what are your unbiased opinions of each

 

The Z is better in all categories...........

 

I pretty much knew that my brother just wanted me to make a post. He has a 2003 warrior and I'm getting a 2004 Z400 once i save up the money

 

I rode a Warrior for years. A good bike in its day, a dozen years ago. Today, not even in the running!! Yamaha needs to redisign this bike!!

 

i had a 2001 warrior and i thought it was a pretty fun bike. i mostly ride trails, it is a good bike for this but it has no place on the track, with the exception of an all warrior class. there just never seemed to be a lot of aftermarket hop ups for the warrior. now i have the z and think it is a good bike, good handling and speed and plenty of power.
later sparx

 

Z400 easily the better bike of the two. I have a 2001 Warrior and a 2003 Z...

 

I haven't ridden a Z yet but I do have a Warrior and the Z will beat the Warrior in every area. You can see the biggest difference between the two on the track.

 

Yeah, I think the Z is in another class of bike, like the 400EX.

Love my Warrior, but would love a little more umph now that I'm used to it. I like it's style and handling, but needs more grunt .. could help a little to be a bit wider too [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

I've owned both. In an unbiased opinion, the 2 bikes are like night and day. My modded warrior would get smoked by a stock Z. Stock for stock, the Z has about 10 HP over the warrior. Frame geometry and suspension on the Z is noticably improved over the Warrior. Handling, better on the Z. Jumping, again, Z. Modification options - Z is better. The only area that the warrior is proven better in is durability - it's been around forever compared to the Z being 1 yr old.