperience. good day.