The outlander really does handle like a sport quad. Even though its quite a bit heavyer it doesnt feal that way. I used to take it around the track and keep up with my freind on his warrior without much of an issue. It doesnt compare to my Z on the track at all. But for trails speed isnt all that counts. That same setup less 200lbs would be SWEET.

And who would need a 600 Outlander when you could get an 800? haha But yeah, the 600 would fill a gap.

 

I figure an 800 is an overkill in price and more than enough in power. As it was, I would have had to pay $500+ tax more than I paid for my Rubicon for the Outlander 400. We're talking about $3500 more for the 800! The 400 is powerful to a point, but in a foot of snow the the extra 100ccs make a difference while trying to maintain a speed greater than 30 MPH.

I figure a 600 would fill the gap nicely. I will be looking for a second machine in 2 years. The Outlander will be looked at again.

 

So, if I understand well, you guys think that IRS on ATV's is a move forward ?

 

For those desiring a cushy ride yeah, but not for aggressive riders.

 

IRS can be tuned to allow agressive riders a spirited ride at very high speeds, its just not cheap.

 

I had an arctic-cat IRS and didn"t like the handling at all(to much body roll cornering and side hills are nasty)So I went back to solid rear axle a quad you can control by shifting your body weight....The only thing I liked about the IRS was the soft ride....

 

And by the time you replace/revalve the shocks, increase the swaybar size, and finish all your tuning you have an IRS machine that is stiff as all hell and still rolls more than a SRA machine.

 

I like IRS for its cushy ride and it all day trailability. But when they measure ground clearance, its allways unloaded with nobody sitting on it. Slap 4 50 pound sacks of feed plus rider and then measure it. The SRA machine wont change a bit when measured at the axle where they seem to allways measure it.... The frame of the quad will sink on any machine loaded so its a silly argument.
I also dont like hooking a trailer to an IRS machine, they sink like battleships and when you go over terrain, the trailer takes an up and down beating. The hitch on a SRA machine at least has a solid platform to mount to and seems to ride better loaded.

I guess all this is to say that IRS is great for a trail driven fun machine, and SRA is better for a hard working utility machine and still does good on trails. But they both serve their purpose well.

 

Hello Woodlander. I tend to agree with Curls.. If you want the ultimate in performance you want IRS. The fundamental reason is that IRS reduces unsprung weight. It seems that this basic fact has escaped the sports quad community until the Polaris Outlaw came out. I think we are going to see many more high performance sports quads follow suit.

The other reason you may want IRS is for articulation. When I get into the really bumpy stuff one of my front tires invariably leaves the ground. This can be unsettling when it happens going up very steep hills. I would much prefer IRS on my quad, but I don't want a UTE.

Bryce

 

The Outlaw may reduce unsprung weight, but that thing weighs about 80 pounds more than 450 race bike also. I think it will be a great quad, but I'm not so sure that any other manufacturers will be rushing IRS sport quads into production unless They sell a TON of Outlaws. The extra weight and expense may be the prohibiting factors. On the utes, IRS is giving you the ground clearance and cushy ride that is all the rage lately. IRS seems to be a better at rock crawling and mudding, but perhaps not quite as durable as a solid axle. Like mentioned above, it is hard to compare the atv solid axles with those of trucks, since the vast majority of solid atv axles only can travel up and down, both sides as one unit. A truck solid axle has more ability to articulate than that.