Hi to all you Honda guys out there. I'm new to the forum, I currently ride and always have ridden trx300's. Two are '88's and they just keep going with minimal maintainence. It's not that i think they're the best atv out there (but I would give them the award for the most reliable). I'm looking at getting a new atv soon, I don't mide foot shift at all but I don't want to limit my choices. Honda has put alot of time and R&D money into cvt belt alternatives and this is why I'm asking about why they make 3 unique different tranny's the hondamatic that came out on the Rubicon seems like a good design. Then they put an automotive type 3 speed w/ torque converter on the Rincon. Now they change the hondamatic on the Rancher AT to a new double clutch design with set ratios as opposed to the continueously variable. Was there problems with the hondamatic? If so then why is it still on the Rubicon. My question is what are the plus's minus's of all three sytems and do you think they will eventually settle on a single auto design. By the way Kudos to them for not just putting a cvt belt on like everybody else. I don't think you'll see the snowmachine companies ever coming out with anything different but you'd think that Yamaha would try to come up with something.

 

A better way to ask my question would be if I was buying a new atv and I had my choices narrowed down to the Rancher AT 420 or the Rubicon 500 then which one would you say had the better tranny ?

 

Honda still uses the Hondamatic (hydrostatic pump type gearless) transmission in the Rubicon .. The 420 Rancher AT uses a gear type transmission similar to the Rincon ..
Myself I like the Rubicon ..

 

The hydrostat drive on the Rubicon seems to be quite stout and generally lasts a very long time if taken care of, though you do see theads on older machines with angle sensor problems, or shift motor.

The hydrostat is quite similar to drive systems often seen in small tractors. It is very good at low speed high torque tasks, like dragging and towing, with no dips in the power band.

The Rubicon also has a solid rear axle, which doesn't sag under heavy hitch weight of a trailer, but does not ride nearly as smooth as independent rear suspension.

The Rincon is unique in the ATV world in that it uses a torque converter three speed, very similar to an automotive type auto. It is quite high geared with no low range. It will climb anything and works OK for occasional towing or dragging, but down hill engine braking starts around 6 mph and will only hold around 12mph without using the brakes on a steep hill (where a Foreman or Rubicon could hold 2-3 mph on engine braking).

The Rincon has excellent IRS which is well dialed in. It will really float over rough stuff at speed, while not being wallowy or having excessive body roll on off camber stuff and fast sweepers. They are also known for excellent reliability and long term durability.

The Rancher AT has a dual clutch automatic, which is the cutting edge of auto transmission art. One clutch controls even numbered gears and the other odd numbered gears. It will be in two gears at once, and when it shifts it disengages one clutch and engages the other for a nearly instant shift.

Honda just introduced a VFR1200 motorcycle with this type of transmission. Dodge had one planned for diesel pickups before the down turn, and Fiat plans to use this type of transmission for much of the Dodge line.

Basically, the dual clutch auto offers a fast shifting automatic without the power loss of a hydrostat, torque converter, or cvt belt... An auto transmission vehicle that doesn't suffer a MPG loss compared to a manual.

The Rancher AT is also IRS, and although I haven't ridden one, I understand they ride and handle very well.

 

NO...not even close!!!

The old 400AT was similar to the RUBICON. The RINCON is similar to the torque converter trans found in cars and trucks. Both needlessly complex designs IMO!

BUT....the new 420AT is not similar to any other quad on the planet! It is however like some dual-clutch paddle sifter cars like the VW.

(You call yourself "HondaMechanic", and you don't know this very basic Honda design info????)

 

Seeing you are looking at the AT vs the Rubicon, I will assume you must NOT be particularly interested in the IRS found on the AT. Honda makes a nice and comfortable IRS system, but the AT got way to heavy in the process.....

So....my suggestion is the standard (SRA) Rancher 420. It is a real peach, and will make your old 300 seem like a dinosaur! This little thing rips right off the bottom. The engine likes to be ridden somewhat reved, so it is more of a "trail" quad than a "work" quad. Handles more like a sport quad than your clunkey old utility. I would say it is in the same class with the Yamaha Wolverine 450, rather than the "utility" quads. You could go ES, if you absolutely don't want to shift with you foot.

See the Rancher Shootout in the October issue of DirtWheels! They said the AT was a little bit more comfortable in the rought stuff, but had no particular advantages over the SRA manual trans model.

 

...and, while the dual-clutch design has not been out long enough to prove itself long term, if it does, I think it makes sense to drop both the hydrostat and torqe converter transmissions, and go with the dual-clutch for the Rubicon and Rincon.

 

reconranger I meant BOTH the 420AT & the Rincon are similar in that they both use GEAR TYPE transmissions while the Rubicon uses a hydrostatic pump with an adjustable swash plate to simulate gears .. I could discribe all the differences but I didn't (and still don't) have time to type this out for 1/2 + hours ..

As far as not knowing the transmission I have had all 3 apart numerous times and I'm WELL aware how they work ..

 

Semantic problem maybe....but I think you would be hard put to find anyone who would describe a torque converter automatic as a "gear-on-gear" transmission.

The dual-clutch trans in the AT isn't really an "automatic" at all, but better described as a grear-on-gear that can be shifted automatically by a computer, or by the rider using pushbuttons.

 

Thanks to all for the responses.I'm not actually considering the Rubicon. I posed my question like that to get responses to which auto tranny design was best.
The atv's that I have narrowed my choices down to are;
1.) Honda 420 AT with p.s.
2.) Honda 420 FPM foot shift with power steering , I don't want anything to do with the button shifting model. My father in law bought a 350 rancher es and everytime I ride it it drives me nuts(after 21 years of foot shift atv's and 10 years of foot shift dirt bikes before that.
3.) Yamaha 450 grizzly a friend of mine has a 2002 400 Kodiak (basically the same bike excpt the new ones have IRS instead of SRA) I've ridden it a few times, it had much smoother riding then my 300's, snappier acceleration and better then expected engine breaking. I still found myself phantom shifting with my left foot. It always felt a little tippy though. With the SRA you could ride it like a sport quad with nice controllable rear end slides in 2wd. Not a bad machine at all. But the new ones have IRS, how much does this take the sport quad type ride away?

4.) Yamaha 450 Wolverine but I would have to put some racks on it.

Even thogh I don't do work with my quads I need racks to haul gear and supplies for fishing trips into a lot of areas , the rest of the use (approx 60-70%) is just as a pleasure trail machine.

My riding is done from about 4500' to a little over 10500' so F.I. would be nice. I ride terrain from fairly flat open high desert to tight twisty mountain trails. Some areas are fairy rocky , quite a few small stream crossings.

I want to stay in the 400-500cc range. The big bores along with being too expensive are too heavy and I don't need the extra power. Most all of the places I go your speed is limited by the terrain not by more hp then the size of machines I'm looking at.
I would already have my mind made up if it wasn't for concerns about the Ranchers shocks. In one mid-size shootout I read on line it had this to say: "Everything that the Honda does well was nearly overshadowed by the harshness of the suspension. At just about any speed, the Rancher tended to both bounce and beat you to death." Here's the review
http://www.atvrideronline.com/quads/0907_atvp_2009_budget_utility_4x4_comparison/index.html