yeah, 61.5 goin up hill in 4th gear maybe. some magazines have crap in them but they are still cool none the less.

 

hey man, that mag. is WAY off!!!! the magazine i was riding was saying that they toped out at 80 m.p.h. so i mean they must change the sprokets around. when i get on my bike and i let it open 5th pined im flat out MOVING i would say at least 10 mph more then that. but it all depends on how much weight your moving too.

 

only way i could see them going that slow was if they went down on the sprocket.

my dad's stock Grizzly 660 (that comes with a speedometer) max'd out at 61, and I've flown past him on my yfz without even being maxed out.

 

When a publication gets a bike for testing, we take a bike out of the stock of bikes, selected at random and the bike is left exactly with what the manufacturer sends to the consumer. There is no way for the manufacturer to know what bike we are going to select for our test. That randomly selected bike is what is used for evaluation. The bikes are picked up from a dealership. The bike is taken out of stock, not specifically meant for a magazine evaluation. If you got there 1/2 hour before us to buy your bike, then you would have purchased the bike we were going to eval. We will just take the next one in the stack of crates.

If you take 10 bikes and run them side by side, there is going to be a difference, top speed, accelleration,handling etc. But not usually that much. When the bikes are run, there are no secret tricks as to finding a sneaky hill or bad surface to run them on. (eg: Run the Brand X over there "down" the hill and then run the Brand "Z" up the hill to make it read slower..... it doesnt happen that way).

All of the bikes are run on the same surface. There is no desire to report one mfr better than the other, because we all have the same objective. That is to get the mfr's to build us better bikes! Look in the mags, and you will see all of the mfr's buying ad space. They get what advertising they pay for and the bike that is evaluated is taken out of random stock so as to ensure that there is not something "sneaky" with the test bike. No one has any set advantage with an evaluation.

Just for your info, but I dont think ATV Sport was that far off on their numbers...

The Bear

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

are you kidding me.......61 mph top speed YFZ...thats a stock warrior pinned. I would say that they are way off....not even close at all.

Raptors can hit mid to high 70's and these YFZ's are supposed to anihilate the raptors. There wont be any inihilation at 62 mph thats for sure, my warrior would beat it if the tops peed was 62.

they are wrong, thats what happens when you get a bunch of country club golfin journalists trying to ride quads and review them.

 

Bear I think we all can understand that the selection process is or is attempted to be done in a way that doesnt allow any tweaking by the mfg's, but I also think that many times this isnt as easy as it sounds and the units tested are also somtimes delivered and not picked up at random (even the test in question makes claim to receiving a atk that had different suspension than expected or that comes on a stock base unit etc) and since most times these are "loaners" we can understand that the people testing will get what they can etc.

Now as far as the top speed goes this in an entirely different issues altogether. I dont get too worked up over mag tests and the actuall measured numbers like you would get from a dyno or radar gun can always be different anyhow (the result is as much a part of the person setting it up as the machine being tested etc) but those numbers do seem a little lower than expected, and if we were to compare to previously test results on other models these numbers dont add up.

Hopefully its just a fluke of the set up of the testing and equipment (or maybe even a way to show that these "dangerous" toys are not as fast as some of the anti atv groups BS stories tell the public) and I cant see any advantage to anyone for the lower than expected top speeds anyhow.

Also your post would lead one to believe you are either one of the people involved with this test or are somehow involved with an atv publication of some kind. Is this the case, and if so do you mind sharing what your involvement is etc?

 

I know for a fact the YFZ is much faster than 61. However, I haven't seen the article yet, and the fact that all the top speeds are in the ballpark relatively speaking tells me that there may be other factors at work. Mags are just there to give you some technical data and the opinion of a few test riders. If you don't agree, fine. However, over the years I think they have done an overall accurate job of reporting results.

 

Exactly. The magazine likely forgot to mention that their drag races were being run uphill, in sand, or some other speed robbing surface. My son has a YFZ 450, and when he and I did some top speed runs against my Prairie 800 (back when it was still a 700), he would top end me badly. If I had my Prairie maxxed out with the speedometer reading 65 mph, he would pass me like I was sitting still, with what looked like at least a 10 mph top speed advantage. So if his top speed was really 61 mph, then that means my Prairie 700 really maxxed out at 51 mph. The speedometer may be off some on the Prairie 700, but I don't think it is off by 14 mph, and I don't think ANYBODY is going to believe that a Prairie 700 only has a 51 mph top speed, so there is something very wrong with ATV Sports claim of a 61 mph top speed on the YFZ.

TG8

 

are you kiding me 61 mph was that going up a hill?

 

wow is that it i thought the grizzly's would go way faster then that i though close to 70