Pages: 1
Posted by: Robert Venable
Sorry AC454, but if you go to Yamaha.com and look at the specs you will se that the Banshee has 37 ft.lbs of torque. But the Arctic Cat 500 has the most torque of any Utlity quad, more than the Suzuki 500 too because the Arctic Cat has more compression.
Posted by: Robert Venable
Tree Farmer,
I don't think they wanted to offend you, they where just saying that they didn't understand all that smart talk. Hell, I'm very into engines and had touble with what you typed.
------------------
Arctic Cat 500, Not your average Kitty, The New King Of the Jungle
Posted by: Robert Venable
If you want a Utility Quad then the Arctic Cat 500 is probaly you best bet. They have the largest rack capacities of any quad, the most of any Utility quad, the largerst tires of any quad (99), the best brakes, and alot large rack space. Other quads you might want to consider are the Arctic Cat 400, which is a 500 with a little less power but still more than a Foreman 400, and the Suzuki 500, same motor as the A.C 500 with less compression.
------------------
Arctic Cat 500, Not your average Kitty, The New King Of the Jungle
Posted by: Robert Venable
The Arctic Cat 500 has a higher compression than the Grizzly. Thats why it has more torque. Another example the Wolverine and the New Big Bear. The Wolverine has a smaller motor but more torque. Why? More compression. So class, more compression= more torque than a longer stroke :)
------------------
Arctic Cat 500, Not your average Kitty, The New King Of the Jungle
Posted by: Robert Venable
Why don't you call Arctic Cat and ask them? It would be alot less stressful.
P.S. If you e-mail them all they will do is give you a number and an address
------------------
Arctic Cat 500, Not your average Kitty, The New King Of the Jungle
Posted by: Robert Venable
Dynojet.com
They have the horsepower numbers for the Suzuki 500, the Sportsman 500, the Foreman 450, and the Grizzly. But they only have the torque numbers for the 300 ex, the 400 ex, the Expedition, and the Suzuki 160.
------------------
Arctic Cat 500, Not your average Kitty, The New King Of the Jungle
Posted by: Robert Venable
If you ride on alot of pavement it is one of the worse steering bikes on the market.
I think it is because of a number of things. For example: the tires are the largest tires ever put of an Atv from the factory, the grips are big so they put alot of rubber on the road, it has a very large radiator, which holds a good bit of water, and it in front of the front wheels, and the A-arms are made out of square tubing, this makes them very strong but very heavy. On gravel I can steer mine with one hand, I can't do this on a Honda 300. I think it is because the tires float better than the narrower Honda's tires.
If you want to see a bike push then come see me ride with my 6 foot 5, 327 pound couz on the back rack.
------------------
Arctic Cat 500, Not your average Kitty, The New King Of the Jungle
Posted by: Cat500
Well, here's another one of those pesky AC owners, but I'm not going to plug the arctic cat. I have owned '97 and '98 454's and currently have a 2000 model 500 on order, so how I feel about arctic cats is self explanatory. You say that reliability is important to you and you want to use a quad to do some work. One aspect you might want to consider is the automatic transmissions on the Sportsman, Grizzly, and Prarie. I haven't had any experience with long-term reiliability on these transmissions, but it's common knowledge that a manual transmission will be more reliable in the long run. This fact is even admitted in 4-Wheel ATV action so it's not just some anti-automatic transmission person talkin' here. Ot really depends on how much work/play you plan on doing. If I owned a farm and was buying it primarily to take the place of a tractor, I would consider a quad with automatic transmission; however, the honda ES seems to straddle the fence in attempts to give you the best of both worlds. You're the only one that knows specifically what you want and expect a quad to do so it's your decision and I'm sure whatever the decision you make you'll be satisfied since the performance and features found on the majority of ATV's today are becoming more and more similar due to the competition of different manufacturers. Good luck and good riding.
Posted by: Cat500
Woah!!! That's technical stuff Tree Farmer. I'm gonna have to lie down 'cus my head is hurtin'.
Posted by: Cat500
It is quite apparent that there are people out there who cannot take a joke, have no sense of humor, and are quick to jump to conclusions. Understanding the meaning of the posts on this thread is not difficult for those of us who don't take life so seriously. My earlier post was meant as a humorous complement to the thorough explanation offered, but, rest assured, this mistake will not be repeated. I, too, can be offended, but I also have the intellect required to distinguish between an offensive comment and a simple joke.
