Tell you what, I'll weight the new stock tires and rims and the 26"mudrunners on stock rims this weekend and post the results next monday a.m. , if I can remember to, I'am over 45!!!!!!!! The results will be on this thread.

 

Please enlighten me as to why everyone wants to use a larger, heavier tire on their atv. The difference in weight of MudRunners from 25 to 26 is a lot. And then the clearance problems. No one ever mentions the performance loss, handling loss and comfort loss when doing so. Lose all this for a measly 1/2" more ground clearance. No way.

Some of us went thru all of that "big" tire stuff with our 4wd trucks in the 70's and learned not to do it ever again.

Unless you absolutely "need" more ground clearance because you are running in deep, deep mud 75% of the time, why sacrifice everything else.

All I ever hear is "I need more performance from my HO", but the first thing that goes on is big rubber, the very thing that takes away overall performance. And after the 27-28" rubber goes on, then they want a K&N, pipe, clutch kit, and on and on. They are trying to make up for the "lost HP" created by the larger heavier tires. Not to mention what is lost in pulling ability because of the final ratio size change with big rubber. It just does not make sense.

 

Having had the 26 inch Mudrunners on both the 99 Sportsman and now the 00 Xplorer,I will comment on them.In the worst of mud/snow,they are one of the best.On hardpack,the ride is also good.Steering?Thats also good.

Now please concider one fact.Both my ATVs had the Goodyear Mudrunners installed right at the dealership before the quads ever left the showroom floor,so I CANT compare them to the stock tires,I can only compare them to how they have performed for me on MY quads.I have mudded against other stock Polaris ATVs and thats where the Mudrunners really show their stuff.I'd buy them again in a second,
Bill

 

I weighed mine this summer:

26" Mudrunners on stock rims:
front-->35 lbs
rear--->43 lbs

25" Bearclaws on stock rims:
front--->forgot to write it down
rear---->36.5 lbs

Pretty big difference. The Mudrunners are unbelievable in mud. I went up vertical, rutted, slippery clay hills with them that stopped all others in there tracks. The width of the fronts helped a lot with this too. The rest of the ride just suffered too much...anything over 35 mph. Maybe on a Sportsman it would be different.

It's give and take. Go through everything or be fast and nible.

 

I will agree that the mudrunners are better in the

 

I will agree that the mudrunners are better in the mud and I felt that they greatly improved the steering. But If you have ever blown out a stock tire on the trails you will appreciate the heavy 6 ply tires!!!

 

Jack, I think it is a typical want to be "bad-to-the-bone" thing. You guys have seen "Home Improvement" with Tim Taylor...the bigger and badder the better! Argh! Argh! At least it was for me and many others I knew. Big, wide tires mean you can definately go through anything anywhere. Little did I realize how much control and ride quality I would lose. If it were springtime all year or muddy, rough trails at camp I would have kept them on. But for faster paced, agressive rides...stock size is better. Not sure how the 25" Mudrunners are though!?

 

the Mudrunners are 6-ply?? i thought they were 4-ply, but i could be wrong.

does anyone know how the new 589MT's,that are 6-ply,are sposedly lighter than the regular 589's, that are 4-ply??

i would think more plys add weight

later
jon

 

Mag5,
the Mudrunners are a 4 ply tire,not 6ply,
Bill

 

Bill,

If you really want to experience performance on your Xplorer, put the stock tires on there for a ride once you get your Dynoport pipe on it.

You will like it!!