I am in the market for an ATV and need it for plowing snow and for fun, both of which are equally important. I am also looking at the Honda Rubicon, Yamaha Grizzly and Kodiak and the Polaris Sportsman 500HO. What can you Arctic Cat guys tell me about this new machine? I have read great reviews. Also, reliability is a major factor for me and I have also heard that Polaris does not have a very reliable record. I want to make sure I get the right ATV so your help on this subject is greatly appreciated. Also, what else should I be looking for in an ATV? Thank you all for your input.

 

I don't think you can wrong with any of the ones that you have listed. I ride with lots of people that have polaris' and they haven't had a lick of problems, same for honda, Yamaha. I dearly love my 500 autocat though. For ride and power the Cat and the Polaris are the way to go. Cost puts the ball squarely in the Cats corner. (lowest cost of all the big displacement machines)It also to my way of thinking has the next best four wheel drive system behind Polaris. That is my prejudiced .02 cents worth.

 

Eaaicf:
Minehunter is right on the money. I bought a pair of '00 AC 500 Auto's back in April as well, and soon found out they could be worked harder than I ever imagined. My original intent was for hunting, and some light work up at our property, mostly carrying gear around, towing a small trailer with fence mending supplies. After hooking up to a few various logs of different sizes, I was quickly amazed at the power of the 'Cat in low range, 4wd. To sum it up in one word: Unstoppable, period.

TexasCat mentioned in another post that AC's were built for work first, then play. He's right. Since learning my 'Cat and how it operates, I've been amazed at what it can do, and would venture to say that I probably tend to work my Auto harder than most people would ever think possible out of an atv. As a result, I know you won't have any trouble at all plowing snow, or various other chores that may arise. In fact, should you go with the 'Cat, I'd bet you'll soon be looking for jobs to put up against it, just to see what it's capable of.

If you're interested, I have a few pictures posted at the link below of a couple different working conditions. The snow pictures aren't very clear, but you can see in a couple of them that I am towing our suburban up a hill in some deep snow. I had towed both the suburban and trailer hooked together 4 times, then the suburban by itself once. Later, I had to winch the rig back up on the road, after sliding over the edge. There is also a picture of breaking through over 2' of snow, then dragging logs back out, of which I then strip down and build bed frames, tables, other things out of at home. That picture of my 'Cat hooked to the logs was the last load I had, and consequently, the smallest. I always seem to forget about taking pictures till the end of the day, or after I've already done the most amount of work, towed the largest loads, etc., but those should give you an idea.

Since power is your concern for plowing, please note that I am doing all the following chores, pulling 27" tires as well-not only a full 2" taller, but 2" wider in the rear compared to stock tires. I only mention this because usually installing larger tires will offset the power ratio, leaving a lugging vehicle in some circumstances, or a feeling of "less" power than with stock tires. With the high torque of the 'Cat at 31 ft/lbs (most of any atv on the market, even more than the 600 Grizz), this is not a problem, as you can see.

Since you mentioned the Kodiak, and Grizz, in my opinion between those two machines, I'd take the Grizz. My old boss purchased a pair of '01 Kodiaks, and while they are excellent machines, I think they are more of a SPORT/Utility than a full Utility machine. Granted, they will be able to plow snow, I just feel the larger machine has the edge when it comes to real work.

As for what should you look for in a machine, find one that fits you the best. I think that is key, among all other aspects or qualities in a machine. You can have the newest, biggest, fanciest thing on the market, but if you don't feel comfortable on it, it's worthless to you. I didn't even know AC made quads when I was first looking to buy, and was seriously considering a Honda 450ES, and the SP500. The Honda was a nice machine, but just didn't fit me right. The SP was nice as well, but I'm kind of old fashioned in a sense, that I didn't trust the needed rear wheel slippage for the 4 wd to engage, and the price was well over a thousand dollars more than the AC -which I had just learned about.

Ride a 'Cat, you'll see what I mean. Very smooth ride, the rear swing axle is second to none-awesome setup both for work, and ride. Other things to consider-2/4wd selective, disc breaks, large gas tank, suspension travel, ground clearance, rack capacities, towing capacities and like I said, comfort.

Well, since I've probably bored you to death by now, I think I'll close this "sales brochure". heh heh. Best of luck in the decision, you really can't go wrong with either. Naturally, my option is the 'Cat, but between the machines you listed, I'd probably rule out the Kodiak, just because I believe bigger is better for work. That leaves three 500 cc machines, and the 600 Grizz to choose from.

Again, best of luck with the decision,

Mike

 

Cowboy,

I have to correct you on a few things. I don't believe the Auto has the same output numbers as the manual, not even BEFORE it goes threw the trans. I think Arctic Cat did like Honda and Yamaha did, they went for a broader torque band cause of the CVT trans. If you noticed this, Arctic Cat only claims 31 ft lbs of torque on the manual, not the auto. Also, there are aleast 2-- probaly 3 bikes with more torque, but none of them are listed here. The ones I KNOW have more torque are the Banshee(37 ft lbs), Ds 460(42 ft lbs), and PROBALY the Raptor. Not sure on the Raptor, but I bet it is.

