IN BRIEF
High Points: Sportbike chassis technology reaches cruisers; strong power with traditional engine; Star quality with an aggressive style.
Low Points: Abysmal passenger accommodations; no alternate foot rest for long rides; cramped seat.
First Changes: Aftermarket seat; add a passenger seat.
Friedman: I like the Warrior's proposition the best of all the muscle twins to date: Get performance -- acceleration, steering and braking -- by reducing the overall mass and upgrading chassis components. The Warrior does this stuff well, and the rigidity and responsiveness of the chassis shows how effective this approach can be. I also like the Warrior's lines better than the other muscle twins, though I wish Yamaha hadn't been so timid about its use of aluminum, which I'd like to see extended to the bodywork, as on the V-Rod. There are plenty of details I'd rearrange if I owned one, but all the major pieces please me, including the big muffler.
But the affair began to lose its excitement as soon as I sat on it and found myself doing crunches to reach the handlebar and footpegs. OK, that's an overstatement, but the riding position really didn't jive with my view of how I'd like to ride the machine. My feet especially were too far forward. Even my kids don't like the imitation passenger seats that everyone is fitting to these bikes, and at 11 and 13 they are getting big enough now that the Warrior's pegs are crowding them, too. It might have been perfect when they were 5 and 7, though. I found the handling in faster corners a bit unsettling because the bike seems unwilling to hold a precise line. Finally, that old-tech engine in this modern, high-perf chassis seems a bit schizophrenic.
So far none of the muscle twins has supplanted the Valkyrie or the V-Max as my performance cruiser of choice, but I am delighted by the trend.
Art Friedman
E-mail Friedman at Art.Friedman@primedia.com or at ArtoftheMotorcycle@hotmail.com.
Cherney: Well, well, well... looks like we got ourselves a real live horsepower war -- among cruisers, no less! Apparently the V-Rod and the VTX opened some cans, and now there's worms crawling all over the place. Much as I liked the Harley's grunt though, the Warrior's no slouch in that department either -- with all that torque on tap, it's amazing how smooth its acceleration turns out. I'm still not sure about an air-cooled pushrod engine sleeping among all that high-tech componentry, but I was shocked at how slick this Yamaha handles, and not just for a cruiser. The suspension is topnotch, and a lightweight, all-new aluminum frame keeps it on track. Looks kinda sexy, too. Not too sure about the instrumentation though -- those blue lights on the gauges usually just bring back harsh memories of the alien abduction.
But with all this muscle around me, I think I'll be okay.
Andy Cherney
Beam Cherney up to your Intergalactic Battle Cruiser by emailing him at andy.cherney@primedia.com.
Elvidge: Of course we went into the Warrior introduction carrying some lofty expectations. After all, when a company raves about its new baklava for six months before giving you a taste you've already formed a fantasy. I found I had to dial down my opinion only slightly when I initially got on the bike, and the more I rode it, the more I liked it in an entirely realistic way.
No, the aluminum frame and R1 components don't make it feel like a sportbike in stylish sheep's clothing, but it is a wolf of a cruiser. It's pretty effortless to ride in the twisties and I was especially impressed with its low-speed maneuverability and how the trimming from typical cruiser tonnage improves the ol' heave-ho duties around town. I like the look (although I think the Mean Streak offers a prettier line), and the Yamaha motor's appearance and sound are particularly sexy. I personally had no trouble reading the digitized gauges.
A big drawback for me, however, is the bike's lack of long-road intent. I'm comfy enough on short stints, but I'd like a different handlebar, and the total lack of respect for passenger accommodations -- especially aft footpeg placement -- is also disconcerting to those of us who use the rear set as an ergonomic alternative. It's impossible. Granted I don't use that position unless I'm on an open highway, but I can tell you not having it as an option would really cramp my style (which is balls-out all day). And as soon as I pick a guy up, he'll begin to bitch. So that's my biggest peeve.
This new big twin is destined to be extremely popular.
Jamie Elvidge
For the lowdown on Middle Eastern pastries, as well as motorcycles you can write to Jamie at Jamie.Elvidge@primedia.com.
It is the same basic design...
It is the same basic design as the Road Star's engine, but not much else of the original remains.
STAR POWER
The Hopped-Up Road Star
Yamaha is careful to let you know that it wanted this engine to be based on the Road Star's pushrod V-twin. The concept was run past focus groups, who, Yamaha says, insisted that it needed to have traditional V-twin traits, such as air-cooling and pushrods. The initial assumption was that the bike that became the Warrior would have an all-new engine, so that option was presented in these consultations. But American consumers wanted traditional technology, not those new-fangled camshafts stuck up over the cylinder heads. So, for better or worse, Yamaha built its performance twin around an engine that did not seem to be designed with performance in mind.
To pump up the power from a good old-fashioned American-style pushrod V-twin, the engineers employed some good old-fashioned American-style hot-rodding, a bit of modern technology, and a bigger airbox. The hop-up started with basics like boring the cylinders 2mm to 97mm, to raise displacement by 68cc to 1670cc. The cylinders' ceramic bore lining material was retained, and cooling-fin area was increased to address the added heat. The new pistons have an aluminum-oxide coating in the top ring groove to reduce wear.
The valve train was modified for the additional rpm available from the Warrior motor, which is designated XV1700 instead of the Road Star's XV1600. The four valves per cylinder, along with their springs, keepers, seats and seals are the same as the 1600's, as well as the hydraulic lifters. The rocker arms were redesigned to reduce the additional stress of more rpm, and the pushrods were also shortened to accommodate these changes. The hydraulic lifters from the 1600 are retained. The adjuster for each pair of valves was moved to the outboard valve, closer to the oil nozzle and both intake and exhaust camshafts have more duration than the original motor. Though maximum lift is the same as the 1600's cams, the crankcase had to be modified to accommodate the change in profile, so 1600 owners won't be able to use these cams. In fact, almost none of the pieces used to hop up the Warrior will adapt easily to the Road Star.
