Outlander...First Impressions
Apr 21, 2003 | 12:38 AM
#1
Thread Starter
|
Weekend Warrior
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Outlander...First Impressions
I originally posted this on another forum...thought I would post here too.....
Well...I took my first ride today on my new Outlander 400HO. Being a previous Polaris SP500 owner, I certainly had some expectations of the new bike. I think the SP500 is a great performing bike and was torn between the two when I made my choice. I guess the "Will I have any problems today?" question in the back of my mind when I rode the SP, helped to sway my decison toward the Outlander. Reading the testimonies here and on other forums fermented my decision. I must admit though, in the 3 years I owned my SP, I had few problems and most were minor. Excessive brake wear (no EBS on my year model 97??), water coolant problems (never pulled from the overflow and would run hot when radiator low and bottle full), and worn fan motor (spent half its life caked in mud!).
I have broken my commentary into sections so you can read just the portions of interest. So...let me start by saying, the Outlander is a great bike! My father, who still has a SP500, went riding with me. We did not do any extreme mudding today, though that will be the role of the bike. The environment was muddy, very hilly and occasionally rocky. My Outlander is stock except for some wheels and tires, ITP 580 (26x12 Front, 26x9 Rear). My father has a stock Polaris Sportsman 500 except for some wheels and tires, Vampire (26x12 Front and Rear). I am still in the break-in period so I never went WOT.
Size
The weight difference (Outlander is lighter) was very noticeable while manuvering (sp?). The bike felt more controllable than my SP, and tendencies to skid sideways on rutted inclines were non-existant. This has a great deal to do with the tires too, though. I am very fond of the size of the bike. The SP is heavy...and you feel that weight when you get in an awkard incline with a left or right cross angle. You also feel it going up a rocky incline with deeply cut ruts. The Outlander just "felt" better. In comparison, the SP "felt" better than my brothers Foreman 450S. Both bikes are good, but the Outlander has an advantage over the SP.
My father's SP is wide. He is running offset wheels, and that makes it difficult for him to manuver in tight spots. Keep your wheels close under the fenders...it may not look as "tough", but it certainly will be more practical on the trails.
Suspension:
The Outlander is extremely comfortable...even more so than my SP. She took the rocky trails with ease, and handled "fish-tailing" in the mud much better than my SP ever did. My springs are still on the lightest setting, so that helped the ride comfort. Stiffening it up a little should help the manueverability. I also noticed that the bike was more responsive on the inclines than my Father's SP, which kept sliding off into the ruts. This may have a lot to do with the tires too, though. I also mention this in the SIZE section.
Ground clearance was adequate for the trip, though not quite as good as my father's SP. The moderately worn vampires on his SP are atleast 1/2" taller than my new ITP's, though both are 26". That coupled with his rigid spring settings give him a definite advantage in ground clearance. BTW, my father regrets the 26x12 on the Front. If anyone out there is considering this...dont do it. Control and steering are sacrificed for extra width that really isnt necessary. He broke so many front shafts due to steering under a load, that he finally restricted his steering angle. An 8" or 9" wide would have been perfect.
Transmission
This is where I was a little disappointed. The Outlander does not seem to "hook-up" quite as well as my SP did. When accelerating from a stop, or slow speeds, you have the sensation of belt slippage, then eventual grab...nothing sudden, but an eventual grab at the higher speeds was definetly noticable. I never went from stop to WOT, she may hook-up like a @#%$ then, but she certainly did not ****** off the line at 3/4 throttle.
The gear shifter was a little stiff at the start of the day, not wanting to change into other ranges, but this problem loosened up before the end of the day. I am satisfied with its "feel" now. The low range should be called mid range...atleast when I compare it to the SP. Good? Bad? I liked the "mid" low range for trail riding in the hilly terrain we were in. However, if I were pulling a heavy load, I would certainly prefer the gearing of the SP.
4WD
People can say what they like about the Polaris 4WD system, but it always worked and worked well...period. When one of the front wheels lost its planting, it never took off, and the planted side never quit turning. I cannot say the same for the Outlander. When a front wheel looses its planting, it takes off. However, the planted wheel continues pulling. I never was able to get a good feel for how well it was pulling with the other side hanging up in the air, but it felt like it was pulling. This is something that I will keep a close eye on. In theory, the 4WD system will work even when one front tire is free to spin. I believe that it truly works this way...but I NEED to see it.
