What is your two cents. Honda owners
Jan 2, 2000 | 09:57 PM
#12
Pro Rider
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
does UTILITY mean 4x4? they are great machines, and they are 3 wheel drive which really sucks. just because they dont have true four wheel drive does not mean they are bad quads, yeah that is right. thanks
Ranger
87 Honda 250X
Ranger
87 Honda 250X
Jan 2, 2000 | 10:00 PM
#13
Thread Starter
|
Weekend Warrior
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
I posted in the honda and in the polaris. I am debating on what machine to purchase, and the honda people really seem to be eager to help. but trailblazer comes over and makes a comment and goes"So there". I'm not trying to get an argument started I just want opinions. Tell me the good and bad thats all I want, not some childish name calling saying that mine is better nana nana boo boo. that helps no one, and only starts confrontation. So be informative if hondas are no good, and the polaris Xpedition is better give facts. and visa versa. Right now I am partial to the honda rancher but I've heard about them being 3 wheel drive, they have had a recall for battery drainage, and the ESP does have problems. So my mind isn't made up just yet.
Please be a participant and act like adult K.
And as the famous Rodney King says"Can't we all just get along.)
Please be a participant and act like adult K.
And as the famous Rodney King says"Can't we all just get along.)
Jan 2, 2000 | 10:35 PM
#14
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Dutch, to be honest, I only see the Xpedition having a slight suspension plushness advantage, and that's it. The Honda's front differential is a new one called AP. It is a torque sensing differential that sends the power to the wheel with traction, instead of the one with the least amount. I don't know if it really works, because I've never tried it. The recall was on the Foreman 450ES's, and all it was was a new box installed in the front of the machine, called a Current Control Kit. It only took our dealer 15 minutes to put on. The Ranchers don't need it because they have it fixed on the new ones. Hope this helps, but I don't know if you're talking about the Xpedition 325 or 425. Which is it?
Jan 2, 2000 | 10:59 PM
#15
Pro Rider
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Regarding the problem with ESP (Electronic Shift Program) you heard about:
I heard about this with respect to the Foreman 450es. I wrote to Honda of North America. They replied and told me the following--the problem occurred at times when the atv was run at at high speed for an extended period of time. The transmission could not be downshifted without turning the key off an on again. The problem was traced to a poor electrical contact in the handlebar switch (usually), but sometimes in an electrical connector in the wiring harness. Design changes have ALREADY been incorporated into production for the 450es AND carried into production for the Rancher 350es. That will eliminate chances for this to happen again.
Hope that helps.
I heard about this with respect to the Foreman 450es. I wrote to Honda of North America. They replied and told me the following--the problem occurred at times when the atv was run at at high speed for an extended period of time. The transmission could not be downshifted without turning the key off an on again. The problem was traced to a poor electrical contact in the handlebar switch (usually), but sometimes in an electrical connector in the wiring harness. Design changes have ALREADY been incorporated into production for the 450es AND carried into production for the Rancher 350es. That will eliminate chances for this to happen again.
Hope that helps.
Jan 2, 2000 | 11:33 PM
#16
Trailblazer
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Dutch, this has all be explained before, and I wish I knew a shorter way to explain it, but...
I have not ridden a Rancher, so I don't know if the AP front differential is more efficient than in the past or not, so all I'm going to discuss here is Honda's regular "limited slip" front differential vs the Polaris AWD system. My 300 and 450 both have the limited slip front differential, which I happen to prefer, but I am not particularly fond of playing in mud-puddles. I prefer spirited riding in tight woods, and rock-hopping in extremely rough terrain, which seldom requires hours of cleaning afterward. If the majority of my riding was in serious mud, I would not be such a fan of limited slip differentials.
The term "3 wheel drive" is a poorly devised phrase used by Polaris and Polaris fans to describe the true four-wheel drive systems used by most 4x4 manufacturers. It stems from the true fact that when one front wheel (on a 4x4 with a limited-slip front differential quad) is allowed to spin freely (be it in mud, on ice, or off the ground), the front wheel still having traction will get little or no power. Most or all of the power fed to the front wheels will go to the one wheel that's freely spinning, so at that point you are really on a 2WD machine, not 3WD (Polaris people apparently don't count well). In all honesty, however, this realy is a disadvantage of the limited slip front differential, no matter who the manufacturer is. In muddy conditions, the problem can be greatly reduced by wearing serious mud tires. It's harder to spin a mud tire with great traction, so you seldom spin one tire so freely that the other gets no power. But even great tires won't help on ice, or when one front wheel is off the ground. In these conditions, it's hard to beat the Polaris AWD system, or better yet, the Suzuki King Quad system, which allows the rider to lock the front axle completely (true 4WD without a limited slip front differential).
