There is hopefully a new liquid cooled cat "manual transmission" in my future. I will be using it as a tractor (more or less). I will be pulling out logs and wagons of firewood, plowing snow, pulling my mower/brushcutter, using it for deer hunting, placing treestands, etc... Since 90% of my miles are under 5mph I am in need of liquid cooling and a manual transmission, so I am looking at the 500/400 models. Now the 64K$ question is IRS or straight axle. I know the IRS will squat some when I hook up a wagon full of wood and over the long run that is probably not good for the suspension, so a straight axle would probably be better, but the IRS would be so nice for hillside mowing and would deliver the best ride.

I used a 2001 500 manual (loaner) this past winter (for about a month)while the dealer was working on my 98 Grizzly. The ACT suspension was nice fairly plush as it was. I want to make the best choice for my situation. If the ACT suspension is the best choice I am even considering trying to find a smoking deal on a 2001 500 ACT Manual and just saving the extra $$$. I just know that this Grizzly has got to go. I am tired of scorched legs and Oil Temp lights. Running synthetic oil has helped, but for what I do with it, its not the best solution.

 

Hello,
You are raising very good questions on whether to get the ACT suspension or the IRS. My opinoin is that if you are using the machine to pull heavy implements like the trail mower and logs the ACT suspension would be the best. With the load being put on the axle itself itstead of transfering it throught the suspension on IRS setup the ACT would have an advantage. You'll have to consider how safe the ACT is over the IRS on hillsides. Since the suspension on the ACT setup doesn't have to carry the weight of the implement being pulled the springs will be softer that let the body lean more. I've had first hand experience with this after driving our 2000 Arctic Cat 300 and driving a friends 2000 Arctic Cat 500. The 300 has IRS which inturn gives it stronger springs and shocks to carry the load of implements. The 300 is like driving a BMW and the 500 a floaty Buick. Hope this helps your decision.

 

I' would go with the ACT suspension for your situation. I think it will be the best thing in the long run. BUt I do have to disagree about side hilling, with the extra 2.5" of width the IRS of the "i"models might be better for side hilling.

 

It would really depend on the amount of work or casual riding you are doing. At least it would to me. I can't answer it for you of course, because I would be IRS all the way, but the suspension definitely would squat under a load. Of course, this isn't any major problem really because Sportsmans were winning the pulls constantly for the past 5 years. I would really have to be doing a lot of pulling for it to make a difference. I guess the main thing would be that it lightens the front end, but remember that Arctic Cats have 100lbs. more riding on the front tires than the rears anyway, so they probably shouldn't be affected that much. On the other hand, the Sportsman has a lot more weight riding on the rear tires than the front already.

On sidehills, I don't see any disadvantage with the IRS. I really think that both are better than a standard swingarm. The difference isn't going to be enough to consider it unsafe as a swingarm is probably less safe than both, and there are far more swingarm bikes around already.

Basically, like most everything else other than power, its just a matter of preference.