2007 Road Star Warrior
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Can someone tell me the difference in these two bike's motor wise! Bigger displacement, tuneing? Also, are all '99-present roadstar's fuel injected? I'm debating on getting a Roadstar. I'm still torn between the two.
Joined
·
2,916 Posts
I saw a RoadStar 1700 the other day and it was carbureted. It was also newer than 1999.
Joined
·
510 Posts
They just started making the roadstar motor fuel injected in '07. And previously it was a 1600 whereas the warrior was a 1700 (1670). Other than that im kinda curious myself; but i think there was also some other beefing up on the warrior motor.
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
They both use the 102 ci engine.
The Warrior has always been fuel injected and I believe in 2006 the RoadStar was upgraded to fuel injection.
When the Warrior was introduced it had 40% more HP than the RoadStar, but I'm not sure of the RoadStar upgrades ovver the years.
The Warrior has an aluminum frame while the RaodStar is steel. This reduces the weight of the Warrior and therefor increases the performance.
Those are a few of the differences I'm aware of and there are probably more.
Joined
·
13,680 Posts
They both NOW have the 1670cc engine. The older RStars had 1602 and no fuel injection. I believe the cam's are also different. If you want long range comfort, frequently carry large loads and don't care about getting beat light to light go with the Road Star. If most of your riding is shorter trips, you don't mind a tank bag or back pack, and want to get to the next light first, buy a Warrior.
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
40%....Holy crap, Roadstars must be slow! I don't know if I want a carburated bike either! Thank's guy's! Any other info is stillwelcome!
Joined
·
2,916 Posts
beach said:
40%....Holy crap, Roadstars must be slow! I don't know if I want a carburated bike either! Thank's guy's! Any other info is stillwelcome!
There was a difference but to my knowledge it wasn't 40%. The one thing I did like about the carbureted RoadStar was the sound of the engine. It had that slow lope similar to the Harley. Sounded pretty bad.
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
http://www.ridermagazine.com/output.cfm?id=1200385
One of the most impressive machines in this new genre is Yamaha's Road Star Warrior, which first appeared in 2002. It's based upon the standard Road Star, but has many upgraded function-oriented features. The Road Star was introduced for 1999 as a mellow cruiser with an air-cooled, 48-degree, 1,602cc V-twin engine having a bore and stroke of 95.0 x 113.0mm. We dyno tested it at 53.3 horsepower at 3,800 rpm, and an impressive 84.5 lb-ft of torque at 2,300 rpm. When the higher-performance Warrior version of the Road Star was introduced three years later, it had been bored to 97.0mm but carried the same stroke, which resulted in a 1,670cc displacement, or 102 cubic inches. Note that the Warrior's cylinders have 30 percent more fin area than the Road Star's for enhanced cooling.
While torque is a major consideration on a cruiser, let's not forget horsepower. The Warrior is already cranking out 50 horsepower by 2,800 rpm, and peaks at 74.5 horsepower at 4,500 rpm. Peak torque, 95.5 lb-ft, occurs at about 3,500 rpm. Both figures are considerable improvements over the Road Star's numbers, and both occur higher in the rev range than the Road Star's figures. Eventually, Yamaha upgraded the Road Star with the bored cylinders and now today both models displace 1,670cc, but the Warrior still makes considerably greater power because of its hotter cams, injectors and a higher redline. It will be interesting to see if the new 1,854cc engine introduced on the 2006 Roadliner and Stratoliner will become a part of the next generation of Road Stars and Warriors.
While the Road Star has a standard mild-steel frame with a rectangular-section backbone and twin downtubes, the Warrior offers an aluminum double-cradle frame that is 40 percent lighter than the Road Star's, yet it's 41 percent more rigid. The swingarm is likewise 42 percent lighter yet stronger. The aluminum frame has been given a relatively steep (for a cruiser) rake of 29 degrees, with 5.1 inches of trail; contrast these figures with the Road Star's 32 degrees and 5.6 inches of trail. That, combined with a relatively long 65.6-inch wheelbase and those wide radial tires, give the Warrior a combination of stability with acceptably quick steering.
Old article but good reading
Joined
·
71 Posts
a friend of mine has an older Silverado that has the same 102 engine that i have except his has carbs an its pretty quick. he has some minor mods like pipes and bigger carbs an he could hold his own against most . if i was going to do a lot of long riding i would go roadstar but if u to be quick off line the Warrior the way to go. plus i think the warrior looks a lot meaner and has more personality than the roadstar.
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Great info guy's thank's! My big issue lately is that I like the fork's and tank on the Roadstar! I've been thinking of selling the warrior so I could buy a Roadstar and do a 250 rear and 21'' front wheel.I like the Warrior as well, just don't know how much I want to tear into it. I would'nt be afraid of tearing apart a Roadstar, but I feel the warrior is to nice to do that to! Hope that makes sense!
Joined
·
75 Posts
Does anyone know what causes the roadstar 1700's to idle choppy? Is it cams? Or something to do with carb vs fuel injection? Always wondered about this. Never could find a reason for it using google.
Joined
·
5,508 Posts
there are some differences in the rear head exhaust port on a road star also, the carb will make the bike sound different in the idle and decell compared to the warrior because the warrior fi is cut when you close the throttle compared to carb that is still flowing fuel. in a lot of cases the carb will make more power then fi but the fi has a smoother steadier power curve. btk572
Joined
·
1,985 Posts
Source: https://www.rswarrior.com/threads/warrior-motor-vs-roadstar-motor.157173/
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar