I saw a scrambler 500 rider about 3 weeks ago ripping through a massive mudhole that I haven't dared to try yet on my AC. I don't know If I would make it or not, but I really haven't cared to walk through the crap to hook up the winch. This guy didn't care one way or the other. He was so covered in mud that you couldn't tell if he was a guy or a dang sasquatch. As tempted as I was, I decided it would be best not to go in, because I would be cleaning mud out of my truck seat for a week if I got stuck and had to walk around in it. It also made me wonder about that polaris front end compared to my limited slip.

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*

 

Well, here's another one of those pesky AC owners, but I'm not going to plug the arctic cat. I have owned '97 and '98 454's and currently have a 2000 model 500 on order, so how I feel about arctic cats is self explanatory. You say that reliability is important to you and you want to use a quad to do some work. One aspect you might want to consider is the automatic transmissions on the Sportsman, Grizzly, and Prarie. I haven't had any experience with long-term reiliability on these transmissions, but it's common knowledge that a manual transmission will be more reliable in the long run. This fact is even admitted in 4-Wheel ATV action so it's not just some anti-automatic transmission person talkin' here. Ot really depends on how much work/play you plan on doing. If I owned a farm and was buying it primarily to take the place of a tractor, I would consider a quad with automatic transmission; however, the honda ES seems to straddle the fence in attempts to give you the best of both worlds. You're the only one that knows specifically what you want and expect a quad to do so it's your decision and I'm sure whatever the decision you make you'll be satisfied since the performance and features found on the majority of ATV's today are becoming more and more similar due to the competition of different manufacturers. Good luck and good riding.

 

I believe you should seriously look into Arctic Cats. The 500 has the most torque on the market. I have a '98 454, and i love it.
Something you might want to keep in mind if you get a ATV to work with make sure it is liquid cooled. The only complaint i have with mine is it pushes in turns.

 

Sorry AC454, but if you go to Yamaha.com and look at the specs you will se that the Banshee has 37 ft.lbs of torque. But the Arctic Cat 500 has the most torque of any Utlity quad, more than the Suzuki 500 too because the Arctic Cat has more compression.

 

Personally, you already have a Polaris, and I suggest choosing a tough utility atv. You have some sporty side in the scrambler-eliminating a Wolverine as a choice. So, your choices may be narrowed to the Honda Foreman 450, Yamaha Kodiak, or Kawasaki Prairie. But before I continue, I'll say buy a Grizzly if you can afford it..


For reliabily and durability and long lasting the HONDA is always the winner. It's the best company, I think..however, it has recieved much competition in its top class quads--although there's no question when getting something like a RECON, it has had some competition. Now, the Honda's downsides are that the Foremans require more strength than usual to make turns. It also is a couple hundred more than the Prairie. Personally, I'd eliminate the Honda for this reason. Now, I'd narrow it to the Prairie and Kodiak.



The Kodiak and Prairie are the same price...however, its just a toss up here. They are both great atvs. They both look cool and are tough atvs. Although I've always picked Honda, here the choice is between the Kodiak and Prairie. I'd look to see which one I could get for cheaper, and which is easier to buy. See if you can talk the dealer down a couple hundred then pick the cheaper one. I personally wouldn't pick a Polaris ATV-here...go with something different.

------------------
Alibaba

'98 Honda 300ex, '97 Honda Recon, '86 TRX125

 

About who has the most torque...

I'm aware of Arctic Cat's apparently unchallenged ads claiming to have the most torque, and if they really do have more compression than the Suzuki 500 engine, then that may explain that difference. Personally, though, I'll have to see more than ads before I'll believe that any other 4x4 has more torque than the Yamaha Grizzly. With about 20% more capacity and a longer stroke to boot, I just find it difficult to accept that it produces less torque than a short-stroke 500. I wouldn't bet a lot either way, but I seldom bet against sound logic. I wouldn't be so skeptical about peak HP ratings, but when it comes to torque, lots of cubic inches and a nice long stroke usually paint a pretty clear picture.