Posted by: BiGMiKe
I have the 99 grizzly i know its out of your range but i pull lots of big trees with mine and it has a huge carying capacity check it out before ya say know is all i have to say
Mike,99 GRIZZLY
Posted by: Tree Farmer
This post discusses four stroke-cycle engines.
All things being equal, more displacement, plus longer stroke, equals: more torque.
However, all things are seldom equal.
A shorter-stroked 500 cc engine (e.g., Suzuki/AC 500) MAY produce higher maximum torque than a longer-stroked 600 cc engine (e.g., Yamaha 600).
How? Valve timing. Possibly, the Suzuki engineers optimized valve overlap (the interval when both intake and exhaust valves are simultaneously open) and duration (the total period each valve is open) for more torque, while the Yamaha talent went for more horsepower.
Typically, for higher horsepower at higher rpm's, increased valve overlap and duration result in higher horsepower ouput, but may correspondingly reduce maximum torque, plus, move the torque and horsepower peaks closer together on the rpm scale.
Conversely, for maximum torque, overlap may be minimized or eliminated, and duration shortened, increasing torque peak, and lowering the rpm where maximum torque occurs.
Overlap, and duration before and beyond top- and bottom-dead-center, make engines "lope" at low rpm's, as though valves are leaking (which, actually, they are, if you consider partially-open valves as leaking). At higher rpm's only, however, the intake and exhaust charges flow as a continuous stream, enabling greater scavenging, improving volumetric efficiency, and processing more fuel, resulting in more power. No free lunch: low-rpm torque suffers.
Cam grinders typically offer "torque" grinds for 4X4 engines, and "race" grinds for the track; the timing of these cams varies as described.
Like Gordon, I'm not making any bets on which engine produces what output. Only the dyno knows for sure.
Tree Farmer
[This message has been edited by atvbbs (edited 08-27-1999).]
Posted by: Tree Farmer
Guys, you have the advantage with the new Forum: My name clearly appears before each of my posts!
You two Arctic Cat riders amaze me! Someone says he doubts your shorter-stroked, lower-displacement machines produce more torque than the Grizzly; I provide a plausible reason why this may be so, and you criticize ME! (Although, unlike you, Andy, I don't "know for a fact" the AC is "torquier than thou.") I'm clearly on your side, yet you complain.
If technical discussions, such as why one engine may produce more torque than another offend you, I suggest you ignore them.
If you don't want to read about or discuss technical details of ATV's and their engines, I assure you: reading my posts is optional!
I assure you further--I won't be offended at all if you ignore my offerings.
Many, like you, may be content operating equipment without any interest or effort in understanding "why" or "how." I wish you many miles and hours of happy, carefree riding.
As for others, with some technical aptitude and interest, I appreciate your posts and comments; I've learned a lot from you and remain grateful for the Forum as an arena for exchanging ideas, information, and experience, benefits I will continue enjoying.
Tree Farmer
[This message has been edited by Tree Farmer (edited 08-06-1999).]
[This message has been edited by Tree Farmer (edited 08-06-1999).]
Posted by: Tree Farmer
Robert, I'm not offended!
Since you are very into engines, how would you answer the question, "How can that li'l ol' 500 cc short-stroke engine of yore's put out more torque than a long-stroke 600 cc Grizzly?"
(No "smart talk," please!)
Tree Farmer
Posted by: Tree Farmer
Thanks, Robert!
Do I understand you to say higher compression alone on your Arctic Cat makes up for the longer stroke, AND THE EXTRA 100 cc's OF DISPLACEMENT, of the Grizzly?
Fantastic!
Tree Farmer
[This message has been edited by Tree Farmer (edited 08-08-1999).]
Posted by: Tree Farmer
Mud600, a clue lies in the fact the Banshee has a two stroke-cycle engine, while the Suzuki/Arctic Cat has a four stroke-cycle engine.
Explaining the significance of this difference requires "smart talk," offensive and boring to Arctic Cat riders. E-mail me if you want to discuss this issue further privately!
