I have searched and the Polaris Sportsman models keep coming up as being very good rock crawlers due to their AWD with light steering, very good ground clearance, and aftermarket removable link sway bars. So are these still the undisputed champs of rock crawling or is something else perhaps like the new Artic Cat with 10 inches of suspension, mega ground clearance, and the Suzi 700 single EFI motor going to take over. Also, how much of a disadvantage in the big rocks would you have on a King Quad or Grizzly with appropriate modifications?

 

Obviously, you need lots of ground clearance and supspension travel for this task. The sportsmans, Arctic Cats, and the Yamaha Grizzly fit the bill. the Bomb OL 650 and 800 are right there also. Usually rock crawling envolves high altitudes, therefore i would suggest efi. This will eliminate the grizzly and narrow your search down even more. Depending on how much you have to spend as to which one will be best. The only efi machine AC offers is the new 700efi. It's going to be a first year production machine, uses the suzuki KQ engine, and is going to be pricey. The others will be the OL 650 and 800efi. They too are going to be pricey and don't have quite the travel. The polaris has efi in a 500, 700, and 800. The 500 is going to be the best priced, but this is the 500's first year being efi. It had some issues at first, but they have resolved them now. The 700 and 800efi have been around a little while now, so they're fine, but more $ than a 5oo. Also the sportsmans have the best under carriage protection in the buisness, reason for part of their weight. The Suzuki KQ 700 is efi and a great machine, however, has the least amount of GC and suspension travel of any I've mentioned. It's an excellent all around quad though and well priced. The sportsmans, and cats are great work/mud/rock machines. Heavier than the others and larger. If the grizz was efi, and I suspect it will be next year, I would suggest it, as it is basically a KQ with more gc and suspension travel making it a good trail/mudder/rock/work machine, but no efi, now anyways.

 

Ppope,
I agree with your arguments. You've pretty much nailed it. I would add and something for consideration, a front axle side to side locker. I know Arctic Cat has one and others too, but I'm not familar with those. It does make the steering effort go up if this is an issue. I have an AC 650 and just ordered a Bomb 800. The Bomb has a front limited slip which eliminates the difficult steering, but it is less effective than a true locker. Should Oldturtle choose the Bomb and decide to put on larger tires for his rock crawling the Bomb's Visco lock is significantly degraded because of the larger tires.

Personally, for rock crawling - and I do quite a bit of that - I would not be without a direct, full time connection between the front and rear axles. Unfortunately, Polaris does not have this and that is a delimiter for me. Their AWD system is very effective in mud, snow, gravel, etc., but less so when on non-slippery surfaces. As you know this is because the rear wheels must slip in order for the fronts to engage. This can be very tricky in rock crawling. You do not want the fronts to be "pushed" over the rocks, you want the fronts to "crawl" over, pulling the front of the machine up and over.

 

true jimja. i am not a rock crawler, so you have the best experience/advice in this area.

 

Now when it comes to mudding and working a machine, I have the knowledge one needs. The cats and Sportsmans rule this category. It's all we use in the log woods, except for my dads old 1995 honda fourtrax 300. But we all know those 300's are just incredibly unstoppable. The word Enigizer comes to mind.

 

Ppope,

I've got a question for you. My experience in mud is less than limited (WY, <6" rain/yr - duh), but I've seen what farmers in the mid west have done (raised in IA and am still a "gentleman's farmer") and have a question about mudding. For mud and snow with a car or truck, wide tires just don't cut it...at all. In those vehicles you want narrower tires to get down to the hard, grippable traction surface. Because wide tires tend to float, you end up squirming all over the place, never getting any real traction.

My question is, why do mudders not try narrow tires on the rear and add, say, a 110 pound tractor weight, on the rear rack? Seems to me this would get the rear of the bike down to the earth where the rear tires can get some traction. Keeping big tires on the front for floatation would keep the air intakes high and dry. There must be a reason this isn't done. I've never seen or heard anyone trying this.

 

Well, the weight thing is one reason the Cats and popos do so much better in the mud than others. Honestly, the tire part, well one assumes the wider the contact pad the more traction is to be got, however, your point is also true. With a wider tire, your chances of bogging down are less likely to happen. If you stay on top, you usually paddle your way out rather than diggin. This is really a good queston, that I have no real answer for other than it is. My bike does better in the swamps with larger/wider tires, but it does even better when i ride 2up. Maybe someone else can help us solve this.......

 

+1 to everything here, I would get the AC or Grizz, and between those two the Grizz.

 

Imagine taking a tobacco barn stick and trying to force it through the mud. Then imagine taking a boat paddle and doing the same thing. The paddle will take much more force to get through, because it is making more contact. This is the way larger tires work. More contact = more traction.

 

If speed wasn't a factor I'd get the Kodiak 450. IRS, locker, smaller, lighter, and more managable