Just because something has a "low range" does not mean it has an overall lower gear ratio. I don't have the numbers but apparently you don't either.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: TLC

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>with the exception of the deep rutted mud holes</end quote></div>



What else do you expect from a Utility ATV?</end quote></div>

speed, agility,stability, reliability. on the trail it is king. in the mud its ok.

 

Not to be an *** but my opinion for Night Raider would be to post his question on general atv rather than a biased honda forum. Just my opinion though nothing against any of you though. Plus he would get way more opinions from many people who have experience with all sorts of atvs.

 

I think the opinion here would be OK, but you would have to bear in mind where you posted the question....

Really, for me, if I were looking at a midsize 4x4, the other machine I'd look at is the Yamaha with the IRS and locker.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: ForemanDan

Just because something has a "low range" does not mean it has an overall lower gear ratio. I don't have the numbers but apparently you don't either.</end quote></div>


<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Just because something has a "low range" does not mean it has an overall lower gear ratio.</end quote></div>

Your not serious? A 4x4 Pickup in low gear does not have lower gear ratio than a 4x4 without a low range? (If a truck company was foolish enough to build one without a low range).

A 300 King Quad is well known to out pull many larger ATVs because of its low range ever though its only a 300cc.

 

I was looking at several different models before buying including the Rancher and Eiger. There were two things that made me choose the Eiger over the Rancher; Low-range and the ability to choose 2 or 4 wheel drive. I would never even think about buying a truck without low-range, so why should a UTILITY quad be any different? And I like having the option to do donuts and power-slides like a sport quad, so the choice was clear. The comparison in dirt wheels was also misleading. The Honda won the "features" section, but the 'zuk has many features that the Honda does not, including dual rear shocks, a 12-volt outlet, larger tires, a standard recoil start, and as mentioned earlier, dual ranges and 2wd/4wd select-ability. The only thing that I think is truly better about the Honda is the additional displacement and the EFI.

 

My 2007 Honda Rancher TRX420FM has selectable 2wd/4wd, and it does nice power slides with it's solid rear axle ... even with my wife on the back [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

dont the new rancher also have dual shocks on the rear. and a 12 volt outlet, and a recoil starter? the honda has everything the eiger has plus alot more. i ride with a guy who has a popo and cant stand the fact that every big hill we climb he has to stop and put it in low.the only advantaage low has is in a sled pull or something of that nature!

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>the only advantaage low has is in a sled pull or something of that nature! </end quote></div>

Exactly.

 

Also in the Dirtwheels test the ysaid that the Eiger was about 20 inches wider than the Rancher, but if I were you I would get a new Big Bear.