LMAO Banshee2003, you got a Poo problem!!!
BryceGTX

 

A 1-ton tank RX-1. LMFAO. The 1000 doo is 529lbs, what a joke for a 2-stroke sled. The Apex mountain with 4 cylinder's of 4-stroke attitude is 596 lbs. The Polaris RMK is 539lbs. If the competition build's a 4-stroke sled like there 2-stroke sled they will be over 600lbs. Check out the Big Iron shoot out in Revelstoke BC Canada this March. First place last year was a some cat over 1000 cc's with twin turbos. Second was a turboed RX1 that had 4000 km on the engine. That the guy rides every weekend. Let's see your Doo live that long with that much power LMAO. With a power curve of about 1000 rpm the Doo is real fun to ride LMAO. Take an RX 1 and feel the torque from idle to wot you will never go back. Accelerate like a 2-stroke? No problem. The Apex as said by snowmobile tv: "The Apex has the handling of a 2-stroke sled with the insane accleration that most big bore 2-strokes wish thay had". Forget that caveman technology of a 2-stroke and get a dependable, powerful, long lasting, snowmobile that dare I say has reverse. Meet me at the lakes with that 05 Machz and my turboed RX-1 will blow your doors of with only 6 lbs of boost and I can take it up to 13 lbs.

 

Sparky you sound as stupid as you probably look.

First off 4000km (2400 miles) is not much at all. I put about 4000 MILES a year and I keep my sleds for over 3 years or try to new sled always catches my eye. what the hell would I need a turbo on my sled for. The power curve you speak of that is 1000rpm its more like 5000rpms and its a powervalve motor which means powerband. Plain facts prove the RX1 will not run with the MachZ UNLESS you have about a 5 mile streatch for the 1-Ton to catch up.

The weight of the 1-ton and the MachZ are close however the MachZ does a better job of distributing the weight. The RX-1 is front heavy.

I have riden the RX1 and it is a bore to ride, it sucks in the trails. Snowmobile TV sponsored by Yamaha Motors. Give it up if you believe everything you read or someone tells you, you are stupid.

Cave man technology hmmmmm wasn't the 4-stroke created before the 2-stroke.

"Dare you say has reverse". You must no sh$t about snowmobiles. The Ski-doo's have RER it is a completely weightless reverse. You want to talk technology I want to see you take your wonderfull 4-stroke and reverse the motor.

Wow lets make it a far race you need only 6lbs of boost to beat a STOCK MachZ wow your so cool I wish i could be just like you. Stock for Stock your piece of sh$t 4-stroke will NOT beat the MachZ stock. Get a 2-stroke and feel some real acceleration, torque is for trucks not sleds

 

[/quote]

A 1-ton tank RX-1. LMFAO. The 1000 doo is 529lbs, what a joke for a 2-stroke sled. The Apex mountain with 4 cylinder's of 4-stroke attitude is 596 lbs. The Polaris RMK is 539lbs. If the competition build's a 4-stroke sled like there 2-stroke sled they will be over 600lbs. Check out the Big Iron shoot out in Revelstoke BC Canada this March. First place last year was a some cat over 1000 cc's with twin turbos. Second was a turboed RX1 that had 4000 km on the engine. That the guy rides every weekend. Let's see your Doo live that long with that much power LMAO. With a power curve of about 1000 rpm the Doo is real fun to ride LMAO. Take an RX 1 and feel the torque from idle to wot you will never go back. Accelerate like a 2-stroke? No problem. The Apex as said by snowmobile tv: "The Apex has the handling of a 2-stroke sled with the insane accleration that most big bore 2-strokes wish thay had". Forget that caveman technology of a 2-stroke and get a dependable, powerful, long lasting, snowmobile that dare I say has reverse. Meet me at the lakes with that 05 Machz and my turboed RX-1 will blow your doors of with only 6 lbs of boost and I can take it up to 13 lbs.[/quote]

Yep, pretty much a tank! Bring your 596# tank to the real mountains and see how well it does. The new Cats weigh in at less than 500#... so an extra 100 # when your buried chest deep (lifting your sled over your head) makes a HUGE difference.
Granted the 4 strokes do run decent... They should, those are designed after a street bike motor.
Just blow one up sometime, and tell me how much better/cheaper they are to rebuild!!! Cams, valves, timing chains, etc etc etc....
Oh, and don't be bashing the new 1000cc Doo... it's emissions are as good or better than your 4 stroke... so get off the caveman technology B.S.