I disagree with you on the Kodiak. Cause it's liquid cooled, I think it makes a MUCH better worker. I PROVED that liquid cooling is better for working than an a SMALLER(Big Bear 350) air cooled motor saturday, now put a larger air cooled motor vs a smaller liquid cooled motor and which one you think will be sitting on the side cooling off first. now if you think there was more of a strain on the air cooled motor cause of the cc's I think u are wrong, the pulling I was doing could have been done by a go cart, but it was the steady above idle running that made the air cooled motor over heat.

I also like the Kodiak for it's brakes, better at stoping those heavy loads. I also think that dual a-arms are tougher than struts.

I don't like the Sportsman's plastic racks, and there is no Polaris owner that can tell me they are good for someone who does hard work. Cause ALOT of Sportsmans that come in to my freind's Polaris shop hav chiped off peices of plastic from the racks-- mostly the rears.

The Rubicon is a nice bike, but that plastic front bumper would last me 2 hours tops. Another thing are those 10 lbs capacity(sarcastic) floorboards. I also don't like the front differential that looks like it should fit a Powerwheels truck, it's small. Smaller than the Trx 300. Overall I like the bike. For someone who works it I think they will like it.

 

Boner:
You're probably right on the numbers for the Auto vs. Manual. I know the manual is stated at 31 ft/lbs., and I'm sure the auto would be slightly less, due to the automatic transmission. And, my mistake, I had said "all atv's on the market", when I should have said "all utility atv's". Sorry about that one. Yeah, the sport bikes do have higher numbers, but one question here - I don't know anything about the sport bikes, which one, or are all of those 2-strokes? Anyway, to my knowledge, the Manual 'Cat still has the highest torque of any Utility Quad. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one, that was the last I'd heard.

As for the Kodiak, man, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Like I said, the Kodiak is an excellent machine for what it was designed for. I just believe I'd take the bigger Grizz instead for real work. Yeah, the disc breaks all around are nice -Why did they put drums on the rear of the Grizz anyway? I hate to say this again, but out of all the quads that were up elk hunting this season, I really wasn't impressed with the Kodiak for hauling and towing purposes. It seemed to struggle a little more towing firewood back to camp. Keep in mind though all machines had both racks filled with gear. Not sure what kind of weight he was carrying, but by towing some smaller logs up hill back to camp, he was struggling quite a bit. The Grizz, in the same circumstances was clearly the better machine.

And, I've said before my boss has a pair of '01 Kodiaks. He went elk hunting down in Utah this year with his Dad and Brother, all three tagged out. He had his two Kodiaks, along with two Grizzlies for the Guide, and his Dad -not sure what year they were. Anyway, after hauling out the first elk, they had to quarter it for the machine to handle the load. He said coming up out of one of the valley's was rather difficult, and on the second trip, he even rolled the machine, as it was too top heavy. The Grizz had to finish the job, as well as get the last remaining animal. These were big elk -two trophy 6x6's, and one 6x7, so they had some good weight to them. After the trip when I was speaking to them about it, I asked how his new quads performed. He said they were excellent on the trail, but for the various work they did, the Grizz was clearly the choice.

Now, from what I've seen of the machine, and what he has told me of his accounts with both, I still think I'd take the Grizz over the Kodiak for pure work. If I was doing more trail riding or pleasure type riding, then I'd take the Kodiak, as I think it really shines in that department. I think I agree with all your other statements, I just have my own opinions on the Grizz/Kodiak department. My choice still stands though for this situation, the AC 500 is a great machine, very tough to beat for working purposes.

Anyway that's just my own opinion, take it for what it's worth.

Take care, -Did you figure out that rear snorkel idea yet?

Mike

 

Cowboy,

Doesn't the suzuki q'runner 500 have the same amount of power as the artic cat 500 manual?

 

Boner I have to disagree with you. That auto and the man, both put out the same trq numbers check out AC's sight and click on the auto and then click on comparison. it says the auto puts out 31lbs. Yes at the wheels it will most likely put out less then the manual.
matty

 

girthyguy,

I've already produced rear wheel dyno runs that suport my the fact that the Manual put more power to the ground than the auto, but I will look in to the out put of the motors.

I will say that in my recent Arctic Cat PRIDE this is what I found:

Quote:

At 493cc with four-valve overhead cam producing 30.6 ft.-lbs. of torque at 3500 rpms, it's unmatched in pulling power and work output. The transmission is five-speed constant-mesh with high/low range and reverse on the 500 Manual. The 500 Automatic features the Duramatic, continuosly variable belt-driven system with high/low range. Both models feature front differerntials with selectable 2wd/4wd.

You can read this in a few ways. It kinda seems like both bike put out the same torque, but why would Arctic Cat not list there flagship model first? Maybe it was intented to decive buyers into thinking that the Auto was not detuned for the transmissio. Of course maybe they just decided to place the manual first cause they wanted to save the best for last(NOT IMO, I think the Manual is better than the auto personally).

 

No, the Suzuki has less of a compression ratio than the Arctic Cat there fore it makes slighly less power.

 

Boner
why do you say the auto is the flagship. I wouldnt say its the flagship. I say the 500 itself is the flagship. The engines put out the same numbers. They are not going to detune the auto, why would they. It would make no sence. And personaly why look at dyno numbers just for the peak numbers. You should look for a flat curve.the flatter the curve usually is better.
matty