Racnooc,

Not knocking it. Just I went out to play with my Dad's Yamahamer 250 and my brother took my AC650. I spent a lonnngggg time playing catchup, no matetr where we went.

So the AC300 has 3 range tranny and 5 gears? That is pretty sweet. We used to own a Honda 200 trike. It had 5 gears and high/low range. It was pretty impressive. My dad traded it for a Yamaha 250 (5 speed manual, no high low). Personally, that machine is an embarassment to the Yamaha name. The thing is totally gutless without the multi-ranges.

 

That sucks.... Mine's listed at 0 HP....... Sniff sniff.

 

wires, the 3 range tranny (to me anyway) really makes up for the lack of speed. i am guessing that we are riding in the same type of terrain out on the tundra. i have always had enough power in low range 1st gear to turn my outlaws, and most of the time as long as the outlaws are turning then i am going to be moving forward unless i am completly bottomed out on the frame. that is where the extra ground clearence of the AC 650 would be really nice to have but for now i am going to stay with my 300 untill some of the belt issues are takend care of and i want to see the new king quad when it is released. i do agree with you that for the average rider in the lower 48 that an atv with at least 400cc would give the majority of riders more satisfaction.

 

Racnooc,

I'd have to agree. I wanted a cat, and I wanted a locker, so I have a 650. I would have rather had a manual though. I was thinking for most of the stuff I get into, a 400 would cut it. But there is definately places where one would need a bit more power (mind you, super-lo might make up for that). I've never rode a AC before, so I've never experienced the super lo gear before.

 

getting back to the original post- I think on my 2001 it said like 13 or 14 HP. I ride with people who both ride ranchers and foremans and the rancher has just a tad bit more top end than my 300, but powerwise in mudholes and such they are very comperable plus mine doesn't get hung up nearly as much due to the irs and it rides a hell of a lot nicer than the rancher. Feature wise the AC is way better than my buddies rancher but I think its a few years old- I am not sure what they are like now. It can be underpowered at times especially if you are really working hard in muck but what do you want from 280cc? thats my 2 cents.......

Matt

 

The AC 300 is actually a very worthy machine, mine is bone stock. It actually does great with the three range differential, no it doesn't accelerate like my 2004 650, but for what it is its very impressive. I have had the 300 up into the low 40's mph on flat ground, and for the most part it will go where ever you need it to go. Personally I would probably consider the 400, instead just for the simple fact that I think you always wish you would have gone with more power, and the 300 is considerably heavy/heavy duty machine. Also I think the 400 will give you a bit more ground clearance, and suspension.
I guess I would compare cc's to what the other guys you will be riding with, unless you are doing some pretty intense stuff it will do you a great job.

 

I Have Taken my 2003 AC 250 to my friends who has a Dyno and it's HP comes to 16.5 at the rear wheels that is some pretty impressive numbers. also have toped our at 60 mph. Hey any one wanna Race a lap or two?

 

I agree totally. This has been my exact experience too. My buddy and I got new ATVs a month ago. He got the Rancher 350, I got the Cat 300. His is a bit faster on straight stretches. But when the going gets tough the Cat is nicer. Suspension is better on the Cat, tranny is more suitable for mud, climbing, etc. and I got disc brakes, a speedo, bigger fuel tank, more ground clearance, etc. Plus, I know of two people with new Hondas that have already had major suspension trouble. My last ATV was a Honda, and I didn't get one this time because I think they are overpriced and over-rated for what you get. Not a bad quad by any means....just a little expensive for the old technology you get with Honda. I'd get the Cat if I were you.

 

The reason they dont post horsepower figures, is because it isnt impressive. Im not knocking ac, thats just the way it is. I know a stock honda foreman 450 is roughly 12 horsepower, so a 300 ac, is probably around 8hp.
Now you know why they dont advertize the horsepower.
If you really put the mods to it, pipe, jets and airbox mods....you might get to 10 hp.

 

My title says 14.50 Horsepower. That's about what I expected really. But I don't need speed, I need crawling power and the 300 Suzuki engine mated to the 5-speed 3-range tranny delivers for me.