400ex vs. z400
Jul 4, 2006 | 08:50 PM
#1
Thread Starter
|
Weekend Warrior
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
400ex vs. z400
alright, some of you might have seen my previouse post raptor660 vs 400ex or z400. now its between the z and the ex. this is what i now. the z has liquid cooling when the ex has air. the z has reverse and a couple more hp's. the ex being a honda is known to be tough or bulletproof. i know that the z will cost a little more. wich is best for trail riding?
-------------------------------
1984 honda odyssey fl250 $1500
-------------------------------
1984 honda odyssey fl250 $1500
Jul 4, 2006 | 10:57 PM
#3
T Rex Rider
What irritates me is!
Those 6-packs work pretty good.
What irritates me is!
Those 6-packs work pretty good.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,801
Likes: 1
From: Oeste Del Tejas
400ex vs. z400
If I was buying new, I'd get the Z. Used, I'm not so sure. There seem to be a lot of good deals on used EX's right now. I've seen 440's go for under $3K and I'd take one of those over a stock Z. Just my $.02.
Jul 5, 2006 | 09:50 AM
#4
Red Rider
Honda, accept nothing less!
Honda, accept nothing less!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,733
Likes: 1
400ex vs. z400
I pick the Z as the best all-around machine. It handles great, and the motor has great hop-up potential with just a few simple mods like opening up the airbox, a UNI air filter, and an aftermarket pipe. Mine has proven to be bulletproof!
I do prefer the 400EX for very tight, slower more technical trails. It has an engine that doesn't mind being lugged down and ridden slowly, where the Z prefers to be reved out more and ridden fast. Again, handling is excellent and the machine is bulletproof.
I do prefer the 400EX for very tight, slower more technical trails. It has an engine that doesn't mind being lugged down and ridden slowly, where the Z prefers to be reved out more and ridden fast. Again, handling is excellent and the machine is bulletproof.
Jul 5, 2006 | 11:40 AM
#5
Shed Knocker Rider
Harley Punk!
Harley Punk!
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 35,876
Likes: 2
400ex vs. z400
Originally posted by: reconranger
I pick the Z as the best all-around machine. It handles great, and the motor has great hop-up potential with just a few simple mods like opening up the airbox, a UNI air filter, and an aftermarket pipe. Mine has proven to be bulletproof!
I do prefer the 400EX for very tight, slower more technical trails. It has an engine that doesn't mind being lugged down and ridden slowly, where the Z prefers to be reved out more and ridden fast. Again, handling is excellent and the machine is bulletproof.
I pick the Z as the best all-around machine. It handles great, and the motor has great hop-up potential with just a few simple mods like opening up the airbox, a UNI air filter, and an aftermarket pipe. Mine has proven to be bulletproof!
I do prefer the 400EX for very tight, slower more technical trails. It has an engine that doesn't mind being lugged down and ridden slowly, where the Z prefers to be reved out more and ridden fast. Again, handling is excellent and the machine is bulletproof.
Jul 5, 2006 | 12:11 PM
#6
T Rex Rider
What irritates me is!
Those 6-packs work pretty good.
What irritates me is!
Those 6-packs work pretty good.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,801
Likes: 1
From: Oeste Del Tejas
400ex vs. z400
And where were you guys when Mr Scrambler was making these comments?
"The 400 sucked using my normal second gear powering up a hill...if I didn't keep it pinned that lousy thing would find me headed backwards down the hill! It just flat does not have the right ***** to gear ratio! My younger brother had the exact same year 400EX, and it suffered from the exact same lame torque."
"All the while I had kept a Warrior around because of the fact that it was so reliable, and had the perfect mix of torque and gearing, which allowed for stable powering up a hill without the need to stay in the top of the powerband. A well designed and balanced four-stroke thumper will allow you to do that, all of which the 400EX was not. Yes, if you wanted to always have to keep the RPM's up like you were on a two-stroke, you can make a 400 EX respond and climb about anything, but then, does this not defeat the concept of a four-stroker?"
I can creep in 3rd. Have no clue where this guy is coming from?????? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]
"The 400 sucked using my normal second gear powering up a hill...if I didn't keep it pinned that lousy thing would find me headed backwards down the hill! It just flat does not have the right ***** to gear ratio! My younger brother had the exact same year 400EX, and it suffered from the exact same lame torque."
"All the while I had kept a Warrior around because of the fact that it was so reliable, and had the perfect mix of torque and gearing, which allowed for stable powering up a hill without the need to stay in the top of the powerband. A well designed and balanced four-stroke thumper will allow you to do that, all of which the 400EX was not. Yes, if you wanted to always have to keep the RPM's up like you were on a two-stroke, you can make a 400 EX respond and climb about anything, but then, does this not defeat the concept of a four-stroker?"
I can creep in 3rd. Have no clue where this guy is coming from?????? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]
Jul 5, 2006 | 02:14 PM
#7
Shed Knocker Rider
Harley Punk!
Harley Punk!
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 35,876
Likes: 2
400ex vs. z400
I didn't see it, someone just bashing like an idiot. On any 400 I have been on I climb hills in 2nd or 3rd, rarely even need 3rd. And that is on some nasty terrain too.
Trending Topics
Jul 5, 2006 | 03:27 PM
#9
T Rex Rider
What irritates me is!
Those 6-packs work pretty good.
What irritates me is!
Those 6-packs work pretty good.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,801
Likes: 1
From: Oeste Del Tejas
400ex vs. z400
Yep.
Like I've said before, I've spent a ton of time on the 350. Only thing I liked better was at slow speeds it would turn when the EX would try to push out and I'm sure a little toe adjustment would change that. I question whether the guy has ever really been on an EX. The engine is torquey as can be at low rpm's. Sounds like he wants a Briggs and Stratton. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]
Like I've said before, I've spent a ton of time on the 350. Only thing I liked better was at slow speeds it would turn when the EX would try to push out and I'm sure a little toe adjustment would change that. I question whether the guy has ever really been on an EX. The engine is torquey as can be at low rpm's. Sounds like he wants a Briggs and Stratton. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img]