dirtwheels never did a shoot out between the 800 and kingquad or the 880 and anything for that mater unless you have un advanced ishue i am dumfound on were he got the information of dirtwheeles and the 800 vr kingquad?

 

Ok, so it wasn't Dirt Wheels. It WAS 4 Wheel ATV Action that did do a head-to-head comparison of the Polaris 800 and the new King Quad. In my defense, the citation was in parentheses and had a question mark after it, clearly indicating that I was unsure of the reference. I receive most of the ATV magazines and the articles get jumbled in one's mind after a few months. The 850 reference was a typo. I heartilly apologize to the esteemed (if a bit parnoid) group for my typographical and reference errors.

I re-read the article this morning. According to the magazine, the Polaris has more power and speed. It beat the KQ in the 100 yard dash every time. The KQ had better trail manners and was more nimble than the beast. They ranked the Polaris better for hills, work and technical stuff. But the KQ was a better performer on trails (particularly tight trails) and more fun overall. Now run to your newstand and find the May or June (I think it was May but don't crucify me if I'm wrong) edition.

 

Hey RidinLCWA..
This web site is clearly the most useless comparison of quads that I have ever visited. LOL, it clearly has the worst case of off-shore-itis of any ATV site I have ever been to. How the heck do these clowns rate the 500 Suzuki engine in the Artic cat at 7 and rate the exact same Suzuki engine in the Vinson as 10!!!! Same with the trans... The rating of these quads in no way follows what the public is buying. Are these idiots really saying that they know more than the public? LOL, how the heck do you combine fit and finish in the same group as ergonomics?? These clowns actually criticize the quad when it has high suspension travel and high ground clearance. Where the heck do these idiots ride... on I75? Sorry, but this web site in no way objectively rates any ATV. And to think... someone might actually believe these guys.
BryceGTX

 

Thankyou! thats the point i have bin trying to get accross!!!!!!!!!!!!
and ridinlcwa i was mad at other ppl sorry for the outburst but i just knew it wasent in dw!

 

Doug and crew certainly have some biases, as was noted in my previous posting. Each review depends a lot on the reviewer, the terrain and the weather. He tends to be a more tame rider who favors stability over power. I am a believer that one must read as many reviews as possible before making a decisions. If we could all spend a day riding each of the machines we want, then reviews would be less important. But, we can't so read widely and read critically.

In the specific example of Artic Cat 500 versus Suzuki Vinson 500, it is how the machine puts the power to the ground that has been criticized in the AC. Other reviewers have also noted that the AC is not as peppy as the Vinson and does not get the power to the ground as well. While they use the Suzuki engine, AC does the rest of the quad. It may be the extra weight of the AC that holds back the power or it may the transmission or a number of other factors. If you read the points you will find they are fairly consistent with other reviews in other publications.

 

I could write for days on the blunders in many of the reviews on this site. But this one is golden. On this web site, they describe the categories. The engine catagory does not mention that if I put extra weight on the quad it should lose points in the engine department. I guess if we put a 300 pound guy on a Vinson instead of a 150 pound guy, the engine catagory woul drop from 10 points to 7 points? LOL.. yea... ok...
Another golden one I saw is a complaint of the Polaris brakes. In their brake category, they complained about the EBS and going down hills. However, when I look at the description about the braking category, I see nothing about engines. This dingbat that tested this must never have even used the brakes. And clearly he doesn't even know the definition of the categories that he is suppose to be testing!!!
I have read literally thousands of posts over a 1 year period before I bought our quads and I never read any of the BS that these guys are writing about in the forums of people that actually own the quads. LOL, what I did read is crazy posts like: "My brother knows a guy whose sister's husband's frame broke" Or "I heard that..." And this site clearly follows that pattern.
BryceGTX

 

While the reviews in magazines and shows are often filled with journalist's errors and opinions, they are entitled to them as much as everyone else.

One must realize when looking at these mags/shows (and posts) that this is only one source of information when buying anything. But engine braking has a whole lot to do with braking. Why would it have anything to do with engine? Maybe they should have mentioned it in the drivetrain...duh

Just be sure to filter out brand loyalist that fail to see or hide the flaws in their machines, and offer nothing but rosey pictures or false claims of their favorite manufacturer. And this goes for every brand from what I've seen. However, there is one particular brand's owner(s) I see that fails to recognize any flaw or easy-way-out engineering and this post fired them up!!

By the way BryceGTX, drove the 430 hydro this weekend, nice and smooth. Never would have thought it would still be running great after 20 years and over 2000 hard hours of trouble free service after talking to you.

 

I have no argument about these guys having their own opinion. I fault them for not playing by their own rules which they spell out so succinctly in their web site. Here is what they say about their engine category :
"..does the engine perform? ..easy starting and smooth running? ..vibration or whine? .. is the power? .. it accelerate right from the moment you give it some throttle? .. torque to pull up the steeper hills with the engine revving too high??"

No where in the above OBJECTIVE comparison does it state: oh, by the way, it loses many points if the same engine is in a heavier quad. Quite the contrary, it only talks about engine characteristics.
Similar with their brake category:
".. the brakes work properly? .. controls easy to use? .. your hand reach and pull the lever easily? .. the foot pedal reached comfortably with your foot? "

Can you point me out in the above category on brakes where it talks about EBS?
An objective comparison of engines would be to state the horsepower or torque characteristics. Or as they state above how well it starts or runs. An objective comparison of brakes would be to measure the braking distance. Or how many times the brakes can be applied without fading. These are the objective comparisons that we find in car magazines. Seems that in this web site, the idea of objectivity is somewhat skewed even by their own standards.
BryceGTX

 

I like the engine comparison in the Yamaha versus the Polaris big bores:
The Polaris has no negative comments and only praise for the EFI it is called a "Great Engine". Yet somehow this twin-cylinder EFI great engine could not even muster enough points with an 8.5 to beat the single cylinder carbureted "Adequate" engine in the Grizzly at 9.0 LOL, even these guy's adjectives do not agree with their numerical assessment.
BryceGTX

 

Another good one is the Brakes on the Rubicon 500 and Kodiak 450 versus anyone. Heck, pick Artic Cat:
Rubicon 500 gets a 10 for a rear drum brake. Kodiak gets a 9 for a rear drum brake. On the other hand, the disc brakes all the way around on the Artic Cat get a 5? Their major complaint seems to be the single hand braking did not "work for" them. How about pointing a positive aspect of single hand braking, that is, they are safer than split brakes. Or maybe I should take their misguided advice and split the braking system on my Jeep so I have a front hand brake and a rear foot pedal. Yea right..
Come on guys get your act together. Give us some useful objective advice.
BryceGTX