Obviously, AC 250s and 300s are unique in the ATV world in that they have a rear-mounted engine. You should see the look on the guys' faces when I roll out on the trail on an ATV that looks like it has no engine! I'm still trying to decide if I like having the engine back there or not. It seems to cause me problems when trying to pull out a buddy or climb hills. What is the advantage to having a rear-mounted engine? Why did AC decide to do this on the 300s? Why don't they do it on the 400s or 500s?

 

StormDawg, I have a 1999, 300 4X4. I also have a 375 4X4, and a 650. The 300 is by far the most stable going up a steep hill or on a bad off camber. The only draw back I had with the 300 was it just needed more power and a little more ground clearance. Another nice thing about it is the heat that comes around your legs from the motor is not there on the 300. Of course this is a Suzuki design, and I would guess that it is more efficient driving the rear axles straight from the transmission rather than thru a driveshaft. Just my guess.

 

StormDawg; I find the steering to be lighter because most of the engine weight is on the rear wheels. I also find that with the weight baised to the rear, that the rear wheels tend to maintain traction better.

 

You have to be nuts if you think the 300's are better at climbing than the 375 or any other with the engine mounted in the center. There's just too much weight in the *** to keep the front tires on the ground. Any of the ACT quads are the most stable of the AC line. Up or downhill. Hell, they weighed the 01 Automatic in an ATV magazine test, and it had 100 lbs. more weight riding on the front tires than the rears. Awesome for climbing. (too bad it had a limited slipper on it)

As far as why they did it, its based off the King Quad 300 design. They took the engine (and probably the transmission as well) and put it in their own chassis. It was an old school IRS design that had the engine, tranny, and rear end all encased together (rather than an exposed rear driveshaft leading to a differential like anything else these days). They had to position it to the rear to line up the rear axles. Thus putting your engine in the back and creating that enormously long front driveshaft on the 4x4's.

I would imagine that the only reason AC hasn't changed up that design, is cause they still use the same Suzuki package on the 250/300. Its about time for a redesign on that quad anyway. Not cause its bad, just cause its been unchanged for a while.

 

Andy; I don't know where you get you info on hill climbing, but the rears do the majority of the driving. Weight baised to the front just robs the main drive wheels of traction. I have never had a problem keeping the fronts on the ground. The driver and his knowledge of his equipment and proper application of the equipment and power available count for more than "more power". "More power" is the lazy mans way, skill wins more races than more power does.

 

Mr. Bassham, I may be nuts, but I have both the 300 and the 375 and I know which is more stable as far as the front end getting light. If you ever want to ride both of mine and compare you are welcome. I am not saying the 375 is not stable, I am just saying the 300 is more.

 

The 300 is very stable. The engine is mounted low enough that it maintains a low center of gravity, and it doesn't shift the center of gravity to the rear more than just a little. The primary advantage is that by directly connecting to the rear differential, it has less power loss in getting it to the rear wheels. It's a proven design and also worked well in the Suzuki King Quad. The tranny on the 300 is a real special bit. In super-low range, it feels like it could pull a house off of its foundation.

 

Power isn't the issue. The 300 has a light front end. More tendency to flip it over backwards than with any of the others. As far as stable side to side, yeah, I'm sure its as good as any. Taking up a steep hill, no. The front is going to come up on you before it would on a 375. Rider control is a lot, but the same rider control on the 375 still would give it the advantage to me, strictly based on where the weight is placed.

 

Andy; I don't seem to have any problem with the front end coming up and I run with guys that have 350 to 700 engines. I've gone over every hill, across every creek and through every ravine they have and down or up the same trails. So I don't see the problem. BTW have you ever even had a ride on a 250 or 300?

 

If you've followed those bikes, they obviously didn't go through a lot of stuff. Cause you are running a 2wd quad. I've never driven either of the quads mentioned, but straight physics can tell the story of having too much weight in the rear and flipping over backwards. I've ridden several quads with light front ends, from 1985 until now. There is a noticeable difference. There is a noticeable difference between 2wd and 4wd as well (which just takes away from the creditability of your story). I've taken my 4x4 AC in places my 2wd Honda 300 wouldn't dream of going, I've taken my 660 in differential lock up things my AC 500 wouldn't make it up. Of course these are traction situations.

I can also tell the difference in the light front end of the grizzly compared to the heavy front end of the 99 AC500. Post this on a forum that has more than 20 posts a day on it, and see what kind of response you get. Post it on a king quad forum or something even. If you can't keep the quad from flipping over, you aren't making it up the hill. I'm not saying the 300 style quad is a junk quad, I'm just saying its got a light front end due to the engine/transmission design, and its going to be more prone to backwards flipover than an Arctic Cat with the engine mounted in the center. That only makes too much sense to me. Just like on of those old cowboy movies where the hero dies in the end. you can watch it over and over, but he's still going to die in the end.