Less plastic, lighter wheels and tires and most likely less skid plate protection as well. I think wheelbase and overall length is shorter on the Scrambler than on the Sportsman too. The Scrambler is based upon the Sportsman platform but its a modified platform. I do kinda wish it wasn't so similar though. A lot of weight could have been saved by giving it a solid rear axle like the older version and even leaving out low range, just as they did back then. Could have just geared it a little lower and it would still would have been plenty fast. Yes, you would lose a little ground clearance and maybe the ride would be a little less plush but you would have a lighter, more nimble machine. The only thing I hated about the old Scrambler 400 and 500 was the chain drive. That killed your ground clearance and was a nuisance to deal with. Had it simply had shaft drive, it would have needed no changes other than updated power plants and optional power steering, in my opinion.

 

Regular Sportsman and Scrambler have 53" wheelbases. As you said, I think they did away with the solid rear axle because the original Scrambler had a horrible ride comfort-wise and to increase ground clearance. It also had to compete with the Can-Am Renegade that's always had an independent rear suspension. Shaft drive would have added a couple inches of clearance. Maybe up to 3" or so. Still, the ride was lousy on the Scrambler. I can tell you there aren't really any worries in corners with the Scrambler. It has the power to break the rear tires free without thinking about it. Slides very confidently. Much like the Outlander and Renegade.

 

I guess I kinda miss not even having any new options for 4x4 anymore other than Honda if you would prefer no irs. I guess the old Scrambler didn't ride that well. It was something I just lived with. My bigger gripe was the poor ground clearance. But if you look at the specs, it is a lot lighter than the newer Scrambler and Renegade models. Smaller too. Back then, it was a lot different than the Sportsman. Now its definitely sportier than its utility cousin but not as much different. The original Scrambler 400 and then 500 models were competing against the Wolverine 350 and they blew it away on power. Even more than when Yamaha made the 450 years later. Only when the Renegade came out did Polaris have to go back to the drawing board or get left behind. Even the Renegade 500 had considerably more power than the Scrambler 500. Once the 800 was released, the Scrambler 500 couldn't even come close to keeping up.

 

Yep, competition kind of dictates where they're going to go with new models. Where we ride in NH and ME, I remember the days when Honda was kind of king of the heap. Polaris took over the top spot for quite a few years, and now Can-Am has pulled even with Polaris here, if not past them. They seem to be constantly competing between each other. I have things I like and dislike about both brands. My ideal quad would have the CVT of the Polaris (quieter than Can-Am) but with Can-Am's engagement point as to when the CVT engages. I'd keep the Rotax engine, and the rack space the Outlander Max has (even with the passenger seat on). I'd rather have Polaris' ride comfort, and on-board storage. If I was as good at engineering as I am at building wood structures I'd make one.

 

I guess every machine has something it does better than everything else. You generally pick one that has the best balance of everything.

 

That's due to both having the same chassis and drivetrain.

Once again that is due to scrambler using the sportsman frame and suspension.

Being that the 800 Renegade /Outlander is a twin with a 400cc displacement advantage it is to be expected. The Scrambler 850 was more it's competition.