Oh come on you know that Bomb will run rings around that KQ and ride better too! I bet it holds up better too! LOL. Hey its all good anyway. I am considering the Bomb 800 as well to augment my other rides. I won't get rid of any of what I have except maybe one of the ATC 250Rs. My Rancher AT has been perfect for the wife and I enjoy it too! I hope you can get the Bomb 800 in another color than yellow as that makes it look too much like a suzuki! LOL

 

Seems like every round of this gets longer winded.

Yep I had my rear brakes freeze up on my 01 rancher, after they had worked just fine for 2 years and then I broke through a frozen pond on 2 occasions and completely submerged the bike both times. I didnt bother to drain it or even keep the bike warm so the water wouldnt freeze. Since you promptly switched to automobiles, I'll follow the lead. A 4wd utility quad is designed and used much more offroad than your typical road going automobile (especially cars but most trucks too). Trucks have to stop from speeds more than twice the top speed of most utility atvs with about 10 times the weight, all while making sure the 1k pounds of cargo in the bed and the 3k pound trailer in the back stops too. (heavier trailers usually have their own brakes, drum style typically). Now the need for these things was the cause for the disc brakes over the drums, better stopping power at the cost of replacement expense and frequency. These trucks are built for primarily on-road use, the exact opposite of an atv. The demands an atv has on a braking system are dramatically less, especially with the widespread use of engine braking (the Rincon is again the exception because of trans design, but the rest do this very well). The switch to discs was not a win-win situation, there are drawbacks and in the atv world the benefits of discs are far less important that those in the automotive world.

As for technology I find a lot of fault in your examples. Glad you mentioned your bike doesnt carry EFI, the updated 2006 version that was bumped to 455cc doesnt get it either, still just the addition with the 500EFI to go with the 700/800. I'm still not sure what the point is in having a 455cc and 500cc identical atvs in the same lineup but that's another story, now for the rebuttals. IRS is not new, and even honda has had a machine with it for a few years. IRS is not necessarily the best tool for all jobs, and while the improved ride may be a benefit to many riders the stable and predictable stance when loaded or unloaded of an SRA machine is preferred by others. There are plenty of people that wont buy a polaris simply because every ute (sans atp) is only availible with IRS. Certainly ground clearance is only availible by tire size on SRA atvs, so your stating of it is just a reiteration of IRS. An atv with an SRA doesnt require the rear suspension travel an IRS bike does, but of course the more you have for a given design typically the better. Disc breaks I've already touched on so I'll skip it here.

Now is where I start questioning your "advanced options". Since when is a steel wheel "advanced"? Havent honda atvs and in fact just about all utility atvs come with them for years and years and years? Or are you trying to tell me that the Honda Rancher 400AT is fitted with stone wheels like the ones you mentioned earlier? "The same frame", the same frame as what? As the bigger bikes? Do you consider it an advantage that your 425 which is just over half the engine size of the SP 800 has to carry the same size frame and its weight? Shouldnt a smaller atv be designed around the smaller, less powerful engine and lightened up accordingly? Your 425cc Polaris weighs an astonishing 715 pounds DRY, while the Rancher 400AT weighs 559 pounds dry. You're going to need those extra inches of ground clearance, suspension travel, and your whopping 28cc displacement advantage to haul around the extra 156 pounds. And its a good thing that engine is liquid cooled and multi valved because its going to need to breathe better and stay cool to move itself around. Think about that, your Polaris alone weighs as much as a Rancher AT would with a rider already on it. Your 425cc machine weighs more than every single utility atv on the market with the exception of the AC 650 V2 TS and H1, the regular V2 is lighter by 4 pounds. Even the new BRP Outlander 800 Max weighs 26 pounds less than your bike, and it holds 2 riders, almost twice the displacement, and all of the fancy things you feel all atvs need to have. But enough on how much your bike weighs, next topic. CVT system, belt drive. Honda has the Hondamatic in the 400AT, pretty good argument that its at least as good as the typical belt drive, and it certainly takes more technology to run a mechanical CVT than a belt driven one. Even if honda has had similar trannies out since the 70's. When did Polaris start using belts again? 4wd, Polaris' system is AWD and yes the 4th wheel does actually deliver power to the ground. Hondas have a limited slip front end which basically means if one slips, the other does nothing. I'll accept that the Honda is significantly behind in this manner, but with points of interest. First off the vast majority of terrain that the 400 class atvs are going to ride in will not require a front locker to get through. Second, the Polaris 4wd system takes its sweet time with its full engagement and could definately use some fine tuning and an improvement in downhill operation. Next we have instrumentation, lighting, body, mud protection, floorboards, racks, storage compartments. If you dont mind I'll group them together as "functional accessories". The rancher AT has all of the things you listed, standard. No plastic racks either, steel and bolted to the frame. Not sure what the big discrepancy is here, the AT is somewhat smaller so no it probably wont have the same amount of storage space and thats about all I can think of that matters.

I thought the stone wheel reference was getting out there, but you continue to amaze and astound. Lets say for a minute Honda is content to rest on its laurels as long as sales maintain target volumes. (I dont fully agree but this is simply hypothetical). So lets say thier numbers drop and they are now motivated, as you say, to innovate. If this were to happen the motivation for honda or any other atv manufacturer in a similar situation would NEVER COME CLOSE TO THE PRESSURES OF WARTIME TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT! Honestly, in wartime the freedom of nations and the lives of millions were at stake. How could you ever dream of comparing that to the desire for increased atv sales?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? Kills them? Hows that CRF 250 holding up anyway? LOL!

In all fairness a couple buddies of mine said they would buy the CRF 450 over the YZF 450 but that is because they said it had an easier motor to control. The YZF had too much hit and was less forgiving. Too much power...........what a horrible thing to deal with.

 

Yes, KILLS them. As in no contest.

Maybe Yamaha should spend some much needed time and money on their dirtbike lineup. There has to be a reason why Honda sells so many (many, many) more dirtbikes than Yamaha.

What is the reason? What's the excuse? Again, if Yamaha dirtbikes are "superior" to Honda dirtbikes, where are Yamaha's sales? Tell me...