You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the ATVConnection Forums community today!
A friend has a 2004.5 sp500. I wanted to see how the turning radius compared to my outlander. I was surprised to see that is was about 18" shorter. We just lined them up on pavement, turned the wheel to lock and slowly did a 180.
Not bad for a large machine. I expected the outlander to be shorter for some reason.
The prairie 650 I had before was about 2 1/2 feet shorter in turning radius than the outlander.
Hello jefffoxsr. I am somewhat surprised also. It appears from my literature that the Sportsman has a listed turning radius of 82" and the Outlander has a listed turning radius of 72". Seeing as the front tire follows a larger radius in a turn, maybe the polaris measurement is to the inside of the front tire and the Outlander is to the inside of the rear tire. That might explain the difference in the specs. Could also be that since there is no differential action in the rear tires, that one quad slips its font tires a little more on pavement. Maybe someone else could chime in. I looked long and hard at the outlander before we bought. It seems like a nice quad.
Have a good day jefffoxsr [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]
Could it depend on whether your weight is on the outside or inside of the bike? WIth no differential, one rear tire must slide, and the weight balance would affect whether it was the inside or outside that was sliding, making the front slip tighter or looser? idk, just thinking out loud