Kodiak or Xplorer
#1
02-02-2000, 08:25 AM
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 1,216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clindst,
If the choice were mine, I'd go with the Xplorer 400. Here are my reasons. First, the Kodiak suffers from a severe lack of power when it compares to the Xplorer. The Xplorer, even though it is heavier, will walk all over the Kodiak when it comes to horsepower, torque and speed.
Second, if you want more power (because power DOES corrupt) the modifications are already on the market. Good luck even finding a clutch kit for the Kodiak.
Third the chain drive is really a non-issue with the concentirc drive. The chain always stays at the correct tension during the rear suspensions 9" of travel. The only reason you'll have to adjust it is because of chain stretch due to the enormous torque the engine puts out. That should be once or twice a summer at best.
Fourth the Xplorer has better traction with all 4 wheels driving instead of the 3wd of the Kodiak.
Fifth, if someone tells you that the two stroke motor will require more rebuilds, tell him horse crap! I have a friend with a 1995 Polaris 400L that has never done a thing to his except gas it and go, and it still runs as strong as stock. This WAS an issue with the air cooled two stroke motors of the past, but NOT the liquid cooled ones. Ask your dealer how much it will cost to do a top end job on both, I'll bet the Polaris will be cheaper. I've just taken my cylinder off my Sport (to get it ported, see reason #2) and it was as good as new. I don't baby my machines, but I don't abuse them either. That's two years of hard WFO running and not a scratch on the cylinder walls.
Last, the Kodiak is a good machine, don't get me wrong, but it is a touch too small for me. Don't let anyone kid you, size is everything. If you are on the large side (like me), You'll like the ergonomics of the Xplorer.
That's all I can think of for now. As I've said before, the Kodiak is a darn good machine, but I think the Xplorer is better.
------------------
Mike Chero 97 Polaris Sport 400L/ 97 Polaris Trailblazer 250ES
<A HREF="http://users.penn.com/~hal9000/mikeetta.html">MIKE & CELESTE'S ATV PAGE </A>
If the choice were mine, I'd go with the Xplorer 400. Here are my reasons. First, the Kodiak suffers from a severe lack of power when it compares to the Xplorer. The Xplorer, even though it is heavier, will walk all over the Kodiak when it comes to horsepower, torque and speed.
Second, if you want more power (because power DOES corrupt) the modifications are already on the market. Good luck even finding a clutch kit for the Kodiak.
Third the chain drive is really a non-issue with the concentirc drive. The chain always stays at the correct tension during the rear suspensions 9" of travel. The only reason you'll have to adjust it is because of chain stretch due to the enormous torque the engine puts out. That should be once or twice a summer at best.
Fourth the Xplorer has better traction with all 4 wheels driving instead of the 3wd of the Kodiak.
Fifth, if someone tells you that the two stroke motor will require more rebuilds, tell him horse crap! I have a friend with a 1995 Polaris 400L that has never done a thing to his except gas it and go, and it still runs as strong as stock. This WAS an issue with the air cooled two stroke motors of the past, but NOT the liquid cooled ones. Ask your dealer how much it will cost to do a top end job on both, I'll bet the Polaris will be cheaper. I've just taken my cylinder off my Sport (to get it ported, see reason #2) and it was as good as new. I don't baby my machines, but I don't abuse them either. That's two years of hard WFO running and not a scratch on the cylinder walls.
Last, the Kodiak is a good machine, don't get me wrong, but it is a touch too small for me. Don't let anyone kid you, size is everything. If you are on the large side (like me), You'll like the ergonomics of the Xplorer.
That's all I can think of for now. As I've said before, the Kodiak is a darn good machine, but I think the Xplorer is better.
------------------
Mike Chero 97 Polaris Sport 400L/ 97 Polaris Trailblazer 250ES
<A HREF="http://users.penn.com/~hal9000/mikeetta.html">MIKE & CELESTE'S ATV PAGE </A>
#2
02-02-2000, 11:32 AM
#5
02-03-2000, 01:49 AM
There is a pretty significant difference between the two machines you list. I have an 99 xplorer 400 and limited experience with the Kodiak.
The xplorer is almost a sport machine. It is quite capable of utlity work because of it's low range, but it is quite a bit more powerful than the Kodiak and I would give it a definite thumbs up in the "fun" category.
