I'd go with the Z400. It is liquid cooled, reverse, and a just all around quicker bike. The EX probaly handles better, but it's close either way. Basically the Z is the EX with better features and looks.

 

Well, here's the deal.

People will talk about power, liquid cooling, etc - but the facts are the Z and the 400EX put out very similar power when stock. The Z does have a bit of an edge though. Liquid cooling is nice, but can be a pain at the same time & at the performance level these two engines are, stock, the liquid cooling really doesn't make a difference.

When you modify, the Z will ultimately be able to achieve more power, but you also have to remember that very few will spend the cubic dollars necessary to bring a Z up much more than the low 40's HP range (which is also easily attainable with a 400EX).

The Z is a nice machine, with good potential, and reverse if it matters to you.

Now the Z's not so good points....

Many will tell you Suzuki copied the 400EX chassis and made it better. Well, this is somewhat true but not quite. It's true that they copied critical geometry to make the chassis handle like a Honda. The problem is with the execution. The Suzuki frame is very weak in some important areas due to what I consider some very serious lapses of judgement on Suzuki's engineers part. They left out some critical reinforcements and box sections in the frame (which is why you'll see several companies advertising gusset kits for the Z).

I'm sure there are several here that will chime in and say "Well I have a Z or a KFX and I haven't had any problems" - and it's likely true. However, that does not mean that the chassis does not have some serious flaws and they will never see them. (not every pinto blew up when they were rear ended, but do you want to take the chance?).

The next problem is parts pricing. The 400EX replacement parts prices are many times less than half the cost of Suzuki parts, sometimes MUCH less than half, many of these price differences are so large that you'd think a pricing error has been made...

Performance - one of the biggest things I don't like about the Z's performance is that Suzuki decided to use a CV carburetor. Unlike a standard carb, a CV carb doesn't give you a mechanical connection to the throttle. The throttle is essentially operated by engine vacuum and the signal it receives from your input from the thumb throttle. This means that throttle response won't be what it should, the carb doesn't flow well, and odd things can happen (like chopping the throttle when landing a jump). In fact, a good, cheap performance mod for a Z is a 400EX carb.

One more thing to consider is what price you can find these quads for. 400EX's can be found very inexpensive both new and used - many dealers give steep discounts from MSRP for 400EX's and they can be found extremely inexpensively used. With these savings, if a person desires, they can buy a lot of cool aftermarket upgrades & engine performance.

So, as you can see, the choice isn't quite as clear as "The Z is newer, has reverse, and a new, liquid cooled engine". Both are great & fun to ride machines - just make sure you know all the facts & have an idea what's important to you.

When the Z first came out I seriously considered replacing my 400EX as my race quad - however, I was very glad I did not after racing with a few & learning more about them.

I'm not saying "run out and get a 400EX" or a 400EX is better than a Z, but don't discount it because of some of responses here that fail to mention some of the critical differences and similarities in the two.

 

i would get the z or one of its "brothers".i like them a whole lot better than a ex.i think the z is more comfortable too.

 

nicely said 1986atc250r..

 

Thanx 1986atc250r do u happen to have either one

 

400ex i owned both and didnt like either but if i had to choose it would be the honda