This truly is a weakness of the limited slip differential, but that doesn't mean the system is without its strong points. The Polaris AWD system (any AWD system) has its weaknesses, too. First of all, don't let anyone confuse you into believing that AWD and 4WD are the same thing. They are not. My truck, for example, offers 2WD, AWD, and 4WD. IF they were the same thing, would it still have both? Certainly not! AWD and 4WD sometimes work the same, just as 2WD and AWD sometimes work the same, but 2WD and 4WD never work the same. All three are different. An AWD system allows the operator to choose 2WD or AWD, but not 4WD. Once the operator selects AWD, the vehicle continues to operate in 2WD until the rear wheels begin to spin. The Polaris AWD system detects a rise in engine RPM without an increase in ground speed, and it then locks the two front hubs, so the front drive axles (always under power) then transmit power to the wheels. When the system works properly, it works well, as long as you are able to tolerate a little rear wheel spin before the front wheels begin to pull. In mud this is seldom a problem, but in serious rock hopping, it is frequently a problem.
Another shortcoming in the Polaris AWD system is that both front hubs don't always lock and/or unlock at the same time. Ironically, it's the Polaris AWD which is often a "3WD" machine, and it pulls to one side when this occurs. If the right hub locks before the left one, or if the left one unlocks before the right one, the machine will pull to the left until the right hub is forced to unlock. It is not at all uncommon for a Polaris AWD rider to have to stop and back up to unlock a stubborn (sticking) hub.
To me, however, the biggest drawback to the AWD system is that you cannot have 4WD while descending hills. On hills of 100% incline or less (i.e., 45 degrees or less), this is not a major problem, since 2WD machines (which all Polarises are when going downhill) can usually handle such hills safely. But as the hill gets steeper, you have more and more weight transfer from the rear wheels to the front wheels, and when you get steep enough you reach a point where the rear wheels have too little traction to offer any effective braking. At this point you want front wheel braking only, and even then you have to apply the brakes carefully to prevent nose-overs. On steep downhills, nothing is more controllable (i.e., safer) than a true 4WD system, because all four wheels are mechanically joined, preventing any one or two wheels from locking up and sliding unless all four do. All four wheels turning at the same speed provide maximum control and safety. A lot of people get by for a while with locking up and sliding the rear end of a 2WD machine down a steep hill, but this is a bad habit to get into, and one that will eventually bite you. You lose a great deal of directional stability and control that way. If the rear end starts to slide to the right, you have to turn the front wheels to the right to maintain a straight line. So what happens when something prevents you from turning that way? You generally get sideways, and on a steep hill this usually means a rollover, a torn up quad, and often a torn up body.
Arctic Cat 2WD quads and all Polaris quads have it even worse due to their single lever brake system. With single lever brake systems, you can apply rear wheel brakes only via the foot brake, or you can apply four-wheel braking through the single brake lever, but you can never apply front wheel brakes only, which is exactly what you need on a very steep hill with a 2WD machine! For safety's sake, if you intend to ride very steep hills, get something with true 4WD, not AWD. (There are aftermarket brake systems that allow Polaris owners to fix this factory shortcoming, however, providing dual-lever brake systems like that found on most quads.)
Finally we come to overall handling. If you'll ride an ATV with a locked front end (i.e, a Polaris AWD with both hubs locked, a King Quad with its front axle locked, or one of the others with a locked front axle kit) you'll find that it's quite hard to steer. This is tiring on one's hands, wrists, and arms, and downright dangerous at high speeds. This, I believe, is why limited slip front differentials are so vastly more popular than AWD or locked front axle systems. Or, maybe it's because of the limited slip system's simplicity and greater reliability. Whatever the reason, only Polaris uses AWD. Other manufacturers have joined the "automatic transmission" bandwagon pioneered by Honda but popularized by Polaris, but no one else has employed the AWD system. Maybe it's time people asked themselves why. "If AWD is so great, how come only one manufacturer offers it?"
Maintenance: Polaris front hubs need more maintenance because of the fluid resevoirs and seals not found on ATV's with limited slip front differentials. This does not seem to be a problem with most Polarises, but some have poorly fitting parts which cause repeated problems. Like the quads themselves, 9 out of 10 (maybe even 19 out of 20) work fine without serious problems. This is far short, however, of Honda's reputation for 999 out of 1000 being problem free.
