Hello All!!!

I am new to the forum and the reason I am here is to get some input on the type of quad I should be looking at. Since I am posting in the Can-Am section you might be able to guess which one I am leaning towards.

In the intro section I have posted that I am currently living in IN but am soon to ship out to the United States Coast Guard and am hoping to be stationed in Alaska (Kodiak Alaska to be more specific).

This said, I am asking for you help and input as to what quad will be the most:
1. Reliable / Dependable
2. Fuel efficient
3. Able to push snow (and pull whatever I may throw at it)
4. Able to haul game
5. Power
6. Last but not least,,, some REAL 4x4 quality

With this said, I have never owned a quad but grew up on Yamaha dirt bikes and rode with buddies who had quads (mainly suzuki's). I am not naive to the outdoor powersports genre but am not current on all the latest greatest technologies that are being installed on quads.

I spoke to a local dealer the other day who sells Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kaw's, Polaris, and Bombardier. I have told him what my situation is and why I am looking at a quad. We talked mainly about Polaris, Can-Am, and Yamaha. Honda's are out because I'm not buying a 3 wheeler, suzuki's are out due to the fact that the company is up for sale and looks like they haven't done anything new in the quad engineering department lately. Kaw's are out due to the fact that they burn belts (according to the guy I talked to). So that leaves Polaris, Yamaha, and Can-Am.

I would like a 2 seater option seeing as how my wife enjoy's going outdoors and I figure, WHY NOT. Since it's an option and I'm going to be spending in excess of $5000 why not do it right. This brings me to my next point. With the price of quads being what they are I highly doubt I will be purchasing a NEW, OFF THE FLOOR quad. I'm the kinda guy that if I've got something new, I keep it that way for AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. So I don't think that a new quad would get the use (from me) that a used quad would.

So I would like your input of these 3 quads in the 650 to 800 cc range and the past 2 to 4 years models pro's and con's / flaws and manufacturers failures. Since I may very well get stationed on Kodiak (which is a big effin island) I would highly appreciate a quad that will last and I won't have to worry about parts breaking seeing as how it could be spring before it gets fixed and could be a detrimental part of life to have the mobility a quad brings.

Thanks and hope to get some good input.

 

My wife and I both have 650 Outlanders. They are 07's we love them. I would recomend you get on for your Wife, you will have more fun with 2. We made the mistake of getting her a 500, bad mistake the 500 does not have as good a front suspension as the 650. Cost us 3k to get her a 650

 

Gunner,
our family of four has owned about thirty quads in the last 12 years, including models from every brand except Suzuki. Since I was the one that had to pay for them all, and keep them maintained, I have formed some opinions on which ones I like best.

Reliability: Yamaha > Can Am > KTM > Honda > Polaris = Kawasaki > Arctic Cat

Performance: KTM > Can Am > Kawasaki > Yamaha > Polaris > Arctic Cat > Honda

If being last in line gives you one point, and each position closer to the front of the line gives you another additional point, then KTM, and Can Am are tied with 12 points. KTM doesn't build a four wheel drive ATV, so that takes them out of the picture. Yamaha comes in second with 11 points.

Given the choice between Can Am and Yamaha, for someone that only wants to spend $5,000 to $6000, ... get the Yamaha. A Grizzly 450, 550, or 700 would be an excellent choice.

 

Thanks Desert. That is an excellent post. I like Yamaha but I don't like the single cylinder. From what I have been told the Can-Am gets better fuel economy and I feel that 2 cylinders are safer than 1. Just mho.

 

in a comparison I have a 500 HO my nephew has the 700 twin cylender we line them up I have better take off and about 300 yards he passes me (when it gets up the top end speeds) same with a friends 800 seems to me with what I have seen the twins take longer to get up to speed but have more power for pulling pushing than the lower cc

 

The Can Am ATVs do get better fuel economy. In 2009 I led a group of people for the grizzlycentral.com web site on a trail ride on the Paiute Trail in Utah. I actually led the group of Grizzly riders with a Renegade 800. There were six Grizzly 700s and one Renegade 800 in the group (mine). All of the Yamaha Grizzlys ran out of fuel between 90 and 94 miles into the ride. The Renegade was the only ATV to complete the entire ride (120 miles) without adding additional fuel. That year of Renegade had the exact same size gas tank (5.3 or 5.4 gallons, cant remember which) as a Grizzly 700.

In 2010 Can Am shrank the size of the gas tank by almost one gallon. I did a 400 mile ride last summer on a 2011 Outlander 800 that I owned at the time. It had a 4.6 gallon tank, and on the first leg of the trip I went 109 miles before fueling up at a gas station. It took 4.06 gallons of gas to fill the tank, which means fuel economy for that leg of the trip was 27 mpg.

My last ride on my Polaris Rzr XP 900 was 60 miles in length, and it took 5 gallons of gas to fill the tank after the ride. That means I only got 12 mpg with the Polaris. The terrain was different for the ride on the Rzr (more sand), and the Rzr is bigger and heavier than the Can Am ATV, but still, the Can Am gets over twice the fuel mileage of the Polaris.

 

With that restriction - Yamaha because it is the only one that has a manually locking differential. In my not so humble opinion anything that locks in automatically cannot match the performance of being 100% locked in when I choose to.

Why not wait to buy until you get to Kodiak and ask the locals what they are using and WHY?

 

That was some great info DesertViper. Thanks.

I ride two Yamaha Wolverines (from back when they were ut atv's with racks) and they have been very reliable machines. But, my buddy has a Yamaha 700 Grizzly and from what I've seen, I would never want one. The dang thing boils gas at high elevations and is actually pretty gutless for a 700cc engine. The Can Am 650 will kill the 700 yamaha in every category. Of course, it costs more too!

 

I would suggest the polaris for it has better sight lines and a raised radiator. My Brother has it and the wife loves it too. I was really impressed with it even on mud it is rock-solid.

 

Wanting a two seater machine with your chooses of Yamaha, Can-Am, and Polaris leaves you only Polaris and Can-Am for choices. Can-Am is quicker and as Desert Viper noted they get fantastic fuel mileage. On constant cruising my son's Renegade got 32 mpg and my Sportsman X2 got 22 mpg on the same trail at the same speed for a day's driving. It has got consistently better mileage than my Polaris and Can-Am is quickest per cc of the major brands. An Outlander 650 would be comparable in power to others' 700 and 750 class machines. Both Polaris and Can-Am make touring models with comfortable seats for the passenger and Polaris also has the X2 which has a dumpbox that converts to a fairly comfortable 2nd passenger seat. The X2 has the highest load ratings for the rear box of any quad. It's a great work machine that's pretty fun on the trails too. Polaris frame is stronger than the Can-Am frame. The Can-Am frame can be reinforced pretty easily with a frame insert and/or skid plates. We did the frame insert on my son's Renegade for piece of mind. You can get an insert for the Outlander Max if you want too. Both are really comfortable riding machines with a slight nod to Polaris for comfort. Hope this is helpful to you.

On another note, I'd like to see Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki, and Honda come out with 2-up machines. The more there are the more competition. Competition makes for great quads all around. It would be nice if Honda had the option of a full locker too.