I got a free mag in the mail yesterday and it had a big-bore shootout. In this article they did a dyno test and the AC 500i came in at 14.2 HP! What do you guys think? This seems really low, did anybody else see this article? It also said that the 500i is a work only quad.? Do those of you that have the 500i think this is true?

Thanks


Max

 

I'm not going to say that the #s are wrong, but It sure feels like it should be closer than that. I've ridden the other quads and I admit they are more powerful. I do not see them being nearly twice as powerful.
You should also keep in mind that this is horsepower and not torque. Torque is what gets you moving and churns the big tires in the mud. I would suspect these #s to be somewhat closer.
As far as a work only quad, that is crazy. I do use my AC for work, but also do a great deal of trail riding with it too. It is not made for blasting down the trail at near full speed. But I have never had any trouble keeping up with the others in our group. We are more into the mud and technical type of riding. I believe that AC will do as good as any and better than most in these situations.
I don't put a lot of faith in the articles that I read in the rags. I am more into what I see.
All of these quads are great quads, and I'm sure they will out run me on a trail if given riders are equal. But work only, You have got to be kidding me. Just give me the facts I will make my own decisions.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

Didn't see the article, but nice looking Cat! What size tires did you use all around? Did you use a lift kit, wheel spacer or both?

 

I read this same article. I called Arctic Cat this mornining and they said 30hp. From what understand your statement of origin papers that come with your AC will say 29.5. This bothers me because I have monet down to hold a new 02 500auto with act. Does anyone know if AC's will stay up with other 500's on a long trail?

 

It sounds to me like that 14.2 figure is closer to what the 300 AC is rated rather than the 500 especially after seeing some of the videos of the 500 hauling A$$ down some S-curves and powering out of some mud holes. I don't put a lot of faith in the mags either. they stand to get kickbacks if they skew reviews one way or the other. I go by seat of the pants tests.

Also, I really hate the whole labeling of Quads as utilities / sports Utilities / Sport... Just seems to be a hair splitting point of contention that never really is obsolved between people that argue it.

Anyway, Smokem if ya gotem.

 

This is a prime example of misinformation being started, as far as ATV Magazines "ATV Magazine" is one of the best. As far the AC500I being "work only" they stated that in comparison to the other bikes the AC was not made for sport riding that's all. But for technical slow speed trails the AC was one of the best, basically the post by Mudcat47537 matched perfectly with what the magazine said. Also on at least two occasions they wrote that something must be wrong with the AC because it was performing well below expectations this may account for the low HP rating.

 

Max,

My statement of origin says 29.5HP. Do you know how many miles it had on it when they tested it? Mine was tighter than a drum when I got it and I'm sure it was no where near the rated HP then. After about 20 miles I started to get into the throttle hard to see what it would do and was not impressed. The other day I did the same thing, same road, same conditions with 70 miles on it and d**m near killed myself. I'm getting noticably more power with each ride.

Bob

 

Sounds about RIGHT for rear wheel HP on an IRS 4x4 machine.

 

29.5 HP is at the crank, not at the rear wheels like in the mag.

What 500i was in that shoot out, the manual or automatic transmissioned model?

 

It was the Auto.