I'd like to see more articles dealing with hopping up machines other than the Honda line. Yes, I realize that Honda is one of the big boys but like Mudcat said how many to do we have see it. Maybe we Cat owners are howling at the moon a little bit.
It takes class to join a forum, which is complaining (maybe not the right word to describe the situation) about your article. Not only has Brandless explained his conclusions, but also has been extremely courteous during the ordeal.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] After hearing the explanations I do admit I reacted rashly, saying that I’d never buy another ATV Magazine again.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img]I do have to question why the host kicks him off. Isn't this forum for everyone? The more people who join and contribute the more the group gains in knowledge and support.

 

MNT- I have straddled everything other than a Bombardier in a day. Not every quad, but something from each manufacturer like you said. Think about this. Is one day between about 6 quads enough time to figure anything out? Hell, you don't find out the good or bad points of a quad until you have owned it for a month or so anyway. All you can tell in a day or two is the same crap that you see in the shootouts. Which one is fastest and has the best ride. Whoopty $hit! Everyone here just about has a legitimate point, and nobody here is trying to lay in any rudeness I don't think on the the Brandless representative.

As for the 14hp, hell yes I think it could be printed and not true. Have you never seen a magazine print a mistake before? Lets see- 660 Grizzly has 8.3" of ground clearance at the footpeg, Scrambler 500 runs 68mph stock, etc. It doesn't happen too often and normally is nothing of consequence, but thats about the kind of HP rating a 450 Honda would have. Dynos from aftermarket companies have given the 500 much better justice than that in stock form.

 

Any of you guys go over to atvnews.com? I haven't checked lately, but maybe this conversation would be better over there at ATV Magazine's site. This site doesn't like "competition" coming in and I'm sure that's why posts have been deleted.

Andy, I'd bet ATV Magazine spent more than one day testing these machines. I'd also bet they've ridden those models before. Maybe not those exact test units but those specific models and already found the little bugs you would find in a month's time. And, if printing 14HP was a mistake, I'm sure we'll see a correction in the next issue, IF it was a mistake. I've seen corrections in there before. Makes me wonder some. If an OEM was going to be attending a "shootout", don't you think they'd make sure the machine was running top performance?

 

OK...this may upset some of you and may make some of you question these dyno charts but I have a link that shows serveral ATVs dynoed. Now they don't have any Arctic Cat machines dynoed in here but they do have a 1998 Suzuki Quadrunner and a 2000 Quadmaster. Now they use the same exact motor. Here is the link:

Click here for Dynos

 

Brent, Great find! It looks like our question has pretty much been answered.In the mag. shootout, listed horsepower for the AC is probably acurate. I still don't think the comment to "leave it on the farm" was appropriate IMHO.

 

I guess we should rely more on mechanical advantage from the gearing and less on horsepower ratings. I'm still wondering what they ment when they said "it didn't seem to perform up to its abilities"... this seems to indicate a problem with that particular machine. However, MNT, you're probably right: it's hard to imagine them testing a defective machine when the AC rep is right there watching. Does anyone out there in quadland know exactly how much importance horsepower has on an ATV. I know it is important, but how much of it can you make up for in the gears? Brandless, I'm sure you're quite knowledgable in this regard, any comments?

 

That was the Dyno chart I remember. Notice that the automatic is like 15hp and the old manual is 16.8hp. Remember the compression on these suzukis that are on that dyno chart link are the older models with less compression than the AC 500 engine also. Its not a major difference, but 16.8 is still a lot better sounding than 14hp. I'm sure that different tests get different results. Remember that ATV magazine only showed the AC500 to go 48mph and the Suzuki to go 46 in their automatic shootout a year ago. That was a pretty well conducted shootout, but still, the Arctic Cat walked away sounding like it was a POS because it wasn't as fast as the others. The Rubicon got high marks for reasons unknown. I think it was because the transmission and the shocks were set good for all around or something like that. The Polaris 500 clearly dominated the shootout and should have won outright though. That is where people get that idea of magazines bowing out to the sponsors I think. Its basically a quick way to find reason as to why the Rubicon gets a tie when the Sportsman trounced everything.

 

Thanks Brent! The dyno charts tell me much more about performance and potential performance better than a writer. I understand why they can't show torque values now. The Dyno needs to be connected off a chain drive like the Polaris Expedition.

As for jetting expect 2BHP for simply properly jetting and adjusting your needle on your quad. Based on the Expedition torque values these quads make as much torque as they do BHP.

Max torque/BHP is made round 20 MPH, (RPM) ? It's my quess low range changes this to 5 MPH. To make these quads go faster (top end) BHP modifications would have little to do with it since the BHP falls off early, gearing changes would have to made in the belt drive(final drive) system except the Raptor motor which the BHP is produced towards higher RPM's this yields much a faster top end.

A modified cam is going to move the "bump" or widen the maximum torque curve yielding the power coming on earlier and staying to higher RPM's.

It's my estimate the 500 2002 AC motor is capable of 18 BHP with a jet kit, 21 BHP with a pipe and jet kit, and 23 with a thinner head gasket pipe and jet kit. These are rear wheel figures so tire sizes will alter overall speed.

As for increasing speed someone has to clearly publish modifications for the belt drive system. I've seen some mods but they are vague. Not clutch mods but gearing mods.

 

4 strokes are all about torque, not HP. If you really want a fast machine get a 2 stroke. HP is what makes the quad move faster and torque is how much quad(weight) you can move. If we had a 2 stroke 700 polaris with 28" outlaws on, the 2 stroke would probably turn the tires but would work really really hard while a 4 stroke would easily turn them. I don't think HP has much to do with utility quads, its more about torque. I have read in the past that the 1998 Suzuki Quadrunner 500 made about 30.5 lbs/torque. Now this is about double the horse power ratings. I would guess the cat makes about 32 lbs/torque and with the lower gearing it would make a little more again.

So don't get upset about 14 HP because we know its a little low and it really has no meaning to us, its not important, torue is important.

 

Brent thanks for the find, those charts are helpful. Considering the 500I has a great deal more driveline angles it's amazing more power wasn't lost from those readings on a swing axle quad. It's seems apparent to me that zuk/AC may HAVE done some tuning on their 500I used in the test.