articcat thunder cat vs polaris 850 xp
#21
OK I get it, the T-cat goes like hell in a straight line. I don't spend alot of time dragging my quad... there's better vehicles made for drag racing... cars I think they're called. I do spend alot of time on trails, doing 10 to 30 MPH. I still think there's better choices than any AC for that. I like a soft ride, and AC's are too stiff for me. That being said, if I had the expendable income, I would buy a Mud-Pro 1000. Nobody is close to AC in that department. And I do occasionally hit the mud. In stock configuration, the tires on the 850XP aren't very good in mud. OK they suck. But the Mud-Pro is ready to go, turn key mud machine.
#22
Yes you are right it does go like hell in a straight line and usually that's why some people buy the biggest bike they can of their choice so they have that option. I have also done alot of trail riding with mine and it is not the most comfortable on long trips but it is also not the most uncomfortable either,personally i like all brand atv's but have way too many A-CAT clothes to actually get nethin different. I wouldn't trade my T-CAT for nethin rgt now at least until i can afford to change the wardrobe!lol
#23
I understand the manufacturer branded wardrobe. I'd have to throw half my clothes away if I bought a non-Chevy or non-Polaris. As far as everything else goes, most riders are still buying 400-500cc machines. The big bore group is still a minority. I don't care what you ride, it's still fun. And if we all drove the same thing, it would be boring as hell.
Oh and in response to the AC 650H1 beating the Popo 700... the 700 is a dog.. My 500HO could about keep up with a 700 on most days. That's part of why they don't make em anymore.
Oh and in response to the AC 650H1 beating the Popo 700... the 700 is a dog.. My 500HO could about keep up with a 700 on most days. That's part of why they don't make em anymore.
#24
Although it seems clear you don't dislike or hate any brand of atv i would sure like to know how it is or where you have the literature to say different about the torque of the T-CAT. I t seems you are somewhat rounded when it comes to areas of engines and they're hp/trq ability so that being said i would like to see that for further referance.
Lets just for one second assume a few things for the thundercat engine. Arctic cat rates the torque at 188 ft lbs correct? In the worst case scenario at peak horsepower, torque may fall off 20% in the upper rpm range
horsepower = (RPM * TORQUE) / 5252
so lets say we have 188 ft lbs of torque at peak. at peak horsepower lets just knock 20% off of that. That leaves us 150 ft lbs of hypothetical torque. i dont know where the thundercat peaks for horsepower but lets just say peak horsepower comes in at 7000 rpm.
hp = (7000 * 150) / 5252
So horsepower guesstimate would be ~200 horsepower if the cat engine really did make 188 ft lbs of peak torque. Notice something here? Most 3L v6 engines make around 200 hp... like when i said most 3L engines make around the 188 ft lbs of torque that AC claims. Remember torque curves are relatively flat, they will not spike signigicantly...
Since the arctic is known to produce 65-70 horsepower we can therefore see that 188 ft lbs of torque is not rated at the flywheel but at the output shaft, after gearing multiplication because it would have significantly more then 70 horsepower if it had that much torque! If i had to guess id say the ac engine is making around 55-60 ft lbs of torque at the crank. the ac engine is 58 cubic inches... seems to be spot on for the size of the engine and horsepower rating!!
sorry for the book... its late and i cant sleep lol...
#26
#27
#29