people are ignorant, the blaster wins, and modded the blaster wins by even a further majority.

v581

 

if u have a stock blaster and beat a stock warrior the warrior rider must sux. a warrior is faster than a blaster stock for stock. and the warrior has around 5mph more top end to

 

except for the fact the tank like warrior is slow outta the holeshot, and cant catch the blaster granted it has a higher top end.

v581

 

Calm down everybody. We all have dif. opinions and I personally went w/ a warrior bcuz My brother has a blaster and I didnt feel comfortable on it. As for which one is faster, Stock for stock I use to race my brother and it was very close alot of times. I won most of the time but riders could be more exp. than the other. They are both fun quads

 

Fastblaster00, you sure your feeling alright today?[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]

 

ya im feelin fine. when my blaster had just the full fmf pipe and my dads warrior was stock and both bikes have 20inch tires, teh bikes were teh same, except the warrior would pull away top end. and just to make shore it wasnt the rider me and my dad would switch bikes. from the start up to 5th gear whoever got the better start would be in the lead, but the warrior would pull away in the 2nd half of 5th and 6th gear.we did alot of races to try and figure out whats faster. we raced on dirt, gravel, pavment, grass fields, and we would both start in the same gear. wed do some races launchin from first and then others launchin in 2nd. stock for stock teh warrior is faster but hell who cairs. my dad payed 2gs for his 01 warrior with a skid plate and 20 inch razers in 02 adn i payed 1400 for my blaster in 03 and it had 20 inch holeshots and full fmf exhaust. as of now i only have 1750 into it and thats counting the cost of the bike. $ to $ wise ur better of gettin a blaster and moding it but stock to stock the warriors faster.

 

yeah me too, although i still got 3 different quads that will beat it [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

yeah, along with everyone else, I would say get the warrior. More top end, good amount of mods for it, and it is one of the best trail bikes ever.

 

Glad to hear you got what you wanted to get.

I'd say that if the blaster is slower than the warrior stock for stock then it's because of shorter gearing on the blaster(dunno if that's actual fact or not). The blaster has a better power/weight ratio than the Warrior (thanks to the Warrior being a lard-a$$). I dunno who thinks that the warrior suspension is stiff ... I'm really quite confused by that .. if the Warriors suspension is stiff compared to the blaster, then a blaster would be absolutely useless to me ... I'm only 170 and I find if anything the suspension is too soft on the Warrior. It's just about perfect for trail riding and soaks up the bumps as good as any grizz. I've ridden. On jumps the soft suspension really bottoms out (check my pics for an example of compressed suspension ....)

As far as reliability .. both are Yammi, so you won't have trouble with either if you maintain. But the Warrior will definitely outlast the 2-stroke blaster with hardly any maintenance ... just make sure there's oil in there and you're good to go.

Available mods .. the warrior has heaps, but when it comes to modding potential I think the only other quad with more potential than the blaster is the banshee ...