If your gunna talk shit about the grizzly and you like polaris, shut the fuck up, half of the people who debate have never rode both of them and you just say shit about the other one
That 20% more weight is what gets you through the mud. I can ride mine all day and not feel fatigued. I have a stock 2002 sportsman 500 and it does great in just about every situation I put it in. I would have to say that it's slower than most other ATVs, but it performs where it counts - 4x4... I have yet to see anything that'll beat a sportsman, except another sportsman with mods. Again, I'm not talking about drag racing, I'm talking about off roading. There's nothing wrong with weight.
@Eriklee123 You're the dumbass! Jeep Wranglers are heavier than they look - over 3700 lbs. They're far from light. In comparison, older Ford Explorers are 3800 lbs. If you want to talk about a light SUV, talk about Suzuki Samurais and Geo Trackers - they are light. Jeeps do good because of their short wheelbases, same as Suzukis. If the jeep were to do better than the other 2, it's because it's heavier. Learn some facts before you argue about something you know nothing about dumbass!
@mscmatt acually no...more weight in mud gets you stuck easier , get good mud tires and going trail riding on hills that weight takes more power to pull around.
@OverxKiIllx From my experience, I've found the extra weight of the polaris (690lbs dry) to work to my advantage. The Grizzly is a good ATV, but I've gone through some mud holes that will defeat them - and they had better tires than me. Both machines had independent rear suspension, and the grizzly even had more power. I will also say that the Grizzly had a better 4x4 system, but it didn't seem to matter with this mud hole... Weight trumps everything else. That's all there is to it.
@mscmatt Although extra weight might help in SOME situatiions, extra weight is almost always a liability while recreational riding, especially in the rough stuff. In SOME mud, where there is a solid bottom within reach of the tires for the tires to grip on to, extra weight probably helps. But in mud with no bottom within reach of the tires, sand, steep hills, jumps, rock crawling, etc., the extra weight hurts.
@WKHalford Pros and Cons of a heavy ATV: Pros: Towing and Hauling Rock crawling (keeps wheels planted) Steep hills (keeps wheels planted) Mud holes and creek crossings Cons: Racing Jumping *And heavy ATVs can be deadly if they roll on top of you A heavy ATV is only good if you're trying to use it for applications that you would benefit from with the extra weight. I never proclaimed that the Sportsman was the absolute best at everything, but for what I use it for, it is.
@mscmatt Towing: Yes, but makes little/no difference if the load is light and/or easy to move.
Steep hills: Low C/G helps, not weight. The more steep, the more power and traction needed to pull extra weight uphill. I proved this true when riding my BF750 and Wolverine 450 back to back up steep, slick hills.
Creek crossing: Yes, weight reduces chances of floating, keeps tires in contact.
Mud: Again, depends on type of mud and if there's a solid bottom within reach of the tires.
@mscmatt Rock crawling: Custom rock buggy builders don't add anything not related to safety, performance, durability, or reliability. Why? They don't want any more weight than necessary. Many build modified Toyotas, Samurais, Jeeps, etc. because of the advantages of smaller and lighter.
Polaris builds a good ATV, and has made many improvements over the years. And they are good for work.
But for the best overall performance in recreational situations, lighter is almost always better.
@WKHalford I'm willing to agree with that - we're not going to see custom rock buggy builders strapping weights to their vehicles... At the same time, these buggies aren't designed to haul/tow things year 'round, plow snow in the winter, etc. Looking at the industry from the last 15 years, it appears that most manufacturers have been copying Polaris' ideas in the form of independent rear suspension, automatic transmissions, push button 4x4, etc. They know what they're doing...
@mscmatt They were first in many ways. Being first doesn't mean better. It wasn't hard for them to use a snowmobile's CVT. But up until the RZR 900, no Polaris CVT ever had a wet clutch like Yam/Suz/Arctic Cat.
There's a reason why the RZR 900 has a wet clutch: durability.
The wet clutch is 1 reason why Yamaha is known as having the industry's best CVT. There's no belt wear when it engages like Polaris/Can Am/Kaw, and is 1 reason why I prefer Yamaha for things like rock crawling.
@mscmatt I would imagine that the RZR 900 has a wet clutch because of it's massive power and heavier weight. Plus, I'm sure they want a more durable CVT for racing.
I imagine that more Polaris models will be be designed with a wet clutch in the future. It just makes sense to have it.
Them equipping the RZR 900 with a wet clutch tells me that the older CVTs without one have limitations, and therefore is inferior to a wet clutch design. So they basically had to copy the Yamaha design.
@WKHalford Point well taken; but you and I both know this discussion isn't about wet clutches or the RZR 900. We're straying from the original point of discussion, which was whether or not weight is good or bad for a full size 4x4 utility ATV. I'm coming from the point that it is - for its intended purposes. You were saying that it wasn't - for purposes that aren't necessarily in line with what a 4x4 utility ATV is meant for.
@mscmatt The point about the wet clutch stemmed from you saying they were first with an automatic. I used the wet clutch that several brands use as an example of how first isn't necessarily better.
I used the RZR 900 as an example of how CVT design limitations forced them to make a change in their CVT, part of which is likely due to extra weight.
What a utility ATV is intended to be used for is up to the buyer/rider. Most are used for recreation, where less weight is usually better.
@WKHalford The transmission was one of a few items that I cited when talking about Polaris as an industry leader... You focus on the tranny because other companies have come out years later and made improvements, which is to be expected in any industry. I also specifically used the word "idea," not "design" when talking about the tranny. So really, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill with this argument.
@mscmatt The actual word used isn't really the point. You were pointing out firsts, as if that is significant a few decades later. I'm focusing on what idea is better now, and making a point about why it's better now, with weight being a factor.
This is a Yamaha versus Polaris comparison, correct? And that's what I'm doing