On the other hand, I believe the Kodiak is a better built machine that is better in a few situations. By better built, I am referring to the racks, (the plastic racks on polaris machines really are flimsy), and overall reliablility. I own two Polaris machines and one Yamaha and don't want to get into any arguments, but this is my experience.
Another thing to consider is that the Yamaha will have a better resale value. Two stroke, chain driven machines are harder to sell.
And if you do any riding in what I call exreme mountainous terrain, the Kodiak would easily be the better choice. This is really a gray area because everybody thinks they ride in the toughest of conditions. When elk hunting in the high country on private ground, I do retrieval of harvested elk that sometimes borders on poor judgement. We have used a Sportsman and an Xplorer in the past and they are just too tall. The 4wd system is also poorly suited for log hopping. If you are on dry ground with good traction, the front wheels don't engage until the rears slip about 1/8. When you hit a log as high as the front rack, this causes you to lose the momentum required to pop up over the log.
Now it sounds like
I'm running the Polaris down, but I'm not. For what 90% of riders use them for they're great.
They ride the best and they steer easily. My 115 lb wife has commandeered my Sportsman and I never get to ride it anymore! She looks like a mouse riding it, but it's easy to ride.
The xplorer is almost a sport machine. It is quite capable of utlity work because of it's low range, but it is quite a bit more powerful than the Kodiak and I would give it a definite thumbs up in the "fun" category.
On the other hand, I believe the Kodiak is a better built machine that is better in a few situations. By better built, I am referring to the racks, (the plastic racks on polaris machines really are flimsy), and overall reliablility. I own two Polaris machines and one Yamaha and don't want to get into any arguments, but this is my experience.
Another thing to consider is that the Yamaha will have a better resale value. Two stroke, chain driven machines are harder to sell.
And if you do any riding in what I call exreme mountainous terrain, the Kodiak would easily be the better choice. This is really a gray area because everybody thinks they ride in the toughest of conditions. When elk hunting in the high country on private ground, I do retrieval of harvested elk that sometimes borders on poor judgement. We have used a Sportsman and an Xplorer in the past and they are just too tall. The 4wd system is also poorly suited for log hopping. If you are on dry ground with good traction, the front wheels don't engage until the rears slip about 1/8. When you hit a log as high as the front rack, this causes you to lose the momentum required to pop up over the log.
Now it sounds like
I'm running the Polaris down, but I'm not. For what 90% of riders use them for they're great.
They ride the best and they steer easily. My 115 lb wife has commandeered my Sportsman and I never get to ride it anymore! She looks like a mouse riding it, but it's easy to ride.
#7
02-03-2000, 06:36 PM
TD;your statement about kodiak being the best in the mountains,in my opinion is false as I ride with friend that has Kodiak.He can't keep up both, because it's under powered and also it beats him to death,in the rocks.I have no trouble with my 500sp being to tall,I think thats all what you get used to.I ride the Kodiak I don't feel safe to short to low to ground,terrible rough ride.I don't care for the shifting it is unhandy for hill climbing,either you have power "low gear" or you have speed "high gear".You can't have both that you have with the auto.If your in the middle of a hill and need more power sometimes it will put the hurt on you looking for a gear,if your a flatlander no biggie.I've yet to have a problem with climbing over logs with my sportsman.Lets be realistic if it does in fact take 1/8 turn, for front to kickin how much time are we really talking about.Them wheels are moving at a good pace and 1/8 turn would be pretty hard to see,at the best.In my experience your observations are false,but then again this is only my opinion and experiences.CM
Trending Topics
#9
02-03-2000, 06:51 PM
#10
02-05-2000, 10:43 PM
TD- I am not going to get into the Polaris-Yamaha thing but I have a couple of questions for you. On the racks on the Polaris, after reading your post about jumping logs RACK HIGH!!! Come on- what do you think you are riding, a monster truck? Maybe you should carry a chainsaw instead of watching your rear wheels turn 1/8 of a turn!Also where in the high country in NH do you find elk? I have had Polaris 4x4s since 1986 and one of them is still running the trails .All the machines made now are good, just depends on how you you abuse them or not.