In the end, it's much like comparing big engines to small engines, long wheel travel versus short, tall ground clearance versus short, soft tires vs hard, 12" wheels vs 10" wheels, and practically any "feature". Almost anything has its good points and bad points. Most ATV "features" work great in some circumtances, but are drawbacks in others. Little wheels with tall soft tires give a comfortable ride but terrible handling. Big engines give more speed but less mileage and range. There is no free lunch... to gain something in one area, you almost always have to give up something somewhere else.
There are many advantages to driving a Ferrari or Maserati, but have you ever heard either referred to as being "cost efficient" or "reliable"? The Polaris AWD system has its advantages and disadvantages, as does the limited slip front differential system. Choose the advantages you want, along with the disadvantages you think you can live with.
Choose your toys carefully and wisely, or do what I did... buy & sell a half-dozen quads before you finally realize what you really wanted all along. I didn't start out a Honda fan. Several costly disappointments made me a Honda fan.
GL Banks
Huntsville, AL
2000 Honda XR400R
1999 Honda 450ES 4x4
1997 Honda 300 4x4
1947 Body (w/opt padding by Pizza Hut)
[This message has been edited by GLBanks (edited 01-02-2000).]
[This message has been edited by GLBanks (edited 01-02-2000).]
I have not ridden a Rancher, so I don't know if the AP front differential is more efficient than in the past or not, so all I'm going to discuss here is Honda's regular "limited slip" front differential vs the Polaris AWD system. My 300 and 450 both have the limited slip front differential, which I happen to prefer, but I am not particularly fond of playing in mud-puddles. I prefer spirited riding in tight woods, and rock-hopping in extremely rough terrain, which seldom requires hours of cleaning afterward. If the majority of my riding was in serious mud, I would not be such a fan of limited slip differentials.
The term "3 wheel drive" is a poorly devised phrase used by Polaris and Polaris fans to describe the true four-wheel drive systems used by most 4x4 manufacturers. It stems from the true fact that when one front wheel (on a 4x4 with a limited-slip front differential quad) is allowed to spin freely (be it in mud, on ice, or off the ground), the front wheel still having traction will get little or no power. Most or all of the power fed to the front wheels will go to the one wheel that's freely spinning, so at that point you are really on a 2WD machine, not 3WD (Polaris people apparently don't count well). In all honesty, however, this realy is a disadvantage of the limited slip front differential, no matter who the manufacturer is. In muddy conditions, the problem can be greatly reduced by wearing serious mud tires. It's harder to spin a mud tire with great traction, so you seldom spin one tire so freely that the other gets no power. But even great tires won't help on ice, or when one front wheel is off the ground. In these conditions, it's hard to beat the Polaris AWD system, or better yet, the Suzuki King Quad system, which allows the rider to lock the front axle completely (true 4WD without a limited slip front differential).
This truly is a weakness of the limited slip differential, but that doesn't mean the system is without its strong points. The Polaris AWD system (any AWD system) has its weaknesses, too. First of all, don't let anyone confuse you into believing that AWD and 4WD are the same thing. They are not. My truck, for example, offers 2WD, AWD, and 4WD. IF they were the same thing, would it still have both? Certainly not! AWD and 4WD sometimes work the same, just as 2WD and AWD sometimes work the same, but 2WD and 4WD never work the same. All three are different. An AWD system allows the operator to choose 2WD or AWD, but not 4WD. Once the operator selects AWD, the vehicle continues to operate in 2WD until the rear wheels begin to spin. The Polaris AWD system detects a rise in engine RPM without an increase in ground speed, and it then locks the two front hubs, so the front drive axles (always under power) then transmit power to the wheels. When the system works properly, it works well, as long as you are able to tolerate a little rear wheel spin before the front wheels begin to pull. In mud this is seldom a problem, but in serious rock hopping, it is frequently a problem.
Another shortcoming in the Polaris AWD system is that both front hubs don't always lock and/or unlock at the same time. Ironically, it's the Polaris AWD which is often a "3WD" machine, and it pulls to one side when this occurs. If the right hub locks before the left one, or if the left one unlocks before the right one, the machine will pull to the left until the right hub is forced to unlock. It is not at all uncommon for a Polaris AWD rider to have to stop and back up to unlock a stubborn (sticking) hub.
