> I assumed you were another IRS or it don't work person.

nah......irs is great but it doesnt suit my riding needs either. im sure the irs polaris could follow me and my cat with the right rider, but it would be a whole lot more work and fatigue on the rider.

> my other quad is a 2000 Suzuki Quadmaster 500. It also has a similar suspension to your AC; in fact much of the AC lineup uses engines and other various parts directly from Suzuki.

yup....the quadmaster is very similar indeed. we share the same engine and tranny. we basically share the same suspension setup. the only difference is the amount of travel in the suspension so you do indeed know what referencing.

>As for the logs, I kid you not

im sure youre telling the truth. the right rider can ride just about anything, just about anywhere. when i compare quads i first work under the assumption that the riders are equal which leaves only a direct comparison of the two quads. _most_ riders probably couldnt ride the logs with a swingarm......im not even sure if i could because my cat has made me "soft" since its been doing all the work for me. :-)

>As for others riding ability, you’re pretty close in your assumptions.

most of the time thats exactly what it boils down to. i thought my warrior (years ago) was a total dog until i saw what my baby brother could make it do.

 

BigWave,
Thanks for the info. I kinda thought the same thing about the rubber boots holding in water and sand/dirt etc.. As far as the composite covers on the rack, this one dealer who has a green and red one, doesn't have the rack covers on the red one. It seems to me I read in some of the early press material that the covers would be an option, but all the ones I have seen had them until I saw this red one the other day. It just made me curious about it that's all. I am really excited about getting this machine. I am going to wait until fall though because I am affraid there might have been some production issues with the first models. We all know how the wait just kept getting longer and longer and then they started shiping them. That and I'm confident that if there are any issues with the tranny, KEBC, etc... that show up in the first six months that Kawie will address them asap.

 

buy a yamaha

 

<< buy a yamaha >>



Now there is one brave soul.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

i remember reading an old offroading mag. they were talking about articulation vs non-articulation on jeeps. one point mentioned was all tires on the ground does not really give you anymore traction than if 1 tire was in the air. it depends on the amount of pressure the tire exerts on the ground. 1 wheel in the air may give you more traction becaues it allows the other tires to dig in.

 

<< i remember reading an old offroading mag. they were talking about articulation vs non-articulation on jeeps. one point mentioned was all tires on the ground does not really give you anymore traction than if 1 tire was in the air. it depends on the amount of pressure the tire exerts on the ground. 1 wheel in the air may give you more traction becaues it allows the other tires to dig in. >>



lol......dont believe everything you read in the magazines. whomever wrote that article obviously didnt crawl on many rocks.......that or you misread it. regardless, if articulation werent desireable we wouldnt spend thousands of dollars to achieve it.
besides, on a quad it isnt as much about traction as it is about keeping you stable to prevent roll over. it allows you to handle the terrain much better when you arent pivoting back and forth over obstacles.

 

This is odd. For the last several years, the Sportsman IRS stood alone and was basically superior to everything else. Now the talk is that IRS takes away from both center of gravity, stability, and handling. Bull crap! I don't see it.

I've got a 660 grizzly now after riding an Arctic Cat 500 for 3 years. The grizzly handles about 25 times better than the arctic cat. The center of gravity isn't any higher either. If there is any takeaway, its that the front end is lighter on the grizzly than the ac, and of course, its pretty much documented that nothing has more weight on the front end than an Arctic Cat by a longshot.

Riding over logs is nothing that IRS or non-IRS is going to make a bit of difference in. You aren't going to hang up a rear end on a log, because at that point your tires are on it. What IRS would have to do with poor log crossing is beside me. That made no sense.

I believe that the IRS issue is here for the simple reason that Kawasaki didn't make it available, and thus it becomes something to try to twist to show some advantage of the 650 over the 660.

