The thing that bothers me about Honda is they claim the 680 Rincon is a trail machine and not made for work and to get the 500 Foreman if that's what you have in mind and Visa Versa.
A 680 that is not made to work, what's with that?

But everyone else just makes a machine that can do both very well. You can buy a 550 Grizzly or 500KQ and put it in low range and pull stumps all day then put it in high range and blast pass Foremans , Rubicons on straight gravel road as well.

Its not that most all other brands 500 ATVs are powerful at 35hp-40hp ,its more incredible that Honda can make a 500 4x4 that is rated at only 28hp.

I know HP is not everything, but if one has more power then the other in the same class and price why not take it.
You can make a fast ATV go slow but you can't make a slow one go fast.

They finally offer a ATV with diff lock and IRS 10 to 15 years after most everyone else and make it out as a technological break through.

 

 

The Rubicon always had a low range . I was was the only Honda with it.

The video sure did not talk much about the Rubicon losing it's 499cc 32hp motor and down grading to the less powerful Foreman 475cc motor I notice.

Even the 499cc was a bit under powered for its displacement class.

 

Im not able to watch the video as im at work, but I do think the Rubicon lost its D1 and D2 and Low range somewhere around 2009-11... I could be mistaken though.

KS11, count your lucky stars, Iv been in some really rural and even remote areas where I have had to bring extra fuel just to get my Dodge into, and when out on the Rubicon was still given tickets for not being on a street legal bike due to the entire nation's forest service adopting the closed unless posted open in a ORV park. Yeah.... no more quads or sxs for me ever, Maybe a KTM dual sport 350EXC

As for the gear teeth not handling a big bore when in a bind, true- but Honda sure made the tiny gearbox in my xr600R withstand some pretty intense full throttle power shifts without any trouble threw my youth years- you know, when 17 years old back in 1994 on a 600cc bike you pull in the clutch rev it to the limiter and place it in 5th and dump the clutch- dig a trench down the local gravel road type abuse

 

Different thing entirely, but my '84 200 3 wheeler and 200 4 wheeler (maybe '84 too), both had a shifter by the foot shifter for high, low, reverse. That 3 was my favorite for not doing anything and just light stuff down the road. '85 250 had the 5 speed with low 1st gear (no low range), like I said, that was the one I used the most. Reverse worked by pulling back the brake, think there was an extra button to hold (actually been a few years and it's sitting in the barn under a tarp, many things going on all the time so I forget), and downshift. So ~similar to this new one with that. I pretty much did abuse those things, and they held up to anything. I could not guess how many 1000s of miles they had on them. They were cheap so I didn't care, they ran forever, actually still basically were when I quit using them, pulling around much more than they were supposed too. Of course traction was the biggest issue. Chasing cows a couple times I found the one could actually float, and if you'd push the gas it was boat-like. Never had brakes that worked, for very long.

My area and most of the zipcodes around, think it works to about 3 people per square mile. Here, nearest neighbor is a mile away. Quite honestly never thought about it much till I read here, I was in town last night and there was one driving in town on "main". Don't think they'd allow it in the bigger ones, but like I said, not really an issue. People use them to drive cattle down the main highway and roads all the time, horses too of course. I've never heard of an issue.

 

The video was pretty neat but I'm always wary of reviews/reviewers that rave about everything they get their hands on. It ends up feeling more like a sales pitch.

So around what month should the '15s be showing up at dealers? I'm curious to look!

 

Looks like a great machine, more power would always be nice though. Why not simply make the 680 Rincon engine an option to replace the Rincon altogether? The Honda engines FEEL like they make more hp than what the numbers say but more would be better. You don't have to use all the available hp if you're simply using it for work. More power would mean that the machine can do everything a lesser powered machine can do but do it easier with less stress on the drivetrain. And almost everyone will use their atvs for play at least part of the time, that extra hp makes for a machine that is more fun to ride on the trail. Even if you never exceed 20 mph, a bigger, more powerful engine will have more torque as well and be able to haul and tow heavy loads easier, many times in a higher gear as well to keep rpms down to run quieter and use less fuel. You won't have to lug the thing around in 1st gear all the time, constantly hitting the rev limiter. Put it in 2nd or 3rd and it will still be just fine and still have plenty of power to get the job done.

 

True about the HP if torque increases as well. I base my thoughts on my old ones. If they did everything I asked, double the engine size, should be more than enough (many must think the same around here, otherwise they wouldn't rebuy Foremans, they'd get bigger next time). With what I did with the old ones and they held up fine, knowing that stuff I did would meet/exceed the ratings on these new ones, I wouldn't expect that much more from the new one. Never once did I think I needed "more power". Besides, any heavier and I'd just use one of the smaller tractors, no reason (for me) to use a little atv at or near its limit anyway.

 

Hmm...so the last few rides I've been on have been kind of an eye opener for me in regards to transmission and my stubborness about manual shift.

Most of the trails at my local spot are very rocky...I'm either crawling in first or trotting along in 2nd. There are two other main trails that are much smoother and I'm holding 3rd or 4th on those. But really, I don't shift all that much. Certainly not enough to make it any more fun.

In fact I feel like a CVT would be a big advantage. I often feel like I've got a choice between lugging/racing the engine or holding a speed thats a bit over/under what I want. A CVT that performs well at any speed seems like a sell to me.

This is a welcome revelation...it opens up a whole lot of options for the 2nd quad in the spring. If it wasn't for the transmission thing I was hung up on I'd probably have gotten into a Yamaha earlier.

 

You're right on the money about them raving about everything they ride. I guess it pays better than giving an honest opinion. I'm sure they get those guys fresh off the used car lots.

This is just my opinion but Honda ruined the Rubicon.

The hydrostatic trans was the best ATV trans on the market - all the new Rubicon is either a Rancher 472 or a Foreman 500 with IRS - neither one interest me at all.

When Honda introduced the Rincon they referred to it as "the SUV of ATVs"

It was designed and built to trail ride at 40 mph. With its new suspension it could make the roughest trails feel like a paved road and at 40 mph there was no need for any engine braking. It was never intended as a work ATV. Remember too it won the Baja 1000 on it's first year out too.

It is actually very good at what it was designed and intended for.

It's sad that the company that has the most money and the most capability build such mediocre machines.

A 50" SXS with a 472 cc engine?? Seriously?? AC, Polaris and Can Am all offer either 900 or 1000 cc 50" SxSs.

The new Rubicon weighs 77 pounds more than the old ones and has a smaller engine. |

They are going backwards.

I loved my '01 Rubicon - it was an awesome machine but things have changed.