I think a new Scrambler would be cool if they could do it with a little less weight and better suspension. I would put my Scrambler in the "tank class" for sure but I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way. In some situations the weight helps the bike stay soft side up. There are some trails around here that are so rocky and brutal that I won't take any of my other rides down them except for my Scrambler. The thing just plows through stuff, if you hit a big rock it either cracks in half or moves. I tried that (hit a big rock in the trail) with my Raptor and found myself in a vertical wheelie with my back tires a foot in the air. In certain harsh conditions I can actually be much faster and feel more in control on my 'tank' than I can on my Raptor.
These rocky mountains can be brutal, a re-designed sport 4x4 would be just the ticket for me.

 

Lighten up. Biggy was making a joke. I laughed. It's called Sarcasm. It only works if there is at least a grain of truth to it. There is.
Scottaboshia was right about the 700. Polaris is certainly coming out with a sport quad and probably a 700 H.O. or Scrambler. They will be heavy, but still potent.
.... I defected from Polaris to Bombardier. One Heavy quad for another. The DS is overweight, just like all the Polaris. And despite criticism they don't seem to be changing anything.
They are also big. Jap quads are light, but small and narrow.
....So we add wheels and tires and axles and A-arms,,,,but did you notice nobody ever weighs their quads once they have them up to size?
.....The new Honda Rincon and the Grizz have skinny tires. It's got to be for the weight on the spec sheet.
....Quad bashing is one thing. A little goes a long way. Don't FREAK OUT! Refrain from taking it personally.... I miss sledder......[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

Just a few words on pushrods, rpm, valve trains and inline twins. First a big thanks to Mitsubishi for the invention of the balance shaft. Almost all of our small modern 4-stroke engines use them. Big singles and inline twins especially need them. An inline twin is not a great improvement over a single, as both pistons go up and down together, each one firing on alternate strokes. This is just like the old Triumph and BSA engines, but they didn't have balance shafts or water cooling.
.....Pushrod engines have absolutely no advantage over OHC engines other than center of gravity and cost of manufacturing. A cam in the block has a lower center of gravity and cost less to make. Everything else being equal, there is absolutely no advantage in "torque" in a pushrod engine. OHC engines have a higher rpm capability, and Double overhead Cam engines even higher. OHC engines get rid of the pushrods, and DOHC engines get rid of the rocker arms. A lower center of gravity may be more advantageous in a Utility quad than high rpm horsepower.
....That corvette has more torque because it is bigger, longer stroke, different cam timing, etc. And it should still be good for 6,500 rpm stock, maybe 8,000 rpm with the right parts. An OHC engine might see 11,000 rpm, and a DOHC engine in a Formula I engine will hit 15,000 rpm.
Not quite the range we're interested in. But I sure like the DOHC rotax in my DS.
....4-valves per cylinder on the other hand is a huge advantage all across the powerband. 4 small circles (valves) fits better than two medium circles into a larger circle (cylinder head). More valve area means better volumetric efficiency = more horsepower, torque. The new Honda Rincon has an inline twin with pushrods and 4-valves per cylinder.
That is what Polaris should have done with the 700.
....Electronic fuel injection kept archaic U.S. automakers V-8 engines in the running. Polaris could do the same with the 700, and should.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif[/img]

 

Fourlix - GOOD POINT!!

While I don't do much dabbling in the 'sport' quad area, I do agree you have a point. There are people who dislike the DS650 because it is 'too big, too heavy' and such, but are driving a Japanese quad that has an extended swingarm, wheel spacers, wider rear axles, different a-arms, improved shocks, and engine mods to keep up with the 650 guys once the terrain opens up. They will also go on and on how they saved a few $$$ on purchase price, how much lighter it is, etc, but don't factor in the cost of everything they added on, or the weight added.

Now when you get to utility quads, then I start to have more experience there. I notice how the Polaris machines are called pigs, fat hogs, etc, etc. Now the Sportsman IS heavy, but for WORK, that is fine. I have an Xplorer, and had a neighbor who had the legendary Fourtrax 300 4x4. After running around with both, we did some comparisons. The Fourtrax was SUPPOSED to be almost 80# lighter, but, in a READY TO RIDE configuration, I challenge anyone to lift up either end of either machine and tell me which one was lighter. To me, and my friend, they felt identical.
If Polaris DOES make a 700 scrambler, I believe it will be a great seller. It will be as close to a 'sport' 4x4 as you will be able to get. Most Scrambler owners I know of could care less about performance on an MX track, they are out there in the trails where 4x4 is more important than top speed. Other than an occasional informal drag race, they don't worry too much about it. It will sell just because it is bigger.

As far as the pushrod vs. overhead cam thing, I don't see much difference in a utility machine, or something like the Scrambler. Where the DOHC would shine is in a high-revving sport engine. The pushrods have a reputation for torque, because, in my opinion, the designers knew they could only get so much RPM out of them, so they usually have a longer stroke, smaller bore than a comparably sized OHC engine, and that has more to do with it than being a pushrod. One thing the 700 has going for it is the hydraulic lifters, making for a more maintanence-free design. With a CVT style transmission, torque or RPMs are not as relevant as with a gear-shift machine. Peak HP, and clutch tuning to best utilize it are.

 

<<exhondaguy your post What do you think of the 2002 Z06 Corvette? 406 HP from an "outdated pushrod motor"? Gee, maybe if they put an overhead cam on it, it would have lots of power, kind of like a wimpy OHC Mustang.

There is only about a $35,000 difference between the two cars. They are both sports cars but two different types of sports cars.>>

Make that a 25,000$ difference. And while they are two different types of sports cars, let's take a brief look at the Mustang GT vs. the Camaro Z-28, two sports cars right in the same class. Well well well, look at this. That "advanced" SOHC engine also COSTS MORE! The Mustang's engine, even though it's over a liter smaller than the Camaro's, still costs an awful lot more to produce. The best part is, that the "technologically advanced" SOHC engine makes 50 less hp and 38 less lb-ft of torque than the "simple, outdated" pushrod engine.
Funny, isn't it?


<<Compare a Nissan Skyline to the Corvette the see who is outdated.
I think the skyline has a 4cyl, DOHC, twin turbo, AWD, and sells for about the same price as a ZO6>>

The Skyline has a 2.6L twin turbocharged, twin intercooled DOHC straight 6. As for the price... heh. You'd be lucky if you could buy a brand new 2001 R34 Skyline GT-R V-Spec (the top of the line model, comparable to the Corvette Z06) for less than twice the price of a Corvette. And that's only if you live in Japan. Let us not forget that importing a car not sold in the U.S. roughly puts the price at 150% of what you'd buy it at over there in total costs. So you're looking at around 140,000$+ to buy a Skyline that, stock-for-stock, will just barely give a Z06 a run for its money.

There is NO replacement for displacement.

Sorry about drifting out on a tangent, but that stuff just needed to be said.

 

Just get a Ford Lightning. It is an F-150 woth 360 horseys and will 0-60 in 5.0 seconds flat.(comparable to a Porsche Carrera) Not to metion that it is over $10K cheaper AND you can haul your quad around!