The cylinder heads saw extensive changes, with one-piece rocker bases for greater strength and heat dissipation, more effective cooling fins, and reshaped ports for increased intake and exhaust flows. Compression was bumped up a tenth of a point to 8.4:1, and like other powertrain components, the heads are black with polished fins.
These are the 2004 Warrior...
These are the 2004 Warrior paint schemes. The ergonomics changed a bit for 2004.
Perhaps the most significant changes occur in the intake system. Instead of drawing on just the lone 4.0-liter airbox on the right side of the engine, the Warrior has an additional 3.5-liter airbox up under the fuel tank, which increases airbox volume by 115 percent vs. the Road Star. Limited airbox volume is the leading killer of cruiser power: manufacturers don't want to compromise the looks of their cruisers with those big plenums and are willing to give up power to avoid doing so. By doubling the airbox volume from the Road Star, Yamaha reduced intake resistance by 70 percent and significantly increased the power potential of the Warrior. On the down side, the lack of space under the tank reduces fuel capacity to 4.0 gallons from the 1600's 5.3 gallons. Both airboxes have their own intake openings and air filters. The right-side airbox connects to the under-tank airbox via a large duct, and the fuel injectors' throttle bodies plug into the bottom of the under-tank airbox.
That new-fangled part of the intake tract -- the electronic fuel-injection system -- samples air and oil temperatures to determine engine temperature. It also has sensors for intake vacuum and temperature, atmospheric pressure and the bike's angle of lean. Yamaha says it meets EPA regulations without a catalyst or O2 sensor, though there is an air-induction circuit that lets air into the exhaust system to allow escaping gases to fully burn. The 40mm throttle bodies, one for each cylinder, demonstrate how much more air the 1700 inhales, compared to the 1600 with its single 40mm carb. They get fuel from an electric fuel pump, which has its own small fuel reservoir.
Another departure from cruiser tradition, that two-into-one exhaust system, with its huge 6.3-inch-diameter, two-foot-long muffler, further improves breathing. It also provides a deeper, fuller exhaust note than the 1600's dual mufflers. The tuned stainless steel 38mm header pipes are equal length.
GEARING CHANGES
OA Ratio - XV1600 - XV1700
1st Gear - 8.663 - 8.705
2nd Gear - 5.612 - 5.785
3rd Gear - 4.123 - 4.252
4th Gear - 3.221 - 3.429
5th Gear - 2.666 - 2.932
There are a few minor changes in the bottom end, such as an additional oil groove in the connecting rods' lower ends. The clutch gets a stouter diaphragm to apply added pressure on the plates, and the oil tank atop the transmission is reshaped to fit the new chassis (though capacity of the dry-sump system is unchanged). There are new ratios for first, fourth and fifth gear sets, for the secondary reduction in the primary and for the final reduction, where a 32-tooth sprocket replaces the 33-tooth item on the 1600. The final drive belt is also about 9mm narrower on the 1700, making room for the wider rear tire. The net effect of the ratio juggling is shorter gearing in all five gears.
Of course, the added power is just part of the explanation for the Warrior's performance gains over the Road Star. The 70-pound difference in dry weight is worth a quarter-second on the quarter-mile as well.
SPECIFICATIONS
2002 Yamaha Road Star Warrior
ENGINE & DRIVETRAIN Type: Air-cooled, 48-degree tandem V-twin
Valve arrangement: OHC, 2 intake valves, 2 exhaust valves, operated by pushrods, screw and hydraulic adjusters
Displacement, bore x stroke: 1670cc, 97 x 113mm
Compression ratio: 8.3:1
Carburetion: Electronic fuel injection, two 40mm bores
Lubrication: Semi-dry sump, 5.3 qt.
Minimum fuel grade: 87 octane
Transmission: Wet, multiplate clutch, 5 speeds
Final drive: Belt, 70/32
CHASSIS
Wet weight: 658 lb., 53% rear wheel
GVWR: 1058 lb.
Wheelbase: 65.7 in.
Overall length: 96.1 in.
Rake/trail: 29 degress / 5.1 in.
Wheels: Cast alloy, 3.50 x 18 front, 6.00 x 17 rear
Front tire: 120/70ZR18 Bridgestone Battlax BT020 tubeless
Rear tire: 200/50ZR17 Bridgestone Battlax BT020 tubeless
Front brake: 2, double-action, double-piston calipers, 298 discs
Rear brake: single action, one-piston caliper, 298mm disc
Front suspension: 41mm stanchions, 5.3 in. travel
Rear suspension: Single damper, 4.3 in. travel, adjustable for preload
Fuel capacity: 4.0 gal.
Handlebar width: 35.2 in.
Seat height: 28.1 in.
Inseam equivalent: 33.3 in.
ELECTRICAL & INSTRUMENTATION
Charging output: 430 watts
Battery: 12v, 14AH Headlight: 6.0 in., 65/55 watts
Taillight: LCD
Instruments: Speedometer, LCD tachometer, odometer, clock, dual tripmeter; lights for neutral, high beam, left turn signal, right turn signal, engine failure, low fuel
PERFORMANCE
Fuel mileage: 31 to 43 mpg, 38.3 mpg avg.
Average range: 153 miles
Rpm at 60 mph, top gear: 2490
200 yard, top-gear acceleration from 50 mph, terminal speed: 78.5 mph
Quarter-mile acceleration: 12.71 sec., 103.0 mph
To see how the Warrior fared in our 2002 Big Twins Comparison, read this test. If you'd like to see how it performed in our Musclebike Shootout, click here.