Tree Farmer
Posted by: Jeremy H.
How close do you live to the dealersips. The Polaris Magnum, grizzly, and AC 500 are very close in performance. Thus they are all in the same class. Your other quad is a polaris, did you have a good experience with that quad and dealer. If so you should probably do business with them again. The honda rides it reliability. It however doesn't haul or tow as much as the larger quads. The sportsman has by far the largest ground clearance (11"). The grizzly is the fastest. I think if you are going to spend this much money, you should go with the sportsman. It has won every quad shootout in the magazines. If you do not need the independent suspension, save a few bucks and go with the magnum (exact same engine and towing/carrying capacity). All polaris utility quads can be purchased with engine braking systems (EBS). It comes standard on the sportsman now. The magnum beat the Grizzly in the latest utility shootout.
As far as honda and reliability goes: I personally think if you maintain a quad properly, no matter the brand, it will be plenty reliable. Different people have had different experiences with different brands. The honda is an excellent quad, but it is not the hardest working quad.
One not mentioned is the Kawasaki prarie. This is an excellent quad. Not the biggest, but a very good quad.
Posted by: RoostKing
Since you already own a Polaris, you might as well make it a pair and get a 500 Sportsmen. They are awesome machines and will handle any chore you throw at it.
Tree Farmer, Some people can understand your "smart" talk!
RoostKing
[This message has been edited by RoostKing (edited 08-07-1999).]
Posted by: Andy Bassham
I have the same thing Rob has, a 99 AC 500. I'm not recommending it to you or saying its better than others, but I will give you my experience with it over 600 miles.
Like Rob said, the engine is a mule. Tons of low end torque. It feels like it will pull anything, and then you remember that there is low range. Its not a rocket off the line, but mine tops out at an indicated 58 mph. Too fast really for this size machine.
It has a ride better than anything I have ridden other than Praries and Polaris's. The rear suspension is semi independant meaning that the rear axle can tilt right or left in addition to its up and down motion. This is a nice feature, and it is patented too, so they must be proud of it.
Being a manual transmission, it will slowly crawl down steep hills, and the hydraulic disc brakes are as good as I have seen on a utility quad. The footbrake on the 99 model however is worthless as teets on a boar hog.
The rocker shifter is no big deal, two rides and you are use to it. The displays are nice, especially the gear indicators. The reverse engagement is as smooth as I have seen also, and it has high and low range reverse. The bike will also start in any gear by depressing the hand brake.
It is a very stable feeling quad on sidehills, and steep grades. Very predictable in rough terrain.
The downside is the steering. It is the heaviest steering bike produced today. This may be due to the 26" tires that come stock. If you have a problem with putting some muscle into low speed turns and pavement riding, then this is not the bike for you. This is my only complaint.
It has a solid frame, good engineering on the plastic, and solid racks with good reinforcement. This would make an excellent farm bike, though I would prefer the sportier feel and performance of a Sportsman myself. I don't use mine for work that much though.
------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*
Posted by: Andy Bassham
Well now! This is the first post I've seen from Gordon since the site redesign. Even more exciting than that, He recommended a Polaris. Good to see you again Gordon!
------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*
Posted by: Andy Bassham
I saw a scrambler 500 rider about 3 weeks ago ripping through a massive mudhole that I haven't dared to try yet on my AC. I don't know If I would make it or not, but I really haven't cared to walk through the crap to hook up the winch. This guy didn't care one way or the other. He was so covered in mud that you couldn't tell if he was a guy or a dang sasquatch. As tempted as I was, I decided it would be best not to go in, because I would be cleaning mud out of my truck seat for a week if I got stuck and had to walk around in it. It also made me wonder about that polaris front end compared to my limited slip.
------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*
Posted by: Andy Bassham
How dare you Gordon. I know for a fact that my AC 500 has a lot more torque than a Grizzly. The stroke doesn't matter at all. The stock tires are what gives it all that power advantage. I would think that I could outrun a grizzly 0-35 anyday in any conditions as well. I clocked this thing with a gps and a radar gun and got constant 65mph readings against the wind at 5degrees below zero. As for a lighter bike, they flip over all the time so I wouldn't want anything less than a 400. The heavier, the more stable, hands down. AC rules.. AC rules...
