Engine size
#51
LOL!!! There are plenty of people who shouldn't even cross the street by themselves!!!
#52
Yamaha has a 500cc 4 stroke twin that makes 80hp in there Yamaha Phazer GT yet the largest ATV, 700 grizzly/Raptor only makes 46hp?
http://www.atvreviewnetwork.com/enth...cleCode=180179
80hp from a 500cc 4stroke thats more HP then most Big Bore ATVs make with double the displacement.
Thats what Yamaha classes as its beginners sled.
http://www.atvreviewnetwork.com/enth...cleCode=180179
80hp from a 500cc 4stroke thats more HP then most Big Bore ATVs make with double the displacement.
Thats what Yamaha classes as its beginners sled.
#53
Yamaha has a 500cc 4 stroke twin that makes 80hp in there Yamaha Phazer GT yet the largest ATV, 700 grizzly/Raptor only makes 46hp?
http://www.atvreviewnetwork.com/enth...cleCode=180179
80hp from a 500cc 4stroke thats more HP then most Big Bore ATVs make with double the displacement.
Thats what Yamaha classes as its beginners sled.
http://www.atvreviewnetwork.com/enth...cleCode=180179
80hp from a 500cc 4stroke thats more HP then most Big Bore ATVs make with double the displacement.
Thats what Yamaha classes as its beginners sled.
I always hear people comparing sled motors to atv's - really can't make that comparison.
It's like comparing the hp in a boat motor to the hp in a car.
I have 275 hp in my 6cyl mercury jet drive that gets me to about 60mph on the water- put the same motor in a car weighing the same as my boat and you could easily top 100+ mph. My sea-doo had a 900cc 125hp engine- 55 mph tops on the water- same engine in an atv and you'd snap an axle or drive shaft in no time.
it takes a lot less power to spin a wheel than it does a sled track. An atv being ridden in the environment it was designed to has plenty of hp to reach speeds of 75-80 mph, it's limited to its gearing. Put that same atv in the snow with a set of tracks on it, and you'd be lucky to get over 40- sleds need the extra slap & go to spin the track and account for poor traction in the snow. which is another aspect as well; sleds have less traction in snow than an atv has on dirt. you'd quickly start twisting drive-train parts on an atv with the kind of hp & tq a sled motor has- sled drive trains are not suseptable to the kinds of friction shock that atv's experience (like when spinning back tires grab a root and snap a cv like a twig) the only way to build an atv to handle the kind of power similar to a sled is to make bigger, stronger and more expensive parts. I'm all set with that. The atv is only as durable as it's weakest link- so, EVERY aspect of the drive train has to be taken into consideration, not just the cv's and the drive shafts, bearings, bushings, differentials and such.
they are two different machines designed to be ridden on different terrains- you can't compare the hp in a sled to the hp in an atv. If manufacturer engineers wanted to put more power in an atv- what makes you think they couldn't in a matter of minutes at the design board? There's a very good reason why atv's don't come from the dealer with engines as powerful as in sleds.
#54
this debate bugs the hell out of me.
I always hear people comparing sled motors to atv's - really can't make that comparison.
It's like comparing the hp in a boat motor to the hp in a car.
I have 275 hp in my 6cyl mercury jet drive that gets me to about 60mph on the water- put the same motor in a car weighing the same as my boat and you could easily top 100+ mph. My sea-doo had a 900cc 125hp engine- 55 mph tops on the water- same engine in an atv and you'd snap an axle or drive shaft in no time.
it takes a lot less power to spin a wheel than it does a sled track. An atv being ridden in the environment it was designed to has plenty of hp to reach speeds of 75-80 mph, it's limited to its gearing. Put that same atv in the snow with a set of tracks on it, and you'd be lucky to get over 40- sleds need the extra slap & go to spin the track and account for poor traction in the snow. which is another aspect as well; sleds have less traction in snow than an atv has on dirt. you'd quickly start twisting drive-train parts on an atv with the kind of hp & tq a sled motor has- sled drive trains are not suseptable to the kinds of friction shock that atv's experience (like when spinning back tires grab a root and snap a cv like a twig) the only way to build an atv to handle the kind of power similar to a sled is to make bigger, stronger and more expensive parts. I'm all set with that. The atv is only as durable as it's weakest link- so, EVERY aspect of the drive train has to be taken into consideration, not just the cv's and the drive shafts, bearings, bushings, differentials and such.
they are two different machines designed to be ridden on different terrains- you can't compare the hp in a sled to the hp in an atv. If manufacturer engineers wanted to put more power in an atv- what makes you think they couldn't in a matter of minutes at the design board? There's a very good reason why atv's don't come from the dealer with engines as powerful as in sleds.
I always hear people comparing sled motors to atv's - really can't make that comparison.
It's like comparing the hp in a boat motor to the hp in a car.