Also, I like to ride in 2WD, so I switch back and forth often. At the start of the day, I noticed the 4WD indicator lit as soon as the switch was pressed...this was accompanied by a distinct "clunk" in the drivetrain. However, by the end of the day, switching to 4WD did nothing until the throttle was "pumped" just slightly. Not enought to make you move, but enough to hear the engine rev up a bit, and the CVT to engage slightly. Only then would the indicator light come on, again accompanied by the "clunk" in the drivetrain. Not necessarily bad...just a noticable change from earlier in the day. This scenario was consistent for the remainder of the day. I am curious how the next trip starts out.
EBS
What can I say...I loved it! Even in the steepest of inclines, I did not need to use my brakes unless I wanted to completely stop moving. The EBS provided more than adequate slowing power to keep me in control on even rough, rocky terrain. Again, I did most of my trail riding in Low, so the EBS was more noticeable than had I been in high. In fact, it was so effective that I found myself gassing her to get down faster! One thing to note however, if you are in 2WD, then you only get rear wheel engine braking. Not a problem except that the rear would start to slide out from under you because the bike was wanting to move faster than the wheels would turn, giving you a loss of traction and sending you skidding sideways. The simple solution, put her in 4WD. You get the benefit of all 4 wheels grabbing, leaving you with much better control. My, nor my Father's SP had/has EBS, so I cannont comment on a comparison. When I had my SP, I ate brake pads about every third trip. We did ride in a lot of silty, sandy trails, but even with the extreme duty pads, they just would not last. I also ate two rear rotors over the course of three years. Yep...I love that EBS!
Engine/Power
I found the Outlander to be plenty powerful for our ride today. She could turn the wheels over on command, though the belt engagement did make her feel "spongey" on take off (see the transmission section). I never went WOT, so I have no ideal how fast she will run, but she was plenty powerful. I cannot make a good comparison at this time, however, atleast not until I have completed the break-in and can run WOT.
Design
The rack designs, as well as the front bumper, is inferior to the SP. I really like the front bumper on the SP, and find that I must change the Bomber before I can feel comfortable with her in the woods. I will occassionally push over small trees and move stuck "wanna be" four wheelers with my front bumper, not to mention the accidental bumpings with various obstacles. I need a better bumper in the front! The racks are a real disappointment too. There is no replacement for a metal riser surrounding the racks. I know this is an aftermarket item on the bomber...but it is standard equip on the SP. No comparison. Also, the floorboards seem a bit more substantial on the SP, being rigidly built over the whole floorboard area. The Outlander is simply body plastic with some aluminum supports underneath. It, however, does seem to be adequate...so no complaints. The storage area is nice and roomy, but it is not water sealed around the lid...splashing mud can enter it. Use a sealable plastic bag when using this compartment. I am disappointed in the permanently sealed bearings...I like the zirk fittings. My SP had fittings on most every moving part for a total of nearly 30 fittings...the Outlander only has 4 that I can find, on the front A arms. I feel that I can ensure a longer life in the bearings if I can lube them. The unique IRS seems simple, yet very effective. I believe that it is a better design than the traditional IRS found on the SP...but that is an opinion.
Build
The Outlander seems to be a very well built machine. Its true durability, however, will be determined over the course of many abusive trips to the trails. I will let you know.
Summary
I think the Bomber is Da'Bomb. I find her to be equal, if not better in most every area of greatest importance to me. I have complaints...but most are correctable, not compromises. I will put her to the test...we do not baby our rides. I only hope that the Bombardier quality and reliability I have read so much about, holds true for me too.
sssr
Well...I took my first ride today on my new Outlander 400HO. Being a previous Polaris SP500 owner, I certainly had some expectations of the new bike. I think the SP500 is a great performing bike and was torn between the two when I made my choice. I guess the "Will I have any problems today?" question in the back of my mind when I rode the SP, helped to sway my decison toward the Outlander. Reading the testimonies here and on other forums fermented my decision. I must admit though, in the 3 years I owned my SP, I had few problems and most were minor. Excessive brake wear (no EBS on my year model 97??), water coolant problems (never pulled from the overflow and would run hot when radiator low and bottle full), and worn fan motor (spent half its life caked in mud!).
I have broken my commentary into sections so you can read just the portions of interest. So...let me start by saying, the Outlander is a great bike! My father, who still has a SP500, went riding with me. We did not do any extreme mudding today, though that will be the role of the bike. The environment was muddy, very hilly and occasionally rocky. My Outlander is stock except for some wheels and tires, ITP 580 (26x12 Front, 26x9 Rear). My father has a stock Polaris Sportsman 500 except for some wheels and tires, Vampire (26x12 Front and Rear). I am still in the break-in period so I never went WOT.
