300ex Vs. WARRIOR
Jul 6, 2003 | 11:38 PM
#21
Range Rover
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
300ex Vs. WARRIOR
ive never ridden a warrior but from what my friends have told me the warrior is way under powered for a 350 . ill agree that the 300 ex isnt that fast stock but put some mods on it and u will be fine or just get the 400ex
Jul 7, 2003 | 12:20 AM
#22
Pro Rider
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,449
Likes: 0
300ex Vs. WARRIOR
Warriors not really underpowered, its just not a hot rod. How much can you expect from a motor smaller than a lawnmower motor. Besides, if a warrior is alot faster than a 300ex, and the warrior is underpowered whats that make the 300ex? IMO warrior is the best bike for having fun in the woods.
My Avatar means roses stink and oil smells good. I need to draw a new one, its kinda cheesy but it was late when I made it.
My Avatar means roses stink and oil smells good. I need to draw a new one, its kinda cheesy but it was late when I made it.
Jul 7, 2003 | 06:08 PM
#23
Range Rover
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
300ex Vs. WARRIOR
yeah they probably are good for the woods but they are not ment to be climbing freeway hill at the dunes. not to be a smart *** but i think for being a 350 they think it should be maybe a(250) or a 300 ive never ridden one though
Nov 13, 2005 | 12:57 PM
#24
Range Rover
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
300ex Vs. WARRIOR
the 300ex is better for the trails imo. it handles way better, turns tighter and is shorter. maybe your friend with the 300ex can't drive because i don't see how you say they are slow, they got plenty acceleration for their size. you can slap a 331 big bore kit on one and supporting mods and smoke a 400ex with a lot smaller machine. besides, you don't go by top speed when racing. it's who gets there first in a sprint or circuit. it is mainly the driver. swap out the rear sprocket on a 300ex and you will be at the same top speed of a warrior which is not far from the honda.honda last a lot longer and are very reliable. i have seen, ridden many yamahas that blow nuts.
Nov 17, 2005 | 04:34 AM
#26
Weekend Warrior
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
300ex Vs. WARRIOR
I own a 1995 300ex and a 1996 yamaha warrior I am a bigger guy over 6 feet and over 2oo lbs and I have to say if you do any kind of sport riding the warrior will feel like it ways to much and is not controlled by the rider if you just do trail riding the warrior can have racks put on and the fact that it weighs so much more make it safer for that. As far as the reliability character i just replaced the motor in both of them this year that is ten years for the honda and nine for the warrior that is pretty good.
Nov 17, 2005 | 09:54 AM
#27
Shed Knocker Rider
Harley Punk!
Harley Punk!
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 35,876
Likes: 2
300ex Vs. WARRIOR
Originally posted by: paintballbanshee
warrior beats 300ex all the way around except handling, but some people like the handling on the warrior bettter
warrior beats 300ex all the way around except handling, but some people like the handling on the warrior bettter
Your best bet is to ride them both. They are very different feeling, the 300ex feels lighter and more agile while the Warrior feels planted to the ground.
Nov 17, 2005 | 11:04 AM
#28
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
300ex Vs. WARRIOR
Originally posted by: HomeDawg
I will say that I do think that the Warrior handling is cumbersome in some situations such as track riding, but who buys a Warrior to ride at the track. For trails, the handling isn't so bad because the front wheels stay on the ground which makes it easier to ride fast.
I stand by my recommendation though to get a more powerful machine. I also think that a water cooled bike is well worth the money.
I will say that I do think that the Warrior handling is cumbersome in some situations such as track riding, but who buys a Warrior to ride at the track. For trails, the handling isn't so bad because the front wheels stay on the ground which makes it easier to ride fast.
I stand by my recommendation though to get a more powerful machine. I also think that a water cooled bike is well worth the money.
The warrior's weight distribution makes turning easy around slower speeds. Probably make a good quad for tight trails. That's the only thing I like more than the 400ex, which tends to push out at slower speeds. Everywhere else the warrior's handling is inferior. I'd look for a nice used 400 for most applications. Better handling, better power and better suspension. That's worth a few extra $hundred imo
Nov 17, 2005 | 07:30 PM
#29
Range Rover
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
300ex Vs. WARRIOR
i don't get how people keep saying that the warrior's handling is better in trails. it sucks. i rode one last weekend and i had a good 15 ft. wide trail and i had to do a 2 point turn to go back the other direction. it just sucks as far as turning radius concerns. it sucks at doing wheelies to but that was already said. i love my 300ex in the trail and jumps. it turns fast and tight, easy to whip around and does great wheelies. i am not saying the warrior sucks, but the handling does.
Nov 17, 2005 | 09:23 PM
#30
Pro Rider
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
300ex Vs. WARRIOR
throw 20 inch tires on a 300 and it will be even wtih a piped warrior until top end, no joke.
LMFAO Oh really!!!!!
Anyway if the kid is just starting out rideing it really dont matter what he gets he will have fun no matter what.
And as for the handleing a warrior is heavy and when there stock thay handle ok. but with a few mods they handle verywell i race mine on flat track and with the mods eventhough it is heavy it i have got it were it handles awsome.
And as for the power there is no way you can get the power out of a 300ex that you can get out of a warrior i mean i not being a smart a$$ it just comes down to CCs. i know what you can get out of a warrior i build my own engines.