Snowmobile Fanatics banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,630 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
i thought i seen a picture of it in their little preview they had on their site b4 march 8th. i dont really liek the sound of a 4 stroke but theyare a ton more powerful right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
uh, no. they are really slow and very heavy. like 560+ dry heavy i think. topping out at 60 mph or whatever it is doesn't excite me too much. now the rx-1 is a powerful 4-stroke- that one tops out at 122 mph.

There's no stopping Arctic Cat........ REALLY!!

'99 XC SP 500
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Yea, I rode both the Polaris Frontier and the Arctic Cat Yellowstone special and they both are nothing too exciting. I wanna get my hands on that RX-1 though. Ah, the hell with it, my F7 Firecat will more than make up for my thirst for acceleration.


Semper Fidelis= Always Faithful- United States Marines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
I think in a couple of years we will see Polaris and Cat come out with a 4-stroke like the RX-1.... Who knows maybe even sooner than that.

I think its Snowing!!
1999 Polaris XCR 440
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
975 Posts
paulxlt...you have an F7? Wah! nice sled. That mean that you're gonna change your name to paulcat? (just kiddin) Nice sled though if you got one
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,729 Posts
Well guys, you gotta remember that even though the RX-1 is a GREAT ENGINE WITH LOTS OF POWER....its still the little brother to the 2-stroke engine in the power department. Now im not knocking yammi, actually im applauding them for their ingenuity (sp?) and im sure if they keep it up we will eventually find the 4-strokes to be pretty good. But if you think about it, the 4-stroke has to make almost twice the HP to keep up with the 2-stroke. For the time being, i think the 4-strokes will probably mostly stay in a touring type sled. And until i see one in person and get to "try" to pick up the front end of it.....i will think they are wayyyyyy to heavy for my taste. But time and engineering can make great gains in these departments. as the common phrase goes....only time will tell.

Polaris is my way out - Other people just use a door.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Originally posted by TriumphoverU:
Well guys, you gotta remember that even though the RX-1 is a GREAT ENGINE WITH LOTS OF POWER....its still the little brother to the 2-stroke engine in the power department. Now im not knocking yammi, actually im applauding them for their ingenuity (sp?) and im sure if they keep it up we will eventually find the 4-strokes to be pretty good. But if you think about it, the 4-stroke has to make almost twice the HP to keep up with the 2-stroke. For the time being, i think the 4-strokes will probably mostly stay in a touring type sled. And until i see one in person and get to "try" to pick up the front end of it.....i will think they are wayyyyyy to heavy for my taste. But time and engineering can make great gains in these departments. as the common phrase goes....only time will tell.

Polaris is my way out - Other people just use a door.
[/quote]


Sorry to disagree with you but you are wrong. Hp is hp, doesn't matter how many strokes it takes to make it. You are thinking a little backwards. Hp many times is measured at the crank, all the stuff that has to do with it being a 4 stroke or a 2 stroke happens before the crank. Yes the 4 stroke design is much less efficient at making the power, but if it makes it it makes it. So what you are saying is 150 hp from a two stroke is double the power as 150 hp on a four stroke? WRONG


2002 Arctic Cat ZR 800 EFI

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,729 Posts
Well only thing im wondering about is how can my 600 cc sled hit 110 mph without a problem while producing around 100 hp....while it takes this 150 hp 4-stroke sled to do reletivley the same thing but yet it Rev's higher than the 2-strokes, has about 400 cc more than my 2-stroke, and also, should be able to breathe better due to having 4 cylinders instead of 2 or 3. Thats my reason of thinking, not saying that anyone is wrong....because i do see what your saying and i do agree with it.

On the other hand, i have also heard that the Rx-1 uses some type of gear box (possibly gear reduction) off of the crank shaft to transfer power from the crank to the clutch....i would really like to know where they are measuring their HP from. Is it off of the engine or is it from the gearbox they are using. If the motor can rev to 10,500 rpm like i have heard, there is no way they would spin a clutch that fast so they would have to use a gear reduction to slow it down some, and by doing that they would gain some HP because of it. So i guess until i see one in person, my opinion is going to remain up in the air about all this 4-stroke stuff.