Just kidding on all accounts, Its pretty hard for me to understand how the Suzuki motor makes more torque than the 600cc yamaha as well. They say so, but it doesn't seem like it should be that way for some reason. Also, I never ran out of wheel pulling power on my 300. The 500 pulls a gear higher on a paved hill, but how much of an advantage is that when we're talking about off road vehicles. Also, about the smaller lighter bikes, I can adjust to terrain easier on the 300 too. My feet don't even come close to the ground when sitting on the 500. If it started to go on its side, then it is definitely bail out city for Andrew C. Bassham. You have a good point.
------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*
Posted by: Andy Bassham
I didn't even read most of Tree Farmer's post. It was so over my head, I didn't even want to try to understand it. All I could think was "Me dumb, him smart".
------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*
Posted by: Andy Bassham
Now that I remember which post you are referring to, I can explain. Tree Farmer, I already e-mailed you an explaination, but I didn't read this thread before that. You said that "I knew for a fact" that my AC had more torque. O.K. Now, read the whole post on that one. I was joking, on all accounts if you read correctly. It was just a sarcastic joke post to Gordon L. Banks, and it was more or less mocking all of the people on this forum who get pissed off when someone says something about the bike they own. I don't mind if the Grizzly has more torque or not, I just thought it would be funny if I made this outrageous post like I was mad, then at the end said that I was kidding. Sorry if anyone was offended by any of my posts in this thread, they were not intended that way at all.
------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*
Posted by: Andy Bassham
The Banshee is also aided by two cylinders and dual carbs. Kinda like the difference in power vs. displacement between a six cylinder ford 300 and a ford 302 V8.
------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*
Posted by: KEN GRAHAM
GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY, NEED HELP WITH MAKING CHOICE OF NEW UTILITY QUAD. HAVE A 95 SCRAMBLER, AND LOVE IT, BUT NEED SOMETHING TO DO A LITTLE MORE WORK. HAVE LOOKED AT MAGNUMS AND SPROTSMANS, PRARIES, KODIAKS, FOREMAN-S AND FOREMAN 400. WOULD LIKE SOME MORE INFO, FOR THOSE OF YOU WITH EXPERIENCE WITH THE DIFFERENT BIKES. I WANT A 4 STROKE, 4X4, IN THE 350 TO 500 CC RANGE. NO BASHING PLEASE, BUT WOULD LIKE TO HEAR GOOD AND BAD ABOUT YOUR QUAD. I AM KEEPING THE SCRAMBLER, SO I WONT BE WORRIED ABOUT LOOSING THE SPORTING SIDE OF IT. ANY MODELS I HAVE MISSED THAT FIT THE BILL, THROW IN THE BAG ALSO.
THANKS,
KEN.
------------------
Posted by: KEN GRAHAM
EVERYBODY, THANKS FOR ALL THE INFO SO FAR, KEEP IT COMING. I LIKE MY SCRAMBLER, HAS BEEN RELIABLE AND FUN, AND NO PLANS TO GET RID OF IT. I AM LOOKING REAL HARD AT THE MAGNUM AND THE KAW-PRARIE. WILL BE DOING SOME FARM WORK, WOODS RIDING AND IN THE MOUNTAINS. ALSO 6' 225 LBS. I AM NOT LOOKING FOR THE BIGGEST THING OUT THERE, JUST A GOOD UTILITY QUAD THAT WILL SEE A LITTLE FUN RIDING ALSO. RELIABILITY IS A BIG THING, AND I HAVENT HAD MUCH DEALINGS WITH ANY LOCAL DEALERS, BUT WILL DO A LOT OF RESEARCH BEFORE BUYING. AGAIN KEEP THE INFO COMING. THIS IS WHY I LOVE THIS SITE, AND KEEP USING IT.
------------------
Posted by: KEN GRAHAM
GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY.
Just wanted to jump back into the post for a few more questions. First though, there was some excellent info on the torque questions. Tree Farmer and Gordon L Banks, along with others, some good insight on the motors. One big thing to remember, is that the factories sometimes doctor their numbers, in certain ways (read LIE). By looking at outside companies such as dynojet, you can get unbiased numbers.(sometimes).
