Has anyone compared these two machines, and what is you opinions? I have had both, the '95 400, and now have a '99 450. Am seriously considering trading for a 400, because I feel the 450 is just too awkard and harder to manuver than the 400. Jim

 

JWCTRX,
I would have thought the 450 would have been the better machine with its longer suspension and larger engine. My neighbor has the 97 foreman 400 and he has been thinking about trading up to the rubicon. I can't imagine the 450 being awkard. Maybe because the 400 sits closer to the ground it feels more stable. I do know my 98 300 4x4 has more suspension travel than a foreman 400. Your the first one that I have heard of though that likes the 400 better. I am surprized that honda is still making the 400 so maybe you had better get one while you can. Chet

 

One of the magazines listed the 450 as a Sport/Utility, and the 400 as a pure Utility. I think they are implying that the 400 is best used as a work machine. The difference is probably suspension, etc. From a marketing point of view, I always felt they should sell the 400 as an economy model, but as I recall the prices aren't that different(???).

I can't see why they still make the 400 anyway, seeing they have a 350 and a 450. I'll bet they are just using up the parts they have on hand, and we will see the 400 discontinued in the near future.

 

Except for the suspension travel being longer on the 450, which is good, I think I like everything else better on the 400. It is a bit lighter, not quite as tall, and still has plenty of power. I guess it could be that I logged so many miles in the mountains on my 400 that I just got real comfortable with it! I know my wifes Rancher 350 steers and handles a lot better than my 450. I guess I'm just looking for better handleing, but want to stay a little bigger than the Rancher. Thanks for your input guys. Jim