Straight axle for sport riding. Sure, on a sport quad. A Prairie is a freaking 4x4 utility. I see that beating lots of ex's and r's on an mx track. Sure people that race and stuff can stand here and talk about that, but the average idiot isn't going to be able to see much difference. The vast majority of those who sit here and talk about how much better a prairie handles in turns over a grizzly have not ridden them, and just read it somewhere in the forum and are repeating it like some new knowledge or wisdom.

A lot of this stuff I read is just **** ignorant. One guy comes in and says a straight axle isn't as good in rocks. Well, by nature there are of course going to be people coming back at that with the age old &quot;I never have any problems in rocks so that can't be true&quot; Who cares one way or the other. Basically, its just somebody trying to find some way that one quad is supposedly better than the other.

Everyone has their own opinion and it doesn't change often. I mean, I could give a crap about whether there would be any sport advantage to a straight axle quad. I've ridden straight axles for 16 years, and IRS for 1 month, and I can't see any downfall myself. I would sit here and say that IRS has all the advantage in the world. True ground clearance for mud, woods, rocks, whatever; a better ride- pretty much commonplace, and no disadvantages in holding ground because its easily better than a swingarm for keeping tires on the ground (only exception being the AC swingaxle). Of course, thats my opinion and who cares about why I or anyone else thinks. It doesn't change anyones perception now does it. Most of this crap is pointless. Buy something and freaking ride it. If you get left behind by your friends, then tough titty.

 

&gt;Now the talk is that IRS takes away from both center of gravity, stability, and handling. Bull crap! I don't see it.

i dont either. thats bogus.


&gt;I believe that the IRS issue is here for the simple reason that Kawasaki didn't make it available, and thus it becomes something to try to twist to show some advantage of the 650 over the 660.


&gt; its just somebody trying to find some way that one quad is supposedly better than the other.

while i agree that there are many who seem to judge their own worth by their atv (or at least in their postings) this cant affect what we know to be true or not true. there are many uninformed people new to this sport who will make purchases based upon what others say. i have seen first hand, what happens with a swing arm quad in big rocks. if i believe this is the case it is almost my responsibility as a member of this sport to bring it to the discussion table. this way it only affects those who will be crawling rocks. its not what quad is better than the other....its what quad is better than another for the type of riding you do.

&gt; only exception being the AC swingaxle

i love that arctic cat ACT suspension. for crawling rocks it dominates. it wouldnt be my first choice as a sport quad, mud slinger, or a general purpose utility quad but for a specific purpose rock crawler its second to none.

 

It's funny how some people get so offended when someone makes statements comparing their quad to it's competitors. I see people make valid points about the Prairie having a lower center of gravity, and others say it is not true. The Prairie sits lower (engine, frame etc..)it has a low mounted fuel tank it has to have a lower center of gravity. It's just common sense. The down fall is,it sits lower, less ground clearance for going over obsticles. Is it still an extremley compitant 4X4? Probably(I have never ridden one). And I'm sure the Grizz is up to the task when it comes to handleing for a big 4X4 too. I can honestly say that if Kawasaki offered an IRS quad too, that I would rather have the swing arm version. It's just my preferance and no body with an IRS quad should feel threatened by it. As far as a lot of people getting hurt because of having a solid axle in the rear....that is about the only bull crap I've seen in this post.

 

&gt;As far as a lot of people getting hurt because of having a solid axle in the rear....that is about the only bull crap I've seen in this post.

what? dude.....youve obviously never attempted to crawl rocks on inclines with a swing arm quad or you would never of made such an assinine statement. thats not something thats a big secret....it doesnt even take much to figure out why that is even if you never do actually attempt it. i see it at _least_ semi-regularly where someone attempts to take a swing arm (its not about a solid axle, its about the swing arm that has ZERO articulation) into the rocks and they roll over.
a swing arm has its place but its NOT rock crawling and i would strongly suggest you learn about what youre speaking and get your facts straight before you potentially encourage someone to hurt themselves.