ATV Action
Jan 5, 2002 | 12:08 AM
#11
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
I may be wrong but I beleive Moto24 is right. The Cannibals also had a recall. The recall notice I got in the mail says ALL 2001 and 2002 FX400 & Cannibal ATV's. Im pretty sure the Cannibal has a different steering stem angle (the newer ones anyway, I'm not so certain about the older Cannibals). I dont know anything about the caster angle. The FX didnt have adjustable A-Arms, as far as I know they are the same as the Cannibal. I dont recall Dirt Wheels ever testing the FX with all the updated parts, though they may have. I know the first test they said it was the front bushings making it handle not so good. I think the second test they did (could have been another mag.) they said it had the new bushings but still handled weird. It was the ball joints and or tie rod assembly. I dont realy know how but after I had the front end updates done to mine it was like a different quad. Made a BIG change. I didnt think it was to bad to begin with unless you were toped in 4th or anywhere in 5th gear, but the new parts made it alot better in a straight line and in the turns.
Jan 5, 2002 | 12:18 AM
#12
Pro Rider
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
<< VWVR6, take your 400ex (awesome handling/just as fast on the track) and go ahead and stay here. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img] I'm pretty sure that when they went from FX 400 to Cannibal that they made some caster angle adjustments and that the steering stem was longer. I might have been dreamin but I thought the FX 400 had adjustable a-arms unlike the Cannibal. Dirt Wheels tested one of the "older" Cannibals and said it was a big improvement in handling over the FX 400. Now I know that Dirt Wheels has some akward conclusions in there shootouts but this was between two Cannondales. I own one of the "older" Cannibals and I know when I go wide open it feels great and on personal practice track (even though it was very rough) it handled great! Corndog, you started acting a little normal but now you're just being as imature if not more than before. No one here is saying anything bad about the Dale so why are you getting so d@mn deffensive? >>
You didn't see his post before mine.
Jan 5, 2002 | 12:30 AM
#14
Pro Rider
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Jan 5, 2002 | 09:52 AM
#15
Pro Rider
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
<< [i]VWVR6, take your 400ex (awesome handling/just as fast on the track) and go ahead and stay here. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
I wanted to say something about handling.If you put a motor
as bad a$$ as the cannondale on the 400ex in stock chase form
it would not handle near as easy as it does with its stock
motor.The 400ex is better handling because it is much more slower.
The people that say cannondale's have bad handling are out of shape
weak people that cant handle the horse power.If they put a motor
as weak as the honda's stock 400ex on the Cannondale then it would
not be as physicaly demanding,witch gives you better handling.
Just my opinion,I know I will probley get slamed for it.
Jan 5, 2002 | 11:37 AM
#16
Pro Rider
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
<< [i]
<< VWVR6, take your 400ex (awesome handling/just as fast on the track) and go ahead and stay here. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
I wanted to say something about handling.If you put a motor
as bad a$$ as the cannondale on the 400ex in stock chase form
it would not handle near as easy as it does with its stock
motor.The 400ex is better handling because it is much more slower.
The people that say cannondale's have bad handling are out of shape
weak people that cant handle the horse power.If they put a motor
as weak as the honda's stock 400ex on the Cannondale then it would
not be as physicaly demanding,witch gives you better handling.
Just my opinion,I know I will probley get slamed for it. >>
I agree 100%.
Jan 5, 2002 | 01:59 PM
#17
Thread Starter
|
Trailblazer
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Ok I'll say it again The FX400 and "old" Cannibal are nearly identical except the anodized engine cover, chromed fastners, extended shift and brake levers and some EFI settings to make it easier to start. The Cannibal retained the same Ohlins suspension, wheels and tires, A-arms and tie rods, thats why both the FX and "old" Cannibal tie-rods were recalled.
I have had my FX400 since May and have been posting here about it since, and have gone through the update and recall period, first hand knowledge. I ripped the mags for their review of the FX at the time and I do feel I jumped the gun a bit. You see my FX had gotten all the updates at the time, except the safety recall on the tie-rods. So when I was riding my "great" handling FX, and then the reviews started comming out in June/July/Aug on the test that were done probably in April on FX's that had not been updated, I was upset and felt Cdale was getting a raw deal. But the tests were probably correct "at the time", but the fixes started comming shortly after. All these fixes are what became the "old" Cannibal = same front ends= same handling. Now the latest mag reviews say "night and day" diffrence between FX400 and Cannibal is because they never went back and retested the updated FX's (which turns out became "old" Cannibals).