Size
The weight difference (Outlander is lighter) was very noticeable while manuvering (sp?). The bike felt more controllable than my SP, and tendencies to skid sideways on rutted inclines were non-existant. This has a great deal to do with the tires too, though. I am very fond of the size of the bike. The SP is heavy...and you feel that weight when you get in an awkard incline with a left or right cross angle. You also feel it going up a rocky incline with deeply cut ruts. The Outlander just "felt" better. In comparison, the SP "felt" better than my brothers Foreman 450S. Both bikes are good, but the Outlander has an advantage over the SP.
My father's SP is wide. He is running offset wheels, and that makes it difficult for him to manuver in tight spots. Keep your wheels close under the fenders...it may not look as "tough", but it certainly will be more practical on the trails.
Suspension:
The Outlander is extremely comfortable...even more so than my SP. She took the rocky trails with ease, and handled "fish-tailing" in the mud much better than my SP ever did. My springs are still on the lightest setting, so that helped the ride comfort. Stiffening it up a little should help the manueverability. I also noticed that the bike was more responsive on the inclines than my Father's SP, which kept sliding off into the ruts. This may have a lot to do with the tires too, though. I also mention this in the SIZE section.
Ground clearance was adequate for the trip, though not quite as good as my father's SP. The moderately worn vampires on his SP are atleast 1/2" taller than my new ITP's, though both are 26". That coupled with his rigid spring settings give him a definite advantage in ground clearance. BTW, my father regrets the 26x12 on the Front. If anyone out there is considering this...dont do it. Control and steering are sacrificed for extra width that really isnt necessary. He broke so many front shafts due to steering under a load, that he finally restricted his steering angle. An 8" or 9" wide would have been perfect.
Transmission
This is where I was a little disappointed. The Outlander does not seem to "hook-up" quite as well as my SP did. When accelerating from a stop, or slow speeds, you have the sensation of belt slippage, then eventual grab...nothing sudden, but an eventual grab at the higher speeds was definetly noticable. I never went from stop to WOT, she may hook-up like a @#%$ then, but she certainly did not ****** off the line at 3/4 throttle.
The gear shifter was a little stiff at the start of the day, not wanting to change into other ranges, but this problem loosened up before the end of the day. I am satisfied with its "feel" now. The low range should be called mid range...atleast when I compare it to the SP. Good? Bad? I liked the "mid" low range for trail riding in the hilly terrain we were in. However, if I were pulling a heavy load, I would certainly prefer the gearing of the SP.
4WD
People can say what they like about the Polaris 4WD system, but it always worked and worked well...period. When one of the front wheels lost its planting, it never took off, and the planted side never quit turning. I cannot say the same for the Outlander. When a front wheel looses its planting, it takes off. However, the planted wheel continues pulling. I never was able to get a good feel for how well it was pulling with the other side hanging up in the air, but it felt like it was pulling. This is something that I will keep a close eye on. In theory, the 4WD system will work even when one front tire is free to spin. I believe that it truly works this way...but I NEED to see it.
Also, I like to ride in 2WD, so I switch back and forth often. At the start of the day, I noticed the 4WD indicator lit as soon as the switch was pressed...this was accompanied by a distinct "clunk" in the drivetrain. However, by the end of the day, switching to 4WD did nothing until the throttle was "pumped" just slightly. Not enought to make you move, but enough to hear the engine rev up a bit, and the CVT to engage slightly. Only then would the indicator light come on, again accompanied by the "clunk" in the drivetrain. Not necessarily bad...just a noticable change from earlier in the day. This scenario was consistent for the remainder of the day. I am curious how the next trip starts out.
EBS
What can I say...I loved it! Even in the steepest of inclines, I did not need to use my brakes unless I wanted to completely stop moving. The EBS provided more than adequate slowing power to keep me in control on even rough, rocky terrain. Again, I did most of my trail riding in Low, so the EBS was more noticeable than had I been in high. In fact, it was so effective that I found myself gassing her to get down faster! One thing to note however, if you are in 2WD, then you only get rear wheel engine braking. Not a problem except that the rear would start to slide out from under you because the bike was wanting to move faster than the wheels would turn, giving you a loss of traction and sending you skidding sideways. The simple solution, put her in 4WD. You get the benefit of all 4 wheels grabbing, leaving you with much better control. My, nor my Father's SP had/has EBS, so I cannont comment on a comparison. When I had my SP, I ate brake pads about every third trip. We did ride in a lot of silty, sandy trails, but even with the extreme duty pads, they just would not last. I also ate two rear rotors over the course of three years. Yep...I love that EBS!
Engine/Power
I found the Outlander to be plenty powerful for our ride today. She could turn the wheels over on command, though the belt engagement did make her feel "spongey" on take off (see the transmission section). I never went WOT, so I have no ideal how fast she will run, but she was plenty powerful. I cannot make a good comparison at this time, however, atleast not until I have completed the break-in and can run WOT.
