The new Ranchers (2010) now have preload adjustable shocks...which has been a long time coming! I didn't have time to read the review link, but I would certainly not describe my Ranchers as ever being "bouncy", although it would never be my choice for bashing big desert whoops. Honda gets the most from short travel suspension! Its suspension is tight, so it won't sag much when the racks are loaded. This is unlike other manufacturers, who think the only way to get a good ride is to add more travel to the suspension...making their machines tall, top heavy, and tippy. I can see how someone coming off one of these "mush boxes", would feel like the Rancher felt way different.

Between the AT and the standard Ranchers, I take my standard model rock crawling all the time, and I am not at all plagued by low ground clearance. The Rancher Shootout I mentioned above, seemed to reach a similar conclusion. I ride yard deep snow with my buddies who have big bore IRS machines from all the different manufacturers, and they don't get any further up the trail than I do. My conclusion is, that I am not missing out on anything at all by not having a $10,000 monster quad. In fact, I have a distinct advantage in nasty terrain, becasue my quad is light and has a low center of gravity!

One of my buddies wife has the Wolverine 450, which attempts to be a "hybrid" falling somewhere between a sport and utility. She ended up on it primarily because he is a Yamaha guy and she insisted on an automatic, but didn't want a big heavy utility. I have to say that my SRA Rancher is everything the Wolv is, and more. There is nothing at all "sporty" about a belt drive auto!

Again, the one area where I will dis the Rancher 420 is its weight. I feel like the Rancher 350's weight is pretty much spot on. You add on PS and it gets even heavier, and the AT with PS will be a real pig (I was in the market for an AT, but am having serious second thoughts!). Clearly, Honda wanted to keep the price reasonable so they didn't use the alloy parts found on many other machines. I think they need to come out with updates, that make a point of improving the overall weight.


Sounds like we ride similar terrain. I have a stable of sport quads that I ride in the open desert during the cool months, but in summer we ride the local mountains and Eastern Sierra. Rides begin in the valley at ~4,000', and end up at around 11,000'. The Rancher 420 fuel injection handles it all nicely!

 

I was kind of under the impression that you were only interested in having an auto.

The 450 Yamaha is a very nice machine, and they seem to be very capable in really heavy mud and steep stuff. I watched one claw its way out of a pit which was really impressive (skilled rider also). Their CVT system is probably the best belt system out there. I believe it also has considerably more ground clearance than the Rancher, especially the IRS, but there is a trade-off in handling I'm sure.

Rancher ride wise, the Rancher 420 with solid rear axle I think rides a bit stiffer than even other SRA's in its class, like the 400 Eigher (now King Quad with different body work), but it is physically smaller and nimble and sporty feeling. Still, it isn't like the Rancher rides like a buckboard or anything.

Anyway, from what you've posted, wanting something affordable that power slides well, and apparently not being totally against an auto clutch, I think you need to go get a ride on a 420 manual shift Rancher.


I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into magazine reviews. It seems to me they rate things on their tests with a different emphasis than what someone who was planning on owning one would consider important. I remember reading a reveiw of a big power twin cylinder job, and after their demo ride they managed to get it back to the staging area after they started hearing the shreaded belt smacking around in the housing. They still gave it a great review.

 

For the record....he is interested in the WOLVERINE 450, NOT the GRIZ 450 with IRS, which I think you were refering to(???). The Wolverine is SRA and has no transfer case. It is based off one of the utilities frame, but I can't recall which one.

 

i just bought a new rubicon last month after 8 months of paper research. i test-drove a rancher ES first, then a foreman ES, then the rubicon. The rancher is definitely a sportier machine with some, but not a huge amount of work in its blood. it is a blast to drive, no doubt. the foreman and rubicon are utility-designed, and it is never the more obvious until you test drive one right after testing a rancher. these machines are plush, slower, but have a smoother powerband. the rubicon is the cadillac of utility machines. the hydrostatic transmission is flawless and seamless. i love it, and could only be happier if honda had a locking front diffrential and the rubicon had fuel injection. trust me, there is nothing 'wrong' with the hydrostatic transmission in the rubicon. i would be willing to put it against any other belt transmission for long term reliability and durability any day. my 2 cents...good luck with your decision! (the rancher will be my 2nd 4 wheeler in about another year, by the way)

 

Garp

I would ask him why he had all 3 setups apart numerous times.

CVT to me are just plain simpler and very easy to understand and cheap and quick to maintain. I think Honda just like to be different for the sake of it,plus since they are the only manufacturer that never have been in the high powered sled business they never got attach to them.

 

Thanks for all the great feedback everybody. I think all 4 machines I have it narrowed down to are very capable quality atv's. Foot shifting would come natueral to me but I think I could get used to an auto after a while.

I understand the advantages of IRS for certain situations, but having never ridden one I don't know how they make the rear behave when you attempt to ride em like a sport bike on fire roads. Does the rear end not what to slide around? If not then how would you explain how the IRS behaves.
It would sure be nice if a person could truely test ride (spend an hour out on the terrain they'd be riding) befor you plunk down your 6 grand.
I really want to get the atv that I can truely be happy with. I'm pushing 50 so if the atv I buy lasts like the 300's (20+ years and still going) then this could be the last atv I ever need to buy.

 

I find its not IRS or SRA the make a ATV power slide but high rpm and horse power. I like to power slide most all turns but you better have the motor that can break the rear traction and build some rpms if you want to do it. My SRA 450 Foreman could not break its wheels loose above 10 mph if its life depended on it.

Except for a Kawasaki I think there is no powerful Utility ATV with a straight axle made anylonger.

Not to many IRS that do not have a sway bar on them.

 

I tested an IRS equiped prototype for Honda, and have to say they really know what they are doing! When I compare it's sport like performance to my friend's large variety of different IRS machines, all I can say is that the other manufacturers have a lot to learn about combining good suspension with a low center of gravity and a stable, safe ride.

 

This is hillarious! They create these long travel IRS mush box supensions, then find them so unstable that they have to put a sway bars on them to give them SRA-like handling....to make them rideable.

 

I'd say there is a clear difference with SRA and IRS when it comes to power sliding around.

My Foreman power slides great. So does the SRA rancher. With my Foreman, steering it with the throttle is the fast (and fun) way to get around really tight winding trails.

The Rincon will also power slide, but the rear suspension tends to find a lot more traction. If you don't stay on the throttle the rear can hook up suddenly.

Like anything else, it is a matter of experience with your particular machine, as they all have their own power and handling charactaristics.