Gordon L Banks, what did you mean by the added note on Sportsman's at the end of your last post. I know you have ridden a lot of bikes, and I would like for you to expand on the handling of the Sportsman, in your opinion. I still havent bought a new bike yet, but did find a real good deal on a used 98, that has caused me to look at my choices again (and again, and again etc.).
One last question - for now, how bad is the steering on the AC500. Want something that is fun and workable, but dosent work me too much.
thanks.
RIDE HARD--NEVER LIFT!!!
------------------
Posted by: Rob_Maggard
I just bought a new 450S about a month ago, and I am not dissapointed one bit. I have always owned honda bikes, mainly on they're reliability and reputation, and this continues in the 450 that I bought. When I first got it, I was thinking of having it bored out to an acurate 450cc's, but it has surprised me with it's already usable power and torque. I know that it is not the largest or most powerful bike out there, but it is nice compared to my ole 350(burnt up the sleeve) I can lock up my front brakes in my slick shop floor, and dump it into second and spin around and around, thanks to my individual front brakes and limited slip front end(powerstall), I don't exactly recomend this to anyone, but it will definately do it. And besides the way I look at it, I already have two sets of tires for it, so I don't mind burning up the stock ones. And when, I'm broke down out in the field, I can easily count on the 450 to pull either my welding trailer or "shop on wheels" out to the rescue. We haven't had much rain lately, so I haven't tested the mudding capabilities of it yet, but I'm sure if it will chirp em on concrete then it will definately spin the 25 inch vamps in the nasty stuff. Just another suggestion.
350XX, 250R, 200XX, 450S
Posted by: Rob_Maggard
Gordon, buddy, I thought it was obvious that I was joking. I really didn't mean to sound like I was telling the truth. I mean if you think about it, that would be kind of hard. I had always believed that you were a pretty knowledgable regular here, so I was surprised that you took it seriously. Or were you kidding as well. Sorry
Posted by: Rob_Ervin
I just recently bought a 99 Arctic Cat 500, and I have been very happy with it so far. I was also looking at some of the quads you mentioned, especially the Polaris Sport/Utes, but decided on the AC 500 b/c I wanted the engine compression braking on long downhills and I really liked the specs on the engine. Here are my likes/dislikes so far.
Likes
1. TORQUE! I rarely have to change gears, just ride in 2nd or 3rd high range, b/c it will go up all but the steepest of hills in 3rd or even 4th gear, I just don't want to push it. In low range, you can really go slooow over rocks,etc without any hesitation.
2. Ride...It rides a lot better than most I
have ridden, except for the Polaris'
3. Fit and Finish..first rate
Dislikes
1. Steering effort..with 26" stock titans that came on the 99 models it can be a handful
2. Single Braking Lever...Most Polaris owners
wouldn't even think this was a problem.
3. Price...You mean they're not free?
Overall, I feel I made the choice best for
me, just wanted to give you another option in the Grizzly/Foreman/Sportsman arena. But
you can't go wrong with any of them.
------------------
Posted by: Gordon_L_Banks
I don't get a guilty conscience from recommending a Polaris to a Polaris rider. Furthermore, I have a certain respect for a Scrambler rider who acknowledges that the Scrambler is not the perfect 'do it all' machine for all uses and purposes.
Posted by: Gordon_L_Banks
About who has the most torque...
I'm aware of Arctic Cat's apparently unchallenged ads claiming to have the most torque, and if they really do have more compression than the Suzuki 500 engine, then that may explain that difference. Personally, though, I'll have to see more than ads before I'll believe that any other 4x4 has more torque than the Yamaha Grizzly. With about 20% more capacity and a longer stroke to boot, I just find it difficult to accept that it produces less torque than a short-stroke 500. I wouldn't bet a lot either way, but I seldom bet against sound logic. I wouldn't be so skeptical about peak HP ratings, but when it comes to torque, lots of cubic inches and a nice long stroke usually paint a pretty clear picture.
I'm not saying its all that meaningful, though. Once you have enough torque to spin all four tires, what will even more torque do for you? I'd still rather have a super light 300 to 400cc machine than a heavyweight 500 or 600. Too much torque can get you in trouble, too. The new 400cc Big Bear looks mighty good to me on paper. If Yamaha would use better bearings and seals, I'd be really tempted.
