Concerning the diesel post, what RPM an engine makes it's torque peak and how high/flat that torque is very meaningful. Plus, proper gearing and a good transmission that attempts to keep the diesel operating in it's 'sweet spot' can make one out accelerate the other. I know my '04 Cummins has a ton of torque but it seems to fall on its face higher in the RPM range. The 6.0 Powerstroke is a bit sluggish off the line, but when that turbo begins boosting, LOOK OUT. I know the Ford is heavier than my truck and a touch less peak torque, but I think the 6.0 will smoke me.

 

Like I said in the 1st post of page 3. I will try and get everone some torque numbers in the next week or so. I am fully aware of what torque is and does I also have A PS 7.3 X and a 7.3 larriat. I not sure how these trucks are relative to the power output of a polaris 800 but whatever.



BryceGTX,
I think this is the model of dyno my quad shop uses

 

I like to see #'s off the crank, on a CVT,

Rear wheel HP, CVT against CVT are good numbers but not if you were compareing to a manual trans.

This is a good thread, good comparisions, stock for stock, but I'd be interested in which could be improved more for less.

 

Please don't get torque numbers on my behalf... do it because that is something you want to do. I was simply addressing the diesel post. I already know what quad I want and it's in my garage. My plain ol' carbed '04 700 is just fine.

 

Hello cc1999. These are slick Dynos. I saw them at Testing expo here in Michigan last year. They also make a neat eddy current dyno. The base 168/188 dyno is an inertia dyno. One point about inertia dynos is that they do not represent the quad on the road for two reasons. The first is that unless the rotating inertia of the dyno is the same as the inertia of the quad, it will accelerate differently. If the inertia is too high, it will be as if someone connected a heavy trailer onto the back of the quad. Second, the inertia dyno will not simulate the air resistance of the quad as it accelerates. More expensive dynos can easily simulate both aspects. The HP and torque numbers are calculated by measuring the time it takes to accelerate the inertia. This dyno will not give an indication of torque versus speed of the engine, but it should accurately measure the hp at the tires. I wouldn't use the dyno to clutch the quad because of the inertia of the dyno, but it would be good for comparing mods to the quad. You might have to be careful when comparing tire sizes because smaller tires could indicate higher HP numbers because they would be capable of accelerating the inertia faster. I think anyone might complain no matter what you get as a result, but anything would be quite useful in this discussion.
BryceGTX

 

Its just part of the test. When they test one I get about a 4 or 5 page report detailing the torque curve, Hp including graphs and topspeed. I typicaly have them check the air fuel mix but since this thing is EFI I am not sure I need to do that. It cost about 40 bucks for the test. I like to have these reports from when the quads are stock so I can see what gains I am getting from the modds I like to do. However do to the expense of the test I will likely do a retest with pipes and K and N rather than a test for each individual mod. I just like my quads to perform as well as they possably can and have learned through the years that seat of the pants just doesn't cut it. I used to put on mods and think I had somthing running realy good to go out and loose a friendly drag race to a stock quad or a quad with similar modds.

Shotgun; I guess someone else will have to take on that task, I just don't see the need for myself to go to all that trouble, there are not any big bore utes with manual trans at this time. plus contrary some beliefes, I only do these test to help in the fine tuning of my equipment not, for bragging rights. I have herd from some engine experts that the rear wheel numbers can be estimated up about 30 horsepower do to the extream losses taken by the auto trans and shaft drive, None of mine have ever been crank tested so I can't confirm that in anyway.

 

cc1999, you need to realize these machines are not for dragging they are for pure strentgh. I rode the brute force it feels cheap made. so does the kq.

 

cc1999,

I would LOVE to meet you at Little Sahara. I've never been but I've heard it's a really good time. I agree that our tests would make for some informative readings. Whenever you're ready just PM me and we'll get it planned.

Propolaris,

I respectfully disagree with you. There is a new group of riders out there that want the speed of a sport quad AND four wheel drive when they want it. I'm that type of rider, and judging from this forum, there are many just like me. I want to drag other utilities and sport quads if I choose. I want to wheelie around at will and then put in four wheel drive and ride through mud and deep water. I don't use my quads for work, just play, so pure utility quads such as the traxter, while POWERFUL, doesn't interest me at all.

I also disagree with your statement about the KQ and BF feeling cheaply made. I assure you that they aren't. I've owned a SP700 so I have compared them and the build of the quads in question are at least up to the standards of the Polaris Sportsman.

 

Thanks Cam, You saved me alot of typing. I will just add I think a quad of any type, be it sport, sport-utility or pure utility its for what ever the person writing the check wants it to be for. Its clear to me just by the titles of a lot of theads and the conversations in them, all over the forum in almost every brand there are guys and gals that like to ride fast and play hard on there utility and sport utility quads.

 

True 'dat. This has been a fun thread to read. I've been expecting the 12 year olds to jump in, but thankfully they haven't. Good reads.