I am trying to decide between the two models. Aside from the "brochure specs" analysis, can anyone give me some good pros and cons for either? I'm using it for a play toy (trail rides mostly). Thanks for the help!

 

the 400i is probably the best value in a 4x4 quad you can get. I would take it over the 300 any day. There is something about the 300 that I don't like.

 

The 300 is smaller in width, height and weight and that is an advantage. The 300 also has a super low range, unbeleivable in mud or and in towing situations. The 400, bigger engine, body, frame, tires and more ground clearance. However the taller, wider body can be a problem on the trails. The 400 gets about a third the gas mileage of a 300 (half of the 250) and both have the same size tank. I don't have a 300, but the 250 I have is the same size as the 300 and it was much easier to handle on the trails, my wife has had no problem so far and this her the first quad she has ever driven alone. Her opinion is the 400 is just to big (she has driven the 400), my opinion is that I like the 400 as well as the 250 but I have had to learn a different driving style for the 400. The 250 was easier to drive and so the 300 would be too.

 

For a 200 pound adult the 500 is a great all-around adequate machine.
Not to much - not to little. There is a good number of people who buy smaller quads only find themselves selling low to move up to what they should have bought in the first place.

A lot depends on what your going to REALLY do with the machine. Sometimes if your new to a sport it seems logical to start out small but sometimes its better to consider where you think it might go rather then where you want to start.

I lean towards the bigger the better. See our pics and you will see why.

Some stumpy old codger's might disagree. (just kidding bear)

 

The 300 is more narrow, which offsets its lesser height advantages. It has less ground clearance. A somewhat gutless engine from all that I have heard from most that have ever ridden one. Some would disagree, but I can't stand the idea of the rear mounted engine. Being easier to ride isn't exactly a factor unless you are just really inexperienced and an extremely slow learner. Weight difference between the two is about 65 lbs. The 400 has differential lock for 2005, and I would assume in low range could pull the guts out of a 300 in super low range.

I've driven the 500i which is basically a 400 frame with a bigger engine, and can't find any downside to it. The 400 would be my choice between these two, but I would go the 500 route if I were buying one myself.

 

I don't agree with the gutless statement. Sure the 250 and 300 will not preform like a 400, but they will still get the quad into the upper half of the 40 mile per hour range (my 250 will do 46 on the GPS). A 400 only gets into the low 50's. Concidering the give away on cc's they preform real well.

 

The gutless statement doesn't come from personal experience. My cousin rode one a few times and said it was gutless. His direct comparison of the 300 was his 1998 AC 454. I would be comparing similar engines myself. I can attest to the difference in power between bigger AC's and a honda 300. Honda's 300 in a lightweight 450lb. 2wd quad is fairly gutless compared to a larger Arctic Cat. I would imagine a 570lb. 4x4 of the same engine class would perform to a lesser degree than the honda would.

And of course, we are talking about acceleration more than top end. I've actually run that 89 honda with a GPS a few years back and made it to 51mph on a long flat paved stretch. Of course it took a day and a half to get there. My 99 AC 500 would go close to 53 on that same stretch according to a Magellan 315 GPS, but got there much much quicker, and didn't lose out as bad going up hills at speed. The Honda would fall on its face quick.

I don't consider the 376cc engine to be in the same power class as a 454 would be, but its still got some pop to it.

 

Now, I can agree with these statements. Comparing a 250 or 300 to a 454 or even a 400 is an apples and orange comparison, rather than an apples to apples comparison. Sorto of like comparing a Vega to a Corvette, just isn't fair to the Vega.

 

Here is my personal experience. I have a 2003 400i with 800 miles on it, and they have all been trouble free. Now my friends mostly ride mud and the trails between the mud holes. Either bike will get you down the trails with no problem and if that is all that you want I'd just go with the cheaper of the two, but if you have any dreams of adding aftermarket goodies and gettng a little crazy with the quad I think that you would need to go with the 400. In game where ground clearance is king and power is needed to spin larger tires I don't see where you could go wrong with a 400cc or bigger Arctic Cat. By the way you might check out the forums at highlifter.com and ask the same question in their arctic cat section to get more opinions. Thats just my 2 cents and good luck.

 

Well I have a 2003 300 and 05 400 and they both are great, and either is a good choice. If you are worried about gas get a 300 if not and you want to spend the extra money get a 400. The 300 is bulletproof but I had to use the 400 to pull it out of some sticky mud. Honestly I would say get the 300 spend the extra money on a good set 6ply tires.