I'm all sorts of confused on if its an sp or not, it is the triple triple with the three seperate cylinder heads and covers along with the triple pipe. When you losen and retorque do you do just that or do you also swap out a new o-ring gasket and do you torque to the suggested 11ft lbs or go a little bit higher?polarisorbust said:Im thinking you have a 96 XCR, my buddy had the same problem on his before. after you run the sled for about 100 miles, we loosened and re-torqued the heads and didn't have a problem after that.
All I know is it sucks to get burried in the deep stuff, takes ten men and a strong boy to get out. Have had zero problems with it though except for this, not sure why so many people say they are a pooch. Mine can hang with anything of its size of that era.polarisorbust said:we went 15 lbs. you have an SP aggressive chassis.
I have heard nothing good of that chassis, or that engine as far as that goes, hate to burst your bubble.Loopy said:All I know is it sucks to get burried in the deep stuff, takes ten men and a strong boy to get out. Have had zero problems with it though except for this, not sure why so many people say they are a pooch. Mine can hang with anything of its size of that era.polarisorbust said:we went 15 lbs. you have an SP aggressive chassis.
from "The history of the XCR" website said:How can I get my 1996-1998 XCR-600 triple triple (Aggressive chassis) to run right?
I spent 3 years with these sleds and it was definitely a love/hate relationship. I loved it when it ran right, but hated it most of the time. From the beginning this sled was one big compromise after another. Built as a parts bin special to compete against the Formula III-600 Skidoo and ZRT-600 Cat, the XCR-600 was never quite right and required a lot of constant attention to run properly on the trail. Based on the case reed Ultra 680 lower end with smaller cylinders, triple pipes from the Storm, and dropped in the good looking but extremely heavy Aggressive chassis, low end or trail power was never this sleds cup of tea- at least it didn’t lack too much in the top end department.
The 1996 XCR-600 SP was the worst of the bunch. Poor carb calibration, lousy clutching, and cdi/timing issues plagued this sled from the get-go. Jetted way fat and with very conservative clutching, out of the box setup left the new XCR staring at the taillights of any ZRT or Formula III it ran up against. The problems only got worse when the sled was ridden on the trail in the 5000-6300 rpm range, or about normal trail speeds. When fully broken in and warmed up, it would pull hard at WFO, but fell on its face anywhere else, peaky powerband was an understatement to say the least. 1997 brought revised jetting, clutching, and a new CDI which helped the out of box setup, but it was still far from perfect. 1998 was the final year of production and saw only decal changes from the year before. While it was the best of the bunch, Polaris left far too much on the table with this sled and they never could match the all around performance of the Skidoo or Cat. The new domestic twins, specifically the XC-700, easily surpassed the XCR-600 in every performance category and required far less tuning as well.
I ran a ’96, ’97 SE, and ’98 model XCR-600 and helped tune dozens of others. The following specs [based on Midwest riding under 2000’ with temps above 0 F] work well for the average trail rider, can be purchased at any Polaris dealer and make this sled an almost enjoyable snowmobile. It won’t be perfect, but at least Indy 500s won’t leave you down a trail!