Posted by: Gordon_L_Banks
Well, no comment on how anyone can lock the front brakes and spin a full-time 4x4 around, but I smell more than the usual farm odors there.
Personally, I don't think the AC500's higher compression will make up for the Grizzly's extra cubes and longer stroke, but when it comes to "who has the most torque?", there is another aspect to consider, that being "torque spread" or "power band", instead of just "peak torque".
Someone pointed out that the Yamaha Banshee 350cc twin has higher peak torque, and that may be so, but a "peak", be it torque or HP, occurs only at one specific point in the RPM band. The Banshee's "peak torque" occurs along a very narrow range, and at very high RPM, compared to the larger four-stroke engines. "Peaky" engines (those producing great amounts of power but only in a narrow RPM range) don't interest me for off-road riding where one's speed and RPM vary so greatly. If you ride a track where your speed can be maintained, and if you have enough gears to keep the engine running within the narrow range where peak power occurs, that's fine. But that won't work on a utility machine used for work or casual trail riding.
For example, most people might hastily accept that two cars with the same weight, same gearing, same transmission, same tires, and the same max HP would perform the same on the drag strip. But if one car had a 400 c.i. engine while the other had a 300 c.i. engine, even with the same "max" (i.e., same "peak") HP, the 400 will usually be quicker, because it will produce a better "power band" than the car with the smaller engine. The larger engine will generally produce better power "around" the point of maximum power, even though the two different engines may produce the same absolute "max" power.
I still don't think the AC500 produces more torque, even at aboslute peak, than the Grizzly 600, but even it if did, would it still produce as much torque at lower and higher RPM? If we could examine the power bands from 2000 to 6000 RPM of several different ATV engines (and I'd love to see an accurate list of comparisons), I doubt that any 500cc 4x4 ATV engine will match the spread of the Grizzly. Even if the AC500 did rise above the Grizzly at some point, it would probably be well below at all other points.
By the way, if anyone wants more cubic inches for their Honda 450 (432.6cc), Highlifter Products offers a Big Bore kit that replaces the stock 90mm sleeve and piston with a 93.5mm bore, to produce a 466.9cc engine. For $260 in parts (piston, rings, gaskets, and sleeve), and about $150 in machine shop work (press out the old sleeve, bore the cylinder to accept the new sleeve, press in the new sleeve, bore the new sleeve to accept the new piston, and then cut a fresh surface on top), plus engine disassembly and reassembly, you can pick up an additional 34.3cc (that's about $200 per cubic inch of gain, though). If you know anyone who has done this modification, I'd sure like to hear from them. I installed a Powroll Big Bore kit on my Honda 300 4x4 (went from 282cc to 313cc), and the results were well worth it (more cubes AND more compression).
I owned a 1998 Suzuki 500 4x4 for seven months before trading it in for a 1999 Honda 450. There's no doubt in my mind that the Suzuki 500 engine had way more power, but I'm not sure when the extra power would be beneficial to a worker or casual trail rider. The 450 has never demonstrated insufficient power for anything I've tried, and is more than capable of spinning all four tires when the load exceeds the available traction. Plus, the Honda has such superior handling, that it is generally the faster machine in the woods. According to the stock speedometers (a poor indication for accuracy, I know) on each, I managed a 55 mph top speed on the Suzuki 500, and only a 50 mph top speed on my 450ES. But on rough and twisty trails in the woods, the Suzuki handled so poorly, I just had to get rid of it. With a rider of identical skill level on each, even my Honda 300 was faster on woods trails. The Suzuki's extra power just didn't make up for its inferior handling (much like a Sportsman 500 too, by the way).
Posted by: y2kodiak
All the rides forementioned are Excellent
choices. I own 2 Grizzlys(98,99 myself),
and have nothing but good to say about them,
but after testing the 2000 Kodiak, I fear
that both Bruins have been regulated to second tier status.
Make a list of what you want in your utility
Quad, then go down to all Dealers in your area(most sell multiple brands that should make that easier) and make arrangements for
test drives, then make your best deal.
