As alluded to above there is a huge difference in work engines compared to performance engines. You wouldn't want that Ninja 600 engine on your lawn mower any more than you'd want that briggs&stratton 10hp on your motorcycle.

Utility ATV's try at the best of both worlds, and I think they do a pretty good job.

Put that 600 ninja in your ATV frame and my little kodiak will drag your *** up a mountan.

I've got a 20 hp tractor that'll out pull any ATV I've ever seen, I don't care how much hp you have.

 

I understand the ability to make it more compact, I am just not sure in a Utility application that by the time you hook it to a tranny that has both a front and rear drive shaft coming off it that you wont end up mounting such a motor higher in the frame than a V-design would be as far as CG is concerned. I supose though if they took a page from the Honda rule book of design they could turn it side ways to help keep it low in the frame, I doubt they do that but I can see it as possable, I think it would mean they would have to have a geared or hydro type trans like honda uses to make that placement work.

 

Hopefully Yamaha does it right and builds a V-twin...there's no need to make a parallel twin IMO, the V-twins run soooo much smoothier. The Polaris' 700's parallel twin viberates really bad.

 

HA my brute puts out like 52 ft pounds of torqe stock man

 

Disregard that post it was my cousin (he'es an idiot)

 

Don't confuse "inline" with "parallel". Inline simply means how the cylinder banks are configured, while parallel means the pistons move in the same direction all the time... if polaris were to offset the crank throws 180*, the engine would smooth out a lot (only one piston at TDC at a time) and would be smoother than the V-twins. I'm not sure if Polaris uses an auxiliary balance shaft in their engines, but that helps out a lot with engines that have a tendency to vibrate on their own (like Ford's triton V-10, it has a balance shaft to correct vibration). I'm still at a loss as to why polaris chose the parallel crank....

The inline configuration itself is ideal for a number of reasons. It is smoother and inherently stronger by nature than a Vee design.... each crank throw only supports one rod and piston, the main bearing caps take smaller loads, and the pulsating action of the combustion events is isolated to just one direction (helps with both vibration and efficiency). While the 90* configuration does help itself in a few ways, it doesn't completely cancel out most frequencies of vibration that inline engines do naturally (talking multiple cylinders here, doesn't apply to singles). The Polaris twin is extremely compact too... all it needs is an opposing crank and a DOHC valvetrain with 4 valves per cylinder to be the toughest and strongest engine on the market. I would kill to have an engine like that with a manual transmission.

 

I think it was so they could use one carb or the single intake system.

 

I would like to see an 800 grizz geared different. I wouldn't mind if they stuck with the 660 in it's current configuration if they geared it different to low rev at around 65 mph. It sucks driving on the highway with the throttle pinned for very long to stay above 60 MPH, it makes me nervous and I pull off the highway for a few miles to keep it around 40/45 so I don't blow the motor. If the 660 had a cruising gear, I would be happy.

 

Quads arnt meant to be ran on highways......and you could hold it at full throttle all day and not hurt that motor.
If it could run lower RPM's down the highway at 60 it wouldnt be able to bo a thing at low speeds because it would be geared way too high.

 

I looked thru your pics WyoBullRydr........thats a nice little cabin. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]