To me, however, the biggest drawback to the AWD system is that you cannot have 4WD while descending hills. On hills of 100% incline or less (i.e., 45 degrees or less), this is not a major problem, since 2WD machines (which all Polarises are when going downhill) can usually handle such hills safely. But as the hill gets steeper, you have more and more weight transfer from the rear wheels to the front wheels, and when you get steep enough you reach a point where the rear wheels have too little traction to offer any effective braking. At this point you want front wheel braking only, and even then you have to apply the brakes carefully to prevent nose-overs. On steep downhills, nothing is more controllable (i.e., safer) than a true 4WD system, because all four wheels are mechanically joined, preventing any one or two wheels from locking up and sliding unless all four do. All four wheels turning at the same speed provide maximum control and safety. A lot of people get by for a while with locking up and sliding the rear end of a 2WD machine down a steep hill, but this is a bad habit to get into, and one that will eventually bite you. You lose a great deal of directional stability and control that way. If the rear end starts to slide to the right, you have to turn the front wheels to the right to maintain a straight line. So what happens when something prevents you from turning that way? You generally get sideways, and on a steep hill this usually means a rollover, a torn up quad, and often a torn up body.
Arctic Cat 2WD quads and all Polaris quads have it even worse due to their single lever brake system. With single lever brake systems, you can apply rear wheel brakes only via the foot brake, or you can apply four-wheel braking through the single brake lever, but you can never apply front wheel brakes only, which is exactly what you need on a very steep hill with a 2WD machine! For safety's sake, if you intend to ride very steep hills, get something with true 4WD, not AWD. (There are aftermarket brake systems that allow Polaris owners to fix this factory shortcoming, however, providing dual-lever brake systems like that found on most quads.)
Finally we come to overall handling. If you'll ride an ATV with a locked front end (i.e, a Polaris AWD with both hubs locked, a King Quad with its front axle locked, or one of the others with a locked front axle kit) you'll find that it's quite hard to steer. This is tiring on one's hands, wrists, and arms, and downright dangerous at high speeds. This, I believe, is why limited slip front differentials are so vastly more popular than AWD or locked front axle systems. Or, maybe it's because of the limited slip system's simplicity and greater reliability. Whatever the reason, only Polaris uses AWD. Other manufacturers have joined the "automatic transmission" bandwagon pioneered by Honda but popularized by Polaris, but no one else has employed the AWD system. Maybe it's time people asked themselves why. "If AWD is so great, how come only one manufacturer offers it?"
Maintenance: Polaris front hubs need more maintenance because of the fluid resevoirs and seals not found on ATV's with limited slip front differentials. This does not seem to be a problem with most Polarises, but some have poorly fitting parts which cause repeated problems. Like the quads themselves, 9 out of 10 (maybe even 19 out of 20) work fine without serious problems. This is far short, however, of Honda's reputation for 999 out of 1000 being problem free.
In the end, it's much like comparing big engines to small engines, long wheel travel versus short, tall ground clearance versus short, soft tires vs hard, 12" wheels vs 10" wheels, and practically any "feature". Almost anything has its good points and bad points. Most ATV "features" work great in some circumtances, but are drawbacks in others. Little wheels with tall soft tires give a comfortable ride but terrible handling. Big engines give more speed but less mileage and range. There is no free lunch... to gain something in one area, you almost always have to give up something somewhere else.
There are many advantages to driving a Ferrari or Maserati, but have you ever heard either referred to as being "cost efficient" or "reliable"? The Polaris AWD system has its advantages and disadvantages, as does the limited slip front differential system. Choose the advantages you want, along with the disadvantages you think you can live with.
Choose your toys carefully and wisely, or do what I did... buy & sell a half-dozen quads before you finally realize what you really wanted all along. I didn't start out a Honda fan. Several costly disappointments made me a Honda fan.
GL Banks
Huntsville, AL
2000 Honda XR400R
1999 Honda 450ES 4x4
1997 Honda 300 4x4
1947 Body (w/opt padding by Pizza Hut)
[This message has been edited by GLBanks (edited 01-02-2000).]
[This message has been edited by GLBanks (edited 01-02-2000).]
Jan 3, 2000 | 10:30 AM
#17
Pro Rider
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Gordon
As per your statement "one front wheel (on a 4x4 with a limited-slip front differential quad) is allowed to spin freely (be it in mud, on ice, or off the ground), the front wheel still having traction will get little or no power." If the front differential on the Honda is a true limited slip as is used in cars and trucks, there should be substantial power to the wheel with traction (not as much as a locking diff. but still substantial).A standard drive differential (which comes stock in most cars and trucks, front or rear) is 3-wheel drive, the wheel with traction will have little (from drive train friction only) or no power.
There is a way of tightning up the clutches in the Honda limited slip differential so the clutches grab quicker and stronger, as noted by a poster some time ago.
The rest of your post was well explained and informative, the comparison to your 4x4 truck is a very good example of how the systems vary/work.
------------------
Ride the "WILD" Country, South Gillies, Ontario. Honda 450ES The "BIGGER BIG RED"
JJTH
[This message has been edited by BigRed450 (edited 01-03-2000).]
