PDA

View Full Version : Warrior Vs. Blaster



ATC70
10-31-2002, 06:54 PM
which is faster a yamaha warrior or a blaster?

10-31-2002, 07:12 PM
which is faster a yamaha warrior or a blaster?


Hey erwin

Tri-Z_Jim
10-31-2002, 10:23 PM
A warrior will beat a blaster in a drag race.A race anyplace else depends on the rider.

speed20
11-01-2002, 11:50 PM
I agree with Tri Z Jim, a warrior would def. beat a blaster in a straight out drag, but in the woods and such, it would depend on the rider.

yamaha 250
11-19-2002, 09:25 PM
how could it beat a blaster???????????????????????

banshee350
11-30-2002, 02:58 AM
a warrior is a lot faster than a blaster! trust i should know i have one and i outran a blaster by a mile!

yamaha 250
12-02-2002, 12:38 AM
if trailprotrailpro not the biggest lier u never raced a blaster and haviong a warrior is not somthing to brage about.

Tri-Z_Jim
12-02-2002, 08:49 PM
This Banshee350 character seems to be makin up alot of BS lately.He calls himself banshee350 and he doesnt even own one.He also talks down alot of machines that he knows nothing about. Last I heard your big bad warrior had a cracked frame,which to me,means its nothing more than the average neglected quad. I realize your just an immature kid and dont know any better.You should get some facts together before you say this is faster than that.It doesnt take a whole lot of brains to figure out that a warrior is faster than a blaster in a drag race.But when your on the mx track or hare scrambles coarse the better rider ends up winning.
Maybe someday you will show up at one of our rides at haspin or where ever so I can enlighten you on the capabilities of a blaster.

banshee350
12-02-2002, 09:00 PM
BLASTER'S SUCK U SHOULD KNOW THAT.

Lots_Of_Nothing
12-02-2002, 09:02 PM
i think you are underestimating them....have you ever even rode one?

banshee350
12-02-2002, 09:03 PM
YEAH THEIR TO SMALL AND I THINK THEY SUCK

Lots_Of_Nothing
12-02-2002, 09:05 PM
just because they are small...doesnt mean they dont have some power, i mean they arent the fastest quad out there, but they are still fun, and they arent the slowest thing either

WarriorRacer
12-03-2002, 12:44 AM
I don't know. I mean for top end speed the Blaster and Warrior are nearly identical. My '01 Warrior is faster than a Blaster but not by much.

WarriorRacer
12-03-2002, 12:45 AM
oops

fastmofo250
05-16-2004, 02:01 AM
well BANSHEE350 you need to get your chit straight. i agree with all of th people on this thread about you. i am pretty new and dont have alot of posts to this forum but i can sure tell you that you dont know anything. and by the way, if you ever rode a blaster with some stuff done to it, they can be really fun and like sone of the people said, they may not be the fastest but there sure not the slowest, and i bet they would beat that banshee you dont even have. lol

smokinwrench
05-16-2004, 01:22 PM
I think a blaster is one of the funest quads to ride. It is so small and manuuverable you can really throw the trailprotrailprotrailprotrailprotrailpro end around and roost all day long with it. I havnet ridden one in about 2 years though.

J.D.
05-16-2004, 02:20 PM
Actually I think a Blaster would win a drag too. If I remember correctly Blaster has 17 HP and a Warrior has 18, and I am sure a Blaster is a LOT lighter than a Warrior. Top speed, a warrior is probably geared higher for more speed. Later.

TimSr
05-16-2004, 03:59 PM
well BANSHEE350 you need to get your chit straight. i agree with all of th people on this thread about you. i am pretty new and dont have alot of posts to this forum but i can sure tell you that you dont know anything. and by the way, if you ever rode a blaster with some stuff done to it, they can be really fun and like sone of the people said, they may not be the fastest but there sure not the slowest, and i bet they would beat that banshee you dont even have. lol

I think that before you advise somebody to get their "chit" straight, you might want to look at the date of the posting and realize that you are replying to a two year old post, which leaves enough time for the guy to have earned an AA degree in mechanical engineering between the time he posted and the time you replied.

ATC crazy
05-16-2004, 04:29 PM
Hahahaha....Tim, I didnt realize that it was 2 years old until you said something about it.

threewheelin-feelin
05-17-2004, 06:06 PM
a 200s is a small slow bike but i have fun on it come to think of it it really ant that slow. but i dont put other ppls trailprotrailprotrailprotrailpro down in less im playing around with them.

honda200
05-22-2004, 04:14 PM
I have an 87 warrior and i race a 300 EX (my bors) and his is about the same speed as a blaster, in 5th gear i just barely pass him, but once i hit 6th then i dont really pass him fast, but more then a crawl, this is straight in about 1/4 mile long field

Curtis

everydaycajun01
05-22-2004, 04:18 PM
easy,kids will be kids

lisnup65
06-01-2004, 09:22 AM
I have a 2000 Warrior and a 2003 Blaster. In stock form the warrior will take the Blaster on top end. I now run Blue Marble oil in the Blaster and I changed the front sprocker by a tooth. The Warrior eats the Blaster out of the hole with this setup, but in about 4/500 feet the Blaster walks right by it.

The Blaster in theory should be quicker than the Warrior as its smaller, lighter, about equal in ponies. The difference is the gearing!!! The blaster 1st 2 gears are useless because its attempting to make up for the lack of torque. These are just my observations of running both machines.

Both machines serve a purpose and both are a fine ride. If I were to race, I would take the smaller, lighter and more nimble Blaster any day as the warrior just is not a race machine. Its the first cross between a utility and a sport machine.