I would like to know which of these you guys think are geared the best for hill climbing. I know that that the 400ex is a better jumper being lighter and having better shocks. I have read some where that the warrior shocks bottom out at 3 feet of air.

 

im not for sure on that, proll just depends on the rider....

 

At the hill climb I went to the 400ex's were killing warriors up the hill.

 

Now there are two types of hills, there are hills that you have no run at (to gain momentum) and i would say the warrior is better at those. The reasons:

More controlled power
More weight on the front end
les tendency to wheely (a combination of point 1 and 2 basically)

and the hills where you have a good run at them, the 400ex will be better just because it will build speed and hold it better than a warrior.

 

I agree with derekhonda, if you take both machines bone stock, the warrior will be better at climbing hills where you have no run at/have intricate (not straight) paths to follow on the way up the hill. The 400ex will be better at climbing straight, long hills where you have a run at them (of course, if you put an extended swingarm on the 400ex you can have the best of both worlds :-&gt[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img].

As for the 400ex having better shocks, I don't think anyone will argue with you there. The stock warrior shocks bite hardcore. As for bottoming them out, that depends on how much you weigh, and if you're landing on flat ground or not. If you're landing on flat ground, 3 foot of air or a little more is probably right. It's probably a similar figure for the 400ex stock shocks too though.

 

I must totally dis agree with you two. I was at a hill climb with NO running start, they started right on the hill and everytime a 400ex would go it went right up pretty good but the warrior didnt fare so well it just ran out of power and they had to down shift and most di not make it. I do not own either so i am not biased I am tellign you guys what I witnessed with my own 2 eyes not what i speculate will happen. Zeebo.

 

I'm sure those 400ex's had extended swingarms, which would make them the better all-around hill climber by far, simply due to the power advantage.

The main reason I say the warrior is a better hill climber at hills with no run/intricate hills is because the warrior is more front heavy than the 400ex, and it's not nearly as "wheelie happy" as the 400ex. I've owned a warrior before, and a good friend on mine has a 400ex he lets me ride all the time. If I were to pick between a stock warrior and a stock 400ex for hillclimbing, I'd take the warrior. Now, If I had to pick between a warrior and a 400ex, both with extended swing arms, I'm afraid the warrior would still be sitting in the garage at the end of the day.

 

i've ridden warriors but i haven't done any real hills with em...however i think my 400 would be better at any hill than a warrior...maybe i'm wrong i dunno.

 

they would be pretty close but the 400s more displacement and better flowing motor produces more power and torque which will make it better for climbing, it is also lighter which will lower the weight the motor has to pull up the hill. There wouldn't to much of a difference, but a good edge would go to the 400.

 

I cant believe that this is an actual comparision. I have a 2001 Warrior and it has to be one of the worst "sport" quad there is. It is so top heavy that it want to tip back on hills and to the side on the trail. My Mojave ran circles around the Warrior. As for this crazy comparision, the 400EX kills the Warrior on any type of hill. Go to the Badlands and see. I fail to understnad why anyone looking for a sport quad would buy a Warrior. It is more like a crude, underpowered, utility quad cross-dressing like a sport.