I've owned both and I really did like both. I had a 1985 YFM 200, a 1986 YFM 225, and a 1989 Honda 300 (still got that one). The honda was obviously better than the others, but keep in mind that the yamahas were first and second year quads and the honda had the advantage of being a later model with refinements in mind. The yamahas were excellent bikes for their time period (not counting newer quads), but Hondas did have a slight edge in how well they were put together. The 225 Yamaha would go anywhere the Honda 250 fourtraxes (not R's) would, but I could never convince myself that they were as reliable or as tight. The transmissions were kind of clunky and the 225 wore out sooner than other peoples honda 250's. The 300 is 11 years old now, and the engine still runs perfect. only thing bad now on it is the front brake which can easily be fixed.

When I went through the motions of buying a quad, I really wanted a Griz for the speed or a Sportsman for the ride. I couldn't bear the idea of that damn belt drive though. I checked into the 450 honda, and wound up settling on the 500 AC. I don't think it is put together as tight as the honda (very minor things like the plastic panels rattle a little after a few hundred miles), but it is every bit as sturdy. The points that swayed me here were that I knew that while the AC wasn't great at turning, it would still turn no wider a circle than the honda. It had a sturdy frame under it and had strong racks, it had more power and was faster than the 450, and the semi-independant suspension was truly awesome. 7.2" of wheel travel and hydraulic disc brakes didn't hurt either, this quad has a good ride.

I don't regret my decision at all. Now if the Grizzly would have had a manual transmission, there is no doubt that I would have bought it over anything else. It has always been my decision that everyone makes a good bike that will last except polaris which after seeing so many after they are a couple years old I am a firm believer that they are junk. They outperform anything brand new, but they are made weak and fall apart soon thereafter purchase. Any quad will get you from point A to point B so I never use that as a factor.

Overall manufacturer ratings:

Honda- *****
Yamaha- ****
Kawasaki- ****
Arctic Cat- ****
Suzuki- ****
Polaris- **

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*

 

At your yamaha dealership, they should have a brochure that is the whole shootout!!
timberwolf_99 -- Sean S.

 

I've had both yamaha and honda products and feel their both good quality. However, my yamaha had more features that were useful to me. I currently have a y2kodiac and am extremely pleased. As for comments about too many moving parts, that doen't hold much merrit considering honda's are full time 4x4. That is excessive wear and tear considering you don't need 4x4 90% of the time. The kodiac goes in and out of 4x4 on command. As for power, it smoked the honda 450es from start to finish in the Dec. issue of Dirt Wheels mag. It also won in every other category. Honda makes a good bike, but Yamahas are better suited for me personally.

 

I'm no expert, but I had a yamaha (timberwolf) for years, my brother owned a honda. Neighter one of us ever had any major problems with them. But when it was time las year to upgrade, I looked at all manufacturers, I was lookig for a sport 4 wheeler, I realize your not, but I chose a polaris. I know, I herd them all, but with polaris you seam to get more for your money. If you check them out, and don't like them, nothing lost, but if you don't even concider polaris then you could be cheating yourself out of the perfect ATV for you... just a thought

Bruce L. Hall

 

In response to the Kodiac being underpowered when compared to the honda 450es, this does't make much sense. See the magazine articles in which the kodiac out ran the 450es from start to finish and won in every single category of comparison.