Good Luck with you're Choice
Posted by: tdhusker
Obviously, you need to focus on what you are going to do with the machine. Do you want to go deep mudding, casual trail riding, mountain climbing, snow plowing or what?
The aforementioned Arctic Cats are good for alot of things, but having owned one I can tell you they do have some negative aspects as will any machine you buy. For me, the size of the machine was probably the critical thing to decide. The big Cats and Polarises as well as the Grizz are ponderous and hard to handle in really rough terrain. The lighter weight, easier steeering and turn radius make the smaller machines better for timbered and rocky terrain.
On the other hand, if you spend most of your time blasting down wide open trails and going through the occasional mudhole, bigger is better.
The best all around, or in betweener I have ridden is the Honda 450. It's not as big as the Cat, Grizz or 500 Polaris's, but it does have big bore power and easy steering. The worst thing about the 450 is the turn radius.
I bought a new 99 Big Bear a while ago because I wanted a more nimble handling, tight quarters machine for the mountains. I am fairly happy with it, but it has some quirks that are quite annoying. The worst quirk is the top speed. I didn't consider this before I bought it, and now I suddenly realize how nice it was to be able to go 50 on my old Arctic Cat. It does handle well and has good power, and is a great woods & rocks machine. However, I sure get sick of putting along down county roads when I go to spray weeds on the farm. It has no speedo, but I'd guess that 40 mph is absolute tops. Cruising speed is probably more like 35 or less.
I would hope that the 2000 Big Bear would have a faster top speed. If so, it might be my next choice...
Good Luck
Posted by: Mud600
i still don't understand how the cat 500 can have more torque. i know the banshee has a higher torque rating to and its only 350cc.
Posted by: AC454
I believe you should seriously look into Arctic Cats. The 500 has the most torque on the market. I have a '98 454, and i love it.
Something you might want to keep in mind if you get a ATV to work with make sure it is liquid cooled. The only complaint i have with mine is it pushes in turns.
Posted by: AC454
geeeeeez...whats the big deal here??
Posted by: AC454
Steering on the AC, not the best, but not the worst...its not hard to steer, as far as using physical strength, it just pushes in turns, so just keep the wheels turned and the throttle on and it will come around!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...eventually..hehe
Posted by: alibaba
Personally, you already have a Polaris, and I suggest choosing a tough utility atv. You have some sporty side in the scrambler-eliminating a Wolverine as a choice. So, your choices may be narrowed to the Honda Foreman 450, Yamaha Kodiak, or Kawasaki Prairie. But before I continue, I'll say buy a Grizzly if you can afford it..
For reliabily and durability and long lasting the HONDA is always the winner. It's the best company, I think..however, it has recieved much competition in its top class quads--although there's no question when getting something like a RECON, it has had some competition. Now, the Honda's downsides are that the Foremans require more strength than usual to make turns. It also is a couple hundred more than the Prairie. Personally, I'd eliminate the Honda for this reason. Now, I'd narrow it to the Prairie and Kodiak.
The Kodiak and Prairie are the same price...however, its just a toss up here. They are both great atvs. They both look cool and are tough atvs. Although I've always picked Honda, here the choice is between the Kodiak and Prairie. I'd look to see which one I could get for cheaper, and which is easier to buy. See if you can talk the dealer down a couple hundred then pick the cheaper one. I personally wouldn't pick a Polaris ATV-here...go with something different.
------------------
Alibaba
'98 Honda 300ex, '97 Honda Recon, '86 TRX125
Posted by: xplorer
Hello all,Just a comment on this topic this turned more into a whos smarter match instead of giving the poor guy some useful information to simplify the purchase of the jungle of utility quads availible,personaly I own a polaris xplorer,blaster,and dr650,all which have different puposes,to find a quad that best fits an person is impossible there will always be a need to settle for some reason or other.Should there ever be the perfect quad it would undoubtly be a hybrid,something like this a sportsman 500 with the suspension of an artic cat 300,torque of a grizzly,gas milelage of a 250,and reliabilty of a honda,clearance of a polaris.you see no quad fits every want if you go big you better buy alot of gas cans,if you go small dont ever expect to run any larger than 25inch tires,to sum it up go to several dealer sit on several bikes have pen and paper and take notes of everything possible dont buy that day however study your homework and reach a desision!