I have 275 hp in my 6cyl mercury jet drive that gets me to about 60mph on the water- put the same motor in a car weighing the same as my boat and you could easily top 100+ mph. My sea-doo had a 900cc 125hp engine- 55 mph tops on the water- same engine in an atv and you'd snap an axle or drive shaft in no time.
it takes a lot less power to spin a wheel than it does a sled track. An atv being ridden in the environment it was designed to has plenty of hp to reach speeds of 75-80 mph, it's limited to its gearing. Put that same atv in the snow with a set of tracks on it, and you'd be lucky to get over 40- sleds need the extra slap & go to spin the track and account for poor traction in the snow. which is another aspect as well; sleds have less traction in snow than an atv has on dirt. you'd quickly start twisting drive-train parts on an atv with the kind of hp & tq a sled motor has- sled drive trains are not suseptable to the kinds of friction shock that atv's experience (like when spinning back tires grab a root and snap a cv like a twig) the only way to build an atv to handle the kind of power similar to a sled is to make bigger, stronger and more expensive parts. I'm all set with that. The atv is only as durable as it's weakest link- so, EVERY aspect of the drive train has to be taken into consideration, not just the cv's and the drive shafts, bearings, bushings, differentials and such.
they are two different machines designed to be ridden on different terrains- you can't compare the hp in a sled to the hp in an atv. If manufacturer engineers wanted to put more power in an atv- what makes you think they couldn't in a matter of minutes at the design board? There's a very good reason why atv's don't come from the dealer with engines as powerful as in sleds.
That explamation is also why the factories don't recommend larger tires...
#55
yep- no doubt.
even the can-am xmr which comes stock with 30" SB's also has a beefed up gorilla drivetrain- and, even with that, riders are snapping and twisting axles- which was just one of the contributing factors of why BRP was giving anyone who financed their can-am atv a "complementary" 2.5 yrs extended warranty on the new models.
manufacturers do it all the time when they have a product with more problems then they planned for. I work for a manufacturer that makes hospital equipment, and they are about to extend the warranty on one of their products because of all the unexpected problems-
the 1000cc with 81 hp. has way, way more hp then you'd ever need in an atv. (I still want one though
) I really wish they'd focus more on ergonomics refinement than engine HP...
#56
The topic was " when is the displacement war going to Stop" I was just saying ATV sure have big displacement but they sure are down on power.
Polaris does not need to make a XP1200 to get the ATV power crown. The just have to put there existing 145hp Weber 750 4 stroke if thats what there after.
A sled on firm conditions with studs does not lose much traction, it just hooks up lifts the front skis and shoots like a bullet until it tops out a 120 or so mph.
Polaris does not need to make a XP1200 to get the ATV power crown. The just have to put there existing 145hp Weber 750 4 stroke if thats what there after.
A sled on firm conditions with studs does not lose much traction, it just hooks up lifts the front skis and shoots like a bullet until it tops out a 120 or so mph.
#57
just saying- I've heard this topic come up many times here & there-
most sleds are ridden on snow- not ice. I've ridden plenty of sleds- they slide all over the place in the snow, just like a boat in the water. studded tracks on ice are a whole different story- and not in the context I was referring to above. the front ski's on a sled keep the vehicle more stable than front tires on an atv- if you made atv's to go 120 mph- you'd have a lot of dead people. I recall reading in one of the atvc articles how can-am had to down-tune their 1000cc atv rotax because it was just uncontrollable on the atv platform.
it's just not a valid point- it's like saying; if they can put a 500 hp / 175 mph small block in a corvette off the factory floor, then they should put a 500 hp 175mph small block in a 1500 pickup truck off the factory floor- pick up trucks aren't corvettes and atv's aren't sleds.
#58
Snowmobiles also have a lower center of gravity than a quad. With what limited time I've had on sleds I'd say you're talking about a good foot lower. That, in itself, allows you to control more speed on a sled than a quad. Still, getting back to the main topic, I think the market should decide. If someone makes a 1100 cc quad soon and there's no market for it, they'll stop making them or just in very limited quantities.
#59
I agree that the market will ultimately decide when the engine size is large enough.
Im one of those guys that like the power, but I dont need it.
I know many beginner riders that go and buy the biggest quad they can get (usually can am 800) lift it, snorkel it, rad relocate it, and think that that is the only way to go quadding. Most of the times they are the first ones to wreck stuff, get stuck, and it seems like bout halfway through the next year they realize that cc aint everything!
I always bug those kinda guys that I feel sorry for their girlfriends haha.
But yeah, market will dictate it. If a manufacturer makes a 1500cc quad that makes 130 horsepower, and guys were all over it, the cc wars would continue. Supply and demand.
Im one of those guys that like the power, but I dont need it.
I know many beginner riders that go and buy the biggest quad they can get (usually can am 800) lift it, snorkel it, rad relocate it, and think that that is the only way to go quadding. Most of the times they are the first ones to wreck stuff, get stuck, and it seems like bout halfway through the next year they realize that cc aint everything!
I always bug those kinda guys that I feel sorry for their girlfriends haha.
But yeah, market will dictate it. If a manufacturer makes a 1500cc quad that makes 130 horsepower, and guys were all over it, the cc wars would continue. Supply and demand.
#60
really is no need for these huge engines they are all about ego boosting and land whales being to big to ride anything that's not a jet between their legs, CanAm in particular is just flashy garbage my friends all have them and spend more time getting them fixed then riding yet my old Honda 350 keeps on going without ever having a single problem and funny enough i constantly pulls those useless CanAms out of the trails after they break their transmissions or axles




