Another SP800 review
#32
Originally posted by: jefffoxsr
Aaron, you getting the 800?
Aaron, you getting the 800?
#33
Aaron, I didn't look closely enough at your signature. When I saw it a few months ago I think you had a 2004 700 EFI, although I may be mistaken. It says 2005, so you obviously already bought the 2005.
With that in mind, and knowing you like the 2005's, I thought you were waiting for the 800.
Thanks for the clarification.
With that in mind, and knowing you like the 2005's, I thought you were waiting for the 800.
Thanks for the clarification.
#34
Originally posted by: jefffoxsr
Aaron, I didn't look closely enough at your signature. When I saw it a few months ago I think you had a 2004 700 EFI, although I may be mistaken. It says 2005, so you obviously already bought the 2005.
With that in mind, and knowing you like the 2005's, I thought you were waiting for the 800.
Thanks for the clarification.
Aaron, I didn't look closely enough at your signature. When I saw it a few months ago I think you had a 2004 700 EFI, although I may be mistaken. It says 2005, so you obviously already bought the 2005.
With that in mind, and knowing you like the 2005's, I thought you were waiting for the 800.
Thanks for the clarification.
#35
Originally posted by: jefffoxsr
Thanks GE4X4,
I know everyone is looking for something different in a quad. For those people who like to get around fast over rough terrain I'm sure, with your experience in racing, that you will do the testing for those qualities.
I'm also in the group who would like a powerful quad that has EFI.
Other priorities for my uses and preferences are:
1. Seat softness.
2. Steering ease.
3. The ability to be sporty and nimble on an easy trail rather than feeling heavy and unresponsive.
4. Fender protection from mud.
5. Strong construction of the front end, as opposed to my outlander that has a bumper that is 100% aluminum and weak and peanut butter.
If you could report on these items it would be useful. The magazine tests and then uses a 5 star rating that I don't find useful. Everthing gets 4 or 5 stars and sometimes 3 stars. If you could use a 10 point scale where 10 is "awesome or as good as it could be", 5 is "ok or acceptable", and 1 is "not good at all", it would be very helpful for everyone. I'm sure that there are a lot of guys smoking out their ears trying to decide which to get.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks GE4X4,
I know everyone is looking for something different in a quad. For those people who like to get around fast over rough terrain I'm sure, with your experience in racing, that you will do the testing for those qualities.
I'm also in the group who would like a powerful quad that has EFI.
Other priorities for my uses and preferences are:
1. Seat softness.
2. Steering ease.
3. The ability to be sporty and nimble on an easy trail rather than feeling heavy and unresponsive.
4. Fender protection from mud.
5. Strong construction of the front end, as opposed to my outlander that has a bumper that is 100% aluminum and weak and peanut butter.
If you could report on these items it would be useful. The magazine tests and then uses a 5 star rating that I don't find useful. Everthing gets 4 or 5 stars and sometimes 3 stars. If you could use a 10 point scale where 10 is "awesome or as good as it could be", 5 is "ok or acceptable", and 1 is "not good at all", it would be very helpful for everyone. I'm sure that there are a lot of guys smoking out their ears trying to decide which to get.
Thanks in advance.
#38
You can feel the suspension on big bumbs for sure. It's not as noticable on the smaller ones, the old suspension was just about perfact there. The quad feels more stable, not as top heavy. Not that the Sportsman ever was, its just that much better. The storage is just awesome, everything has a place on it. The lighting has to be best in the biz, these are the brightest lights I have ever seen on a quad, there brighter than some cars on bright! The rear work lights are a dream come true when turning around on a wooded trail at night (already used, and don't know what I would have done with out them). I havn't had my new ride in any mud yet, but I'm told it has much better mud pretection. The old Sportsman's used to COVER you and the body of the quad in mud. I'm hoping this has been fixed as they say. They tranny doesn't stick out like on the old ones, which will scoore it much better in the ergo's. The new rear tool box is HUGE, and very easy to access. No more takeing the seat off for a "little bit" of storage. Now there is a easy access door on the back of the quad that is about 4 times the size of the old one. The new racks are just awesome, they have these "J" rails that have more tie down points than any rack on the market. If you are still trying to decide on 04 or 05 spend the little bit more and get you a 05. You'll be glad you did.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]
#39
Aaron,
Thanks for all the detailed information. After I had heard how much better the 2005's were there was no question that I would get an 05 rather than an 04.
I hadn't heard about the tranny being more narrow. That's a nice bonus.
Let me clarify my question about the suspension. When I had heard the spring rates were softer I was thinking that over the small bumps on the trail, the ones you are still usually seated for, that the suspension would absorb those better. Better meaning less impact on the me. My back is sensitive to bumps, so the less impact on me the better. So, I guess my question would be whether the suspension on the 2005 takes the small bumps better than the 2004 in such a way that those small bumps have less impact on your body.
Thanks again for the info.
Thanks for all the detailed information. After I had heard how much better the 2005's were there was no question that I would get an 05 rather than an 04.
I hadn't heard about the tranny being more narrow. That's a nice bonus.
Let me clarify my question about the suspension. When I had heard the spring rates were softer I was thinking that over the small bumps on the trail, the ones you are still usually seated for, that the suspension would absorb those better. Better meaning less impact on the me. My back is sensitive to bumps, so the less impact on me the better. So, I guess my question would be whether the suspension on the 2005 takes the small bumps better than the 2004 in such a way that those small bumps have less impact on your body.
Thanks again for the info.
#40
Originally posted by: jefffoxsr
Aaron,
Thanks for all the detailed information. After I had heard how much better the 2005's were there was no question that I would get an 05 rather than an 04.
I hadn't heard about the tranny being more narrow. That's a nice bonus.
Let me clarify my question about the suspension. When I had heard the spring rates were softer I was thinking that over the small bumps on the trail, the ones you are still usually seated for, that the suspension would absorb those better. Better meaning less impact on the me. My back is sensitive to bumps, so the less impact on me the better. So, I guess my question would be whether the suspension on the 2005 takes the small bumps better than the 2004 in such a way that those small bumps have less impact on your body.
Thanks again for the info.
Aaron,
Thanks for all the detailed information. After I had heard how much better the 2005's were there was no question that I would get an 05 rather than an 04.
I hadn't heard about the tranny being more narrow. That's a nice bonus.
Let me clarify my question about the suspension. When I had heard the spring rates were softer I was thinking that over the small bumps on the trail, the ones you are still usually seated for, that the suspension would absorb those better. Better meaning less impact on the me. My back is sensitive to bumps, so the less impact on me the better. So, I guess my question would be whether the suspension on the 2005 takes the small bumps better than the 2004 in such a way that those small bumps have less impact on your body.
Thanks again for the info.