Design
The rack designs, as well as the front bumper, is inferior to the SP. I really like the front bumper on the SP, and find that I must change the Bomber before I can feel comfortable with her in the woods. I will occassionally push over small trees and move stuck "wanna be" four wheelers with my front bumper, not to mention the accidental bumpings with various obstacles. I need a better bumper in the front! The racks are a real disappointment too. There is no replacement for a metal riser surrounding the racks. I know this is an aftermarket item on the bomber...but it is standard equip on the SP. No comparison. Also, the floorboards seem a bit more substantial on the SP, being rigidly built over the whole floorboard area. The Outlander is simply body plastic with some aluminum supports underneath. It, however, does seem to be adequate...so no complaints. The storage area is nice and roomy, but it is not water sealed around the lid...splashing mud can enter it. Use a sealable plastic bag when using this compartment. I am disappointed in the permanently sealed bearings...I like the zirk fittings. My SP had fittings on most every moving part for a total of nearly 30 fittings...the Outlander only has 4 that I can find, on the front A arms. I feel that I can ensure a longer life in the bearings if I can lube them. The unique IRS seems simple, yet very effective. I believe that it is a better design than the traditional IRS found on the SP...but that is an opinion.
Build
The Outlander seems to be a very well built machine. Its true durability, however, will be determined over the course of many abusive trips to the trails. I will let you know.
Summary
I think the Bomber is Da'Bomb. I find her to be equal, if not better in most every area of greatest importance to me. I have complaints...but most are correctable, not compromises. I will put her to the test...we do not baby our rides. I only hope that the Bombardier quality and reliability I have read so much about, holds true for me too.
sssr
Apr 21, 2003 | 10:14 AM
#2
Pro Rider
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Outlander...First Impressions
Good accurate report. I too, had some reservations about the " visco lock " front diff, but had an opportunity to test it in reality, IT WORKS, not as good as a locker, but it does work. My test comprised of putting the bike on the frozen lake with the 3 tires on the glare ice & one on the frozen beach sand with one guy holding it there, when I applied power it spun the tires 3-5 revs then the planted tires just started pulling until it either spun or pushed the guy outta the way. As far as power & speed, I had a chance yesterday to run 3 diff Pol 500HOs, all the same results they pulled 1/2 bike length outa the hole & finger walked me on top, I'd say a total of 2 full bike lengths in a full mile, I'd say its quite respectable for a 400!!
Apr 22, 2003 | 01:06 AM
#3
Pro Rider
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Outlander...First Impressions
Excellent write up. I was just reading about one, and thinking about getting a 2X4. I wanted the powero f the SP500 yet I want ti to be lighter and as comfortable. You guys helped me out a lot.
So it's just a tick slower than a 500 HO?
So it's just a tick slower than a 500 HO?
Apr 22, 2003 | 11:05 PM
#4
Thread Starter
|
Weekend Warrior
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Outlander...First Impressions
sxr6,
are you runnin' stock tires?
barely legal,
i cant comment on the speed, but would imagine the 2x4 version is slightly faster than the 4x4 version. good luck with your decision.
are you runnin' stock tires?
barely legal,
i cant comment on the speed, but would imagine the 2x4 version is slightly faster than the 4x4 version. good luck with your decision.
Apr 23, 2003 | 09:40 AM
#5
Pro Rider
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Outlander...First Impressions
SSSR; No I took stock tires off to sell when new, I'm running an used set of Titans until I go moose hunting this fall then I'll get a set of mudders. I just run into the first fault I have on the Outlander. Last night I pulled the belt cover off & discovered this machine is a "slip the belt" type of clutch to get underway like the Polaris system, not real thrilled but I'll have to see how it works out, could come to be a problem when you put larger tires on one?
Apr 24, 2003 | 10:51 PM
#7
Pro Rider
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Outlander...First Impressions
I have 25X10X12s with 4lbs on the front & 26X10X12's on the rear with 3lbs. 489's on the front & 589's? on the rear.
Trending Topics
May 8, 2003 | 04:19 PM
#8
Weekend Warrior
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Outlander...First Impressions
wow what a write up.. I will do the same when I have more time. I also like to really drive my bike. It is just too fun to go like heck and not baby it like some of the other drivers i go with. I have the 25'' mudlites and the work great. The machine just glides along the mud and it is quite responsive in the speed dept. I have smoked everything in my class and havent tried anything bigger just yet. I will soon though, going on a big trip soon. Anyway, great write up. Either ya wheel or ya dont!! That is good advice!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MikeyBoyesq
ATV Racing
1
Aug 10, 2015 11:11 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)