 

Wow you guys are funny, especially banshee, you get all riled up and scream at each other on the internet. You guys and your big bad statistics, I still think I can keep up on my 96 indy ultra [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

 

BANSHEE you missed the whole point of my post. What I was getting at was how long the modded Yamaha has lasted. Lets see a turboed 400 hp 2 stroke last as long the RX-1. Your craxy to think that it will even last a season of riding. Sure it will cost more to rebuild, but that is a weak arguement because the RX-1 will last forever. You can whine and complain that the RX-1 is not stock but who cares, how many people run stock machines? In a real world comparison he who has the most money wins and the Big Iron Shootout is proof of that. To let you know the T.V. program that I watched is actually sponsored by SKI-DOO so that remark about having a biased opinion is way out to lunch. One last thing is that my Dad restores antique tractors and he has a unit that was built in 1912 that uses the same technology that your Doo uses to back up. It spins the engine in reverse. Now that's some up to date 90 year old technology.BANSHEE your name calling is a sign of your intelligence try and be more grown-up when posting. By the first line in your response you intelligence shines through.



DUNEADDICT

Thank you for the great response. I do admit that the RX-1 is heavier but for a 4-stroke it's not to far off from most 2-strokes, at least compared to the other machine that I mentioned earlier. I do realize that the 1000cc doo has great emmisions, but as good as a fuel injected 4-stroke? I can't see it. Exhaust scavenging is still a real issue that can't quite be perfected because of the design of the 2-stroke engine. If it was possible that a 2-stroke could be as efficient than why wouldn't manufacturers design one to run in a sports car? The only reason that I can see is that they can't.

 

You are absolutely correct! Exhaust scavenging is an issue, but not so complex that it can't be overcome.
Trying to remember off the top of my head here: Some University in Minnesota? or some mid-western state U. has been in engineering competitions for several years (Engineering departments of Different schools compete against each other) regarding 2 & 4 stroke emissions. I'm thinking it was 2003 when they actually had a cleaner burning 2 stroke (Beat all the 4 strokes in the competition)
Lets not forget to mention that the lubrication folks (Oil mfgrs) have some homework to do too.. There's proof that emissions could be lowered even more by changing Oil formulations.... although I'm certainly no expert...

The EPA will have the last word, but everytime they tighten the rope... the engineers produce a better/more efficient design.

There has been a few mfgrs build 2 stroke vehicles... all your older detroit diesels are 2 strokes, Saab used to produce a 2 stroke car... but this is the old Tech of yester-year.
Keep in mind, my discussion was about emissions, not efficiency... two different animals. besides, most car engineers are bound by the bean counters to build what ever is competitive cost/performance wise. Who knows what we could be driving if they were allowed to 'think out of the box'

Good discussion here... this is what the forums are all about....
Don't need any name calling B.S., etc. Run what ya brung, it's all in fun anyhows right?

Regards,

 

Hey guys, all you have to do in a two stroke to solve this problem is to not let the fuel go out the exhaust. There are two ways to do this and Bombardier has done both. The first way is to use direct injection to inject the fuel after the piston closes off the exhaust port. Seadoo did this on the 951 DI. The second way is to carefully time the injection so the fuel is injected into the trasfer port just before the piston closes so that it has little chance to make it out the exhaust port. Skidoo does this with SDI and Polaris is now doing it with clean fire on the 700 and 900. The disadvantage of the DI is that it requires a high pressure pump. The SDI/clean fire are very simple and only require moving the injectors from the throttle body to the transfer port.
I hope this explains it a little better.
BryceGTX

 

That does help greatly. Thanks for the info.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-cool.gif[/img]

 

Probably this will never happen because of durability rather than efficiency. Fact is, four strokes just plain last longer. But when you want HP/weight ratio, you can't beat a two stroke. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]
BryceGTX