The reason I started this post is to show that the mags didn't follow-up on the FX's and only based views of the Cannibal vs. FX on a lack of information and testing. So some people have come to the conclusion that the "FX's weren't that great" which is false.
Oh and the A-arms are not adjustable on the FX. The Ohlins suspension on the "old" Cannibal is adjustable, Fronts have 3-way preload, rear has threaded preload, rebound and compression dampning, same as FX.
I have had my FX400 since May and have been posting here about it since, and have gone through the update and recall period, first hand knowledge. I ripped the mags for their review of the FX at the time and I do feel I jumped the gun a bit. You see my FX had gotten all the updates at the time, except the safety recall on the tie-rods. So when I was riding my "great" handling FX, and then the reviews started comming out in June/July/Aug on the test that were done probably in April on FX's that had not been updated, I was upset and felt Cdale was getting a raw deal. But the tests were probably correct "at the time", but the fixes started comming shortly after. All these fixes are what became the "old" Cannibal = same front ends= same handling. Now the latest mag reviews say "night and day" diffrence between FX400 and Cannibal is because they never went back and retested the updated FX's (which turns out became "old" Cannibals).
The reason I started this post is to show that the mags didn't follow-up on the FX's and only based views of the Cannibal vs. FX on a lack of information and testing. So some people have come to the conclusion that the "FX's weren't that great" which is false.
Oh and the A-arms are not adjustable on the FX. The Ohlins suspension on the "old" Cannibal is adjustable, Fronts have 3-way preload, rear has threaded preload, rebound and compression dampning, same as FX.
Jan 5, 2002 | 02:50 PM
#18
Pro Rider
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
<< Ok I'll say it again The FX400 and "old" Cannibal are nearly identical except the anodized engine cover, chromed fastners, extended shift and brake levers and some EFI settings to make it easier to start. The Cannibal retained the same Ohlins suspension, wheels and tires, A-arms and tie rods, thats why both the FX and "old" Cannibal tie-rods were recalled.
I have had my FX400 since May and have been posting here about it since, and have gone through the update and recall period, first hand knowledge. I ripped the mags for their review of the FX at the time and I do feel I jumped the gun a bit. You see my FX had gotten all the updates at the time, except the safety recall on the tie-rods. So when I was riding my "great" handling FX, and then the reviews started comming out in June/July/Aug on the test that were done probably in April on FX's that had not been updated, I was upset and felt Cdale was getting a raw deal. But the tests were probably correct "at the time", but the fixes started comming shortly after. All these fixes are what became the "old" Cannibal = same front ends= same handling. Now the latest mag reviews say "night and day" diffrence between FX400 and Cannibal is because they never went back and retested the updated FX's (which turns out became "old" Cannibals).
The reason I started this post is to show that the mags didn't follow-up on the FX's and only based views of the Cannibal vs. FX on a lack of information and testing. So some people have come to the conclusion that the "FX's weren't that great" which is false.
Oh and the A-arms are not adjustable on the FX. The Ohlins suspension on the "old" Cannibal is adjustable, Fronts have 3-way preload, rear has threaded preload, rebound and compression dampning, same as FX. >>
i think you are right. all i know is ALL the cannibals have the same front end.
Jan 5, 2002 | 03:39 PM
#19
Trailblazer
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Moto24 you are right on everything except you left one thing out. The steering column on the MC1000 Cannibals is different. The holes where the tie rod ends mount have been moved forward, which reduces the turning radius, and helps give it more high speed stability.
Jan 5, 2002 | 04:00 PM
#20
Range Rover
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
<< I will read the facts from a magazine, but not what THEY say about it. Take your 400ex(slow) and get out of the Cdale forum. >>
anytime your in PA, let me know...we'll put them on the track and see how slow my 400EX is.
Anyways, I have nothing against the cannondale. I think they are making one hell of a quad. I'm glad there is a company out there pushing the envelope on technology for ATV's...the market needed it.
Eric