As per your statement "one front wheel (on a 4x4 with a limited-slip front differential quad) is allowed to spin freely (be it in mud, on ice, or off the ground), the front wheel still having traction will get little or no power." If the front differential on the Honda is a true limited slip as is used in cars and trucks, there should be substantial power to the wheel with traction (not as much as a locking diff. but still substantial).A standard drive differential (which comes stock in most cars and trucks, front or rear) is 3-wheel drive, the wheel with traction will have little (from drive train friction only) or no power.
There is a way of tightning up the clutches in the Honda limited slip differential so the clutches grab quicker and stronger, as noted by a poster some time ago.
The rest of your post was well explained and informative, the comparison to your 4x4 truck is a very good example of how the systems vary/work.
------------------
Ride the "WILD" Country, South Gillies, Ontario. Honda 450ES The "BIGGER BIG RED"
JJTH
[This message has been edited by BigRed450 (edited 01-03-2000).]
Jan 3, 2000 | 11:30 AM
#18
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
Actually even though the Honda may throw one wheel up in the air and get stuck because of it, it is still 3WD, not 2WD. Afterall the 3rd wheel in the air is powered it's just moving well... air.
c-ya,
------------------
Andrew Thomas
'99 Scrambler 400 & '99 Trailblazer, both with RCR mods.
c-ya,
------------------
Andrew Thomas
'99 Scrambler 400 & '99 Trailblazer, both with RCR mods.
Jan 3, 2000 | 02:11 PM
#19
Pro Rider
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Gordon
Have you tried blocking up your 450 with only one front wheel on the ground to see if the limited slip differential works. If it works as a limited slip differential should, once the suspended wheel starts to spin the clutches in the diff should engage sending power to the wheel with traction and pull your machine off the blocks.
Tonight I will try this with my 450 to see if in fact it is a true "LIMITED SLIP" as the name implies.
------------------
Ride the "WILD" Country, South Gillies, Ontario, Canada.
2000 Honda 450ES The "BIGGER BIG RED"
Have you tried blocking up your 450 with only one front wheel on the ground to see if the limited slip differential works. If it works as a limited slip differential should, once the suspended wheel starts to spin the clutches in the diff should engage sending power to the wheel with traction and pull your machine off the blocks.
Tonight I will try this with my 450 to see if in fact it is a true "LIMITED SLIP" as the name implies.
------------------
Ride the "WILD" Country, South Gillies, Ontario, Canada.
2000 Honda 450ES The "BIGGER BIG RED"
Jan 3, 2000 | 02:22 PM
#20
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 1
Ah! A (nother) semantic argument!
What is the definition of "Drive," in, for example, "Three-Wheel Drive?"
If drive means apply motive force to the ground through the wheel and tire, Gordon is quite correct, "Three-Wheel Drive" isn't--instead, it's "Two-Wheel Drive."
If "Drive" means the wheels turn under power, then you've got a point.
I'm with Gordon on this one. When a wheel spins freely on a so-called "limited-slip" differential, behaving exactly like an "unlimted-slip" or "open" differential, the only significant motive power for moving the quad comes from the two rear wheels, a situation I do not consider "Three-Wheel Drive."
Polaris approaches this traction situation with no differential and locking front hubs; Suzuki provides a manually-locking front differential; all others I know of use some form of "limited-slip" mechanism for front differentials, clutch packs, cams, whatever, seeking to bias torque to the wheel with traction. Results of the latter approach are mixed, to say the least. However, even the best limited-slip differentials only LIMIT slip; only a locker stops slipping altogether.
Tree Farmer
What is the definition of "Drive," in, for example, "Three-Wheel Drive?"
If drive means apply motive force to the ground through the wheel and tire, Gordon is quite correct, "Three-Wheel Drive" isn't--instead, it's "Two-Wheel Drive."
If "Drive" means the wheels turn under power, then you've got a point.
I'm with Gordon on this one. When a wheel spins freely on a so-called "limited-slip" differential, behaving exactly like an "unlimted-slip" or "open" differential, the only significant motive power for moving the quad comes from the two rear wheels, a situation I do not consider "Three-Wheel Drive."
Polaris approaches this traction situation with no differential and locking front hubs; Suzuki provides a manually-locking front differential; all others I know of use some form of "limited-slip" mechanism for front differentials, clutch packs, cams, whatever, seeking to bias torque to the wheel with traction. Results of the latter approach are mixed, to say the least. However, even the best limited-slip differentials only LIMIT slip; only a locker stops slipping altogether.
Tree Farmer