$600 difference. Is it really worth it for an extra 120cc.? Does anyone have the 400 that they feel is under powered?

 

From what I hear the only difference is that you will have to shift alittle more with the 400 than the 500. Another thing is that the 400 has almost as much power as the 500, it just has to rev more to get the power. If you were comparing 99 models I would say go for the 500. But since for 2000 the 400 and the 500 are almost the same I would get the 400 and if you decided you needed more power just put the 500's piston, them It would be more like a 425cc motor.

I talked to a guy with a 400 who was running 27-12 inch vampires all the way around and he said he doesn't even have to use low range in the mud, he only uses low range for very heavy towing.

Arctic Cat 500, Yea baby!!!!!

 

Tell me, if you put in the 500 piston, would you not have to bore the engine? Its not exactly the same thing there. As for the power of the 400, I'm not a big fan of it even though I've never ridden it. Number one, the racks aren't as good or as good looking as the 500. Two, its a 371cc engine, which is closer to a 350 actually than a 400. Giving up 122cc's and not much weight isn't going to keep it in the same power class as the 500 I don't think. For the difference in price, its not worth it to me. Same carburation and all, but nowhere near the same displacement. Now the 98 454 is a different example. It only gives up 39cc's to the 500 and I have ridden it. No dropoff in power can be noticed unless you just put both in 4rth gear from a dead stop and take off. Even then, you would have to have ridden one or the other for a little while to actually be able to notice it. As for the plug fouling problem of the 454, it just needs to be rejetted. My uncles came from the factory a bit too rich, and a simple turn of the screw fixed it right up. No problems, and it will probably run a mph faster than my 500. The dropoff from a 500 to a 454 is miniscule, but the 400 gives up a lot to either of the two larger Cats.

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*

 

Another thing, how much do you think it would cost to stick a 500 piston in a 400 motor? If you were going to pay that difference, why not just get the 500 to begin with?

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*

 

Andy,
You made some good points. But we never realy found out what he is going to use it for so how can we decid on that, We need more info. Does he realy need all the power of the 500? We don't know, so lets find out and then we can fight, TO THE DEATH, HA HA HA HA!

What are you going to use your quad for? Trail riding, rock climbing, mudding, working, etc.

Arctic Cat 500, She hurts when she bites

 

Reguardless of that, I still feel that the $400 difference between the two is not enough to cover the dropoff between them. If I wasn't needing the extra power of the 500 and really wanted to save the $400, then I would look at another manufacturer. I'm not loyal to any brand, and personally, the 500's (and 454's) are the only Arctic Cats that I really like. Not to say that I dislike the others, I just don't prefer them over other manufacturers quads in their categories. For instance, I will never come under the understanding that Arctic Cat makes the best 300 class machine. The 400 AC would probably be my favorite in that class a year ago when the only manual transmission competition was the slow 400 foreman, but with the big bear 400 out now, it has something more to compete with. If you take into consideration all 400's, then the Kodiak and Prarie really step up the competition on it. I'm not interested in the middleweight category much though. Its either big or small. 500 or 300-350. I dont personally think that the price gap for the 400's is relevant enough to sway me from getting a larger or smaller bike if I were considering a 300 or 500 respectively. But then again, I'm for letting people make their own decisions. I like to just give my thoughts on how a bike performs rather than to stand there and say "Get this! I have one and it kicks ***!" "This is the best quad for you" I think that crap is childish and stupid, and it looks like the person who is saying it either wants everyone to have the same quad he does, or that person fears the prospective buyer might go and get a better quad than he has. Meaning like "get the same thing I have, that way your quad won't be better than mine."

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*

 

And before you go listing other manual shift 400's from last year like the old Kodiak or the Bayou 400, let me just say that I already knew about them. I just didn't list them. They were never big sellers even thought they were both good quads.

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*

 

on a 400 you only need low range in reverce

 

Dusty,
You own a 400 Arctic Cat? Any modifications to it yet?

Arctic Cat 500, King of the hill

 

The low range in reverse comment didn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. Tell me what in the world the engine size would have to do with only needing low range in reverse. Low range is lower gearing, which has its place in any utility quad no matter what the engine size is. I'm guessing you are saying that the 400 has plenty of power in 1st gear high range. I'm sure it does, but thats not the total purpose of low range. Its for extremely slow riding and downhill crawling. The lower gearing turns the wheels slower to the point that they don't spin too fast and spin out. For downhill, the low range keeps them rolling very slow so you can crawl down a hill easier without needing brakes as much and so you don't go too fast and slide or get out of control if you do hit the brakes. That post didn't really make much sense.

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*