That sounds like a good idea, but Boner is right on the single lever thing. It makes sense on other machines though.

About the Niteowl locker. It looks good for traction, but from his testimony, it would make the steering hard to the point that it wouldn't even be fun to drive. As much as I hate 3wd, I hate impossible steering even worse. NiteOwl's locker thing is a neat idea, but not something that I will ever do after hearing him speak of how it turned like a Bulldozer.

 

YukonRon,
why U want to change the Polaris for AC? Just curious??
Joe

 

Andy,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by one brake lever. I assume you mean the front brake lever on the right side? Forgive the ignorance, but I have never ridden an AC500 before. I have two hand brakes, one for the front and the rear, as well as a foot brake for the rear. I have hydrolic front brakes(disc) and a brake cable(drum) to the rear. I think I can just slide the current rear brake hand lever down on the handle bar and install a hydrolic reservoir in its place. If not I'll remove it entirely. Anyway, when I get it hooked up and try it I'll let ya know how it works. The great thing about it is, if I don't like the way it works, I can always put it back the way it was!
I guess I'm not sure why you couldn't add a hydrolic reservoir to the other side and then just separate the front brake lines.

Rick

 

Single lever braking means, ONLY one lever operates both front and back brakes. ON Arctic Cats and Polarises there is only a left hand brake(nonthrottle hand) that controls both front and rear brakes at the same time with one pull. There is no right brake lever, and the factory foot operated rear brake on OUR(all 2000 and older models besides the 2000 auto) bikes SUCK big time. I NEVER use mine-- probaly gonna remove it.

 

What he said. Arctic Cats have a linked braking system. Hydraulic discs all the way around controlled by one hand lever on the left side. If you spit it, then you lose your rear brakes too. This would work on a grizzly because it has a mechanical rear brake. The footbrake is as good as the hand (rear) brake, so if you took it away and replaced it with another front brake, then you would still have good rear braking.

The arctic cat footbrake sucks raw. The linked brakes are great though. There is really no way to do it and still have decent brakes in the back.

 

BONER,
Thanks for the info, I understand what you mean. I didn't realize that AC had the stupid one brake runs all set up like the Polaris. Some of you guys might like that, but I think it sucks. When I test drove an SP awhile back that was one of the things I hated the most. There are times when having independant front and rear brake control is almost a must for me.
Sorry that idea I had won't work for you. I think its going to be the best solution for the 3 wheel thing I can do, without actually locking it up and ruining its driveability, and the broken CV's that I'm sure would follow. Later

Rick

 

Colt77:
The Polaris has been good in may ways (especially mudding), but there are many better machines out there now. Here's a few reasons for trading:
-Reliability. I've spent a lot of money to keep it running. At 8 years old, it only gets worse.
-Belt drive sucks. I've burned up 4 belts and the only time I get stuck its because the tires have more traction than the belt does.
-No engine braking. Downhills with a load and/or trailer are dangerous.
-2 strokes stink. My wife (or buddies) rides so far behind me I keep stopping to see if I lost her. I usually end up riding last. Besides, Polaris 2 stroke oil is now $37.00 a jug!
-2 strokes are noisier. Not so good for hunting or nieghbours.
-2 strokes are high revers. Not so good for pulling and utility use where you want bottom-end torque.
-Charging system in those days was just barely enough to keep battery up. Forget about running all the lights or adding extra lights or hand-warmers,etc or the battery goes dead.
Need I go on?
I'm not bashing Polaris. When we bought these we did casual trail riding and they are OK for that. My wife still likes hers, but my needs have changed.

 

On another note, I haven't seen a place where I would rather have separate levers over the single lever. This would be better for racing quads or something, but with the utilities, I am yet to see a downside. I have a lot more brake and throttle control with the single lever setup. Also, the linked hydraulic discs offer better braking and holding in steep situations than anything i have ridden. Maybe that has to do with it being discs which a lot of people haven't come around to yet. It is easier for me to hold the single lever and alternate between that and throttle to manuever a tight spot than it is to have to fool with a separate front brake. A lot of people don't like it, and a lot of them just don't because its different than what they are used to.

 

Andy,
Your probably right about it being something a person is more used to. Personally, I have found it to be quite useful to use my front brake only, when your stuck in the middle of a hill that is so steep, the only thing keeping you on 4 wheels is your weight over the handle bars, and simply sitting down will flip you! When your inching your way back down backwards because that is the only way out, its nice to know that I'm not going to have to worry about over applying the rear brake. I just put it in reverse and use the front brake only.
I've always wanted discs all the way around, and never understood way they didn't do it that way to begin with. Now however, I'm glad for once that I have a mechanical rear brake. Because I'm certain that separating the front brakes is the solution to the one front wheel spinning problem. Anyway, I'll let you know how it works once I get it hooked up and working.

Rick

 

A reply to Grizzly about backing down hills with reverse & front brakes only! If you think about it if you apply any brake presure on a bike in 4wd, you are applying brakes to all wheels because the the 4wd system will not let the front or rear wheels skid as they are connected thru the drive system.