Polaris is my way out - Other people just use a door.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,099 Posts
oh boy here we go again, the great 2 stroke 4 stroke debate. this should be exciting



confusedguy
Snow Pimp


USA
139 Posts



snow pimp???????? that is so insane! i like it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
I'm not saying one is better or anything like that, I just think some people are misunderstanding how power is rated and such.

2002 Arctic Cat ZR 800 EFI

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
Some people don't understand the fact that a 4 strokes and 2 strokes are different. THink about it put a 300 Horsepower 350 on a drag strip next to your 600 cc sled and in a 1/8 mile I bet money your sled will win. Does that mean the 300 Horsepower car is a waste of time and shouldn't be there? I don't want to start a debate but think about that. And yeah I know a car weighs a lot more but 4 strokers and 2 stroker horsepower are sort of not the samething.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Originally posted by Sled_Dog:
4 strokers and 2 stroker horsepower are sort of not the samething.


[/quote]


But they are....you are comparing two different things. If you take a 500 pound four stroke sled and a 500 pound two stroke sled and both make the same power with the same power curve they will both be just as fast. You are assuming that power and weight go together, they don't.


2002 Arctic Cat ZR 800 EFI

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
actually power and weight do go together. Every 7 pounds added or removed from a sled is equivalent to removing or addinf 1 horsepower. ANd also preliminary word from magazines is that the RX-1 is hitting over 120 MPH so it is doing a bit more than your 600cc .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,222 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Originally posted by Sled_Dog:
actually power and weight do go together. Every 7 pounds added or removed from a sled is equivalent to removing or addinf 1 horsepower.
[/quote]

You are just not understanding what I am saying...oh well I tried. BTW I do know that formula



2002 Arctic Cat ZR 800 EFI

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
On the other hand, i have also heard that the Rx-1 uses some type of gear box (possibly gear reduction) off of the crank shaft to transfer power from the crank to the clutch....i would really like to know where they are measuring their HP from. Is it off of the engine or is it from the gearbox they are using. If the motor can rev to 10,500 rpm like i have heard, there is no way they would spin a clutch that fast so they would have to use a gear reduction to slow it down some, and by doing that they would gain some HP because of it.
[/quote]

If my physics hasn't totally left me, by going through gears, they would actually loose power, so measuring from the clutch on the RX-1 would actually give a lower value that the true crank horsepower of the engine. Unless the gears had an efficiency of greater than 100%, which to my knowledge don't exist. Every extra bit the engine has to turn involves more friction and friction robs power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,099 Posts
thank you safari! you are right there, hp can be measured at the crank, to give you spec for the motor, but for true hp alot of different variables are there, if you measure at the secondary,, you have loss because of the belt and friction, or what is called friction loss, if you move to the gearing like you stated, there is loss there as well, different gearing could either result in gaining some or lossing some, and the friction comes into play here as well. i believe true hp can only be measureed at the rear of the track to give you the final reading, this is what is called true horsepower. but im staying out of this debate, cause sometimes i get things confused, so if i am off on this one,,,,feel free to correct me.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,565 Posts
fair and accurate isn't what they want to sell sleds though. how would you market a 135 hp 800 against a 140 hp 800? i agree it would be nice, but i don't think they'd do it. do they have a standard for measuring hp like automobile manufacturers do? or do they just get their numbers from wherever they can get the highest readings?

the reason a four stroke is at a disadvantage is because firing occurs twice as often in a two stroke in the same amount of time. to get equal power from a four stroke, displacement, rpm, or pressure of air entering the engine must be doubled. this is according to the formula which i also have- but not on me at the moment. this is fun, i did my term paper on this!

'99 XC SP 500
Fox shocks stickers- 15 hp
handlebar hooks/riser- 10 hp
red skid plate- 10 hp
red hyfax- 5 hp
running board/edge grips- 20 hp
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top