I'm not saying its all that meaningful, though. Once you have enough torque to spin all four tires, what will even more torque do for you? I'd still rather have a super light 300 to 400cc machine than a heavyweight 500 or 600. Too much torque can get you in trouble, too. The new 400cc Big Bear looks mighty good to me on paper. If Yamaha would use better bearings and seals, I'd be really tempted.

 

This post discusses four stroke-cycle engines.

All things being equal, more displacement, plus longer stroke, equals: more torque.

However, all things are seldom equal.

A shorter-stroked 500 cc engine (e.g., Suzuki/AC 500) MAY produce higher maximum torque than a longer-stroked 600 cc engine (e.g., Yamaha 600).

How? Valve timing. Possibly, the Suzuki engineers optimized valve overlap (the interval when both intake and exhaust valves are simultaneously open) and duration (the total period each valve is open) for more torque, while the Yamaha talent went for more horsepower.

Typically, for higher horsepower at higher rpm's, increased valve overlap and duration result in higher horsepower ouput, but may correspondingly reduce maximum torque, plus, move the torque and horsepower peaks closer together on the rpm scale.

Conversely, for maximum torque, overlap may be minimized or eliminated, and duration shortened, increasing torque peak, and lowering the rpm where maximum torque occurs.

Overlap, and duration before and beyond top- and bottom-dead-center, make engines "lope" at low rpm's, as though valves are leaking (which, actually, they are, if you consider partially-open valves as leaking). At higher rpm's only, however, the intake and exhaust charges flow as a continuous stream, enabling greater scavenging, improving volumetric efficiency, and processing more fuel, resulting in more power. No free lunch: low-rpm torque suffers.

Cam grinders typically offer "torque" grinds for 4X4 engines, and "race" grinds for the track; the timing of these cams varies as described.

Like Gordon, I'm not making any bets on which engine produces what output. Only the dyno knows for sure.

Tree Farmer

[This message has been edited by atvbbs (edited 08-27-1999).]

 

How dare you Gordon. I know for a fact that my AC 500 has a lot more torque than a Grizzly. The stroke doesn't matter at all. The stock tires are what gives it all that power advantage. I would think that I could outrun a grizzly 0-35 anyday in any conditions as well. I clocked this thing with a gps and a radar gun and got constant 65mph readings against the wind at 5degrees below zero. As for a lighter bike, they flip over all the time so I wouldn't want anything less than a 400. The heavier, the more stable, hands down. AC rules.. AC rules...


Just kidding on all accounts, Its pretty hard for me to understand how the Suzuki motor makes more torque than the 600cc yamaha as well. They say so, but it doesn't seem like it should be that way for some reason. Also, I never ran out of wheel pulling power on my 300. The 500 pulls a gear higher on a paved hill, but how much of an advantage is that when we're talking about off road vehicles. Also, about the smaller lighter bikes, I can adjust to terrain easier on the 300 too. My feet don't even come close to the ground when sitting on the 500. If it started to go on its side, then it is definitely bail out city for Andrew C. Bassham. You have a good point.

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*

 

Woah!!! That's technical stuff Tree Farmer. I'm gonna have to lie down 'cus my head is hurtin'.

 

Guys, you have the advantage with the new Forum: My name clearly appears before each of my posts!

You two Arctic Cat riders amaze me! Someone says he doubts your shorter-stroked, lower-displacement machines produce more torque than the Grizzly; I provide a plausible reason why this may be so, and you criticize ME! (Although, unlike you, Andy, I don't "know for a fact" the AC is "torquier than thou.") I'm clearly on your side, yet you complain.

If technical discussions, such as why one engine may produce more torque than another offend you, I suggest you ignore them.

If you don't want to read about or discuss technical details of ATV's and their engines, I assure you: reading my posts is optional!

I assure you further--I won't be offended at all if you ignore my offerings.

Many, like you, may be content operating equipment without any interest or effort in understanding "why" or "how." I wish you many miles and hours of happy, carefree riding.

As for others, with some technical aptitude and interest, I appreciate your posts and comments; I've learned a lot from you and remain grateful for the Forum as an arena for exchanging ideas, information, and experience, benefits I will continue enjoying.

Tree Farmer

[This message has been edited by Tree Farmer (edited 08-06-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Tree Farmer (edited 08-06-1999).]