Snowmobile Fanatics banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have heard several say that evolved front suspension can be put on a wedge without issue, but what about Gen2 (with the regular trailing arms, not the tipped in ones)? Are the trailing arms the same length and would the sway bar fit in the same spot?

Anyone tried this?

thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,842 Posts
no. the gen 2 and newer sleds went to the short arm that went under the foot board. not along side it like the wedge did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Originally posted by madcow
[br]no. the gen 2 and newer sleds went to the short arm that went under the foot board. not along side it like the wedge did.
There are a couple Gen2's that do not have those shorter tipped in arms like the indy 500, super sport and trail for example. I was wondering more about those. They appear to be similar to the outboard style you refer to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,729 Posts
eddiejr, you are right about some Gen II machines having the outboard trailing arms. The Polaris parts diagrams show different part numbers for them versus a wedge machine, though. I think the Gen II machines all had the shorter top radius rod. If that is the case, mounting locations of the radius rods and shocks may be different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
I think the Gen II sleds without XC-10 (the tipped in trailing arms) or CRC (unequal length radius rods and two steering cranks) are merely the same suspension that they put in the evolved sleds. I am not positive about this though. The 2000 Indy 500 doesn't have XC-10 or CRC, and it looks identical to the suspension on a 1997 Indy 500. I believe both are 9.2 inches of travel. I don't think you will get a greater improvement by going with a gen II instead of an evolved.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Originally posted by jdzaharia
[br]eddiejr, you are right about some Gen II machines having the outboard trailing arms. The Polaris parts diagrams show different part numbers for them versus a wedge machine, though. I think the Gen II machines all had the shorter top radius rod. If that is the case, mounting locations of the radius rods and shocks may be different.
Yeah, i noticed that too JD. I think that might be because they had the wider ski stance maybe (42.5 vs 41?)? In looking further they seem to be the same part numbers as the 99 evolved sleds (which also had the 42.5 stance. If you take the 99 Trail for example though, it has the same trailing arms as the outboard gen2's but seems to have even the same tunnel and bulkhead as the earlier trails that had the 41" stance and xtra 10 up front. THis is what got me wondering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Originally posted by chadd
[br]I don't think you will get a greater improvement by going with a gen II instead of an evolved.
Actually i am just looking into things to potentially broaden the possibilities as i have found next to no 97-up wedge or evolved non-crc thus far unfortunately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Getting ready to do this conversion myself and this is what I found. Donor sled is a 2000 xcr 800 the arms are outboard and the same length and spindle as my 96 ultra but have a heim joint at the rear mount. no big deal . they moved the swaybar mount to the side of the arm instead of on top like the wedge witch works nice because with the wider ski stance this is necessary for the swaybar to work. Now radius rods. Have to use the gen II lowers and the wedge lowers as uppers. The shock body is taller so if you don't widden the stance you actually lose travel. Also need to lower the front of the rear skid about 1" to compensate for your added front ride height. Good luck
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top