Anyone check out the Automatic 4x4 shootout real good? That was one of the best conducted shootouts I have seen in a long time, though they could have written about 5 more pages on it in depth.

The thing that got me was weight distribution. The AC had 100lbs. more riding on the front tires than the rear. Awesome. I guess that would probably give it the most uphill stability of any quad out there. As for the downhill side, the rider's *** sits back there so it evens back out. A large mess of the riding I do is in steep hills so this is key. Just one more reason to keep mine if I get to wanting something faster again sometime I guess.

 

I've noticed that too and the article affirmed that. I park mine against a wall in the garage, angle it in, then push/slide the rear against the wall. The rear is way easier to slide than the front. When I plow snow, I put 100 lbs of ballast on the rear rack because the rear gets so light with the plow raised that you can spin out backing up. The confidence it gives you climbing hills is great.

 

Andy,

Did you also notice that your "dream quad" (JOKE!!) has the lightest front end of them all?

On a side note, nice to see that Bombardier has a PERFECT bias, too bad it's not a race car. That would actually help it then.

 

Hell I could have told you that five years ago. Do a weight distribution on a king quad or AC300 and you'll see the same thing. Light *** front end. I knew the Polaris was heavy in the *** long ago, that being one of the main reasons I didn't buy it originally. Of course, nobody who owns one is going to act like it will affect anything though. I was really taken in that the AC had so much more up front than practically everything else though. Rubicon this!! (as if many people even give a damn about that weight thing anyway- I do though) Never flipped one over backwards and don't plan on it.

 

Was it TexMud who scanned that in? Anyway, thanks to whoever it was, it was a good article. I must say I was a little amazed that the 'Cats were so much heavier up front than the rest of the fleet-didn't think there'd be that much of a difference. I know exactly what you mean though about flipping over backwards Andy-never done it, and sure as hell don't plan on it! I've been up some hills that were so steep, even with the extra 100 lbs. of the machine up front, combined with the 100+ lbs. I carry on my front rack, and my fat *** leaning over the handlebars, staring at the bash plate, I've still had the front wheels come off the ground! Man, I'd hate to think of what would have happened had I been on a machine with more weight in the rear, I'd have gone over for sure. And, for the work I do, I believe the extra weight up front helps with traction as well, allows me to get those heavier loads moving easier than with all the weight in the rear. Any way you look at it, I'd rather have all fours on the ground than just the rears, who really cares about popping wheelies anyway-especially up hill! .

Take care,

Mike

 

Guy's there is a hill down here that nothing has gone up except a Artic Cat 454.That weight does make a big difference going uphill.The bad thing is it doesnt handle as well on the trail's as other quad's at high speed's.The standard tranny would be my pick with the 500 AC.It's a bullet proof machine.I would have bought it instead of the Rubicon but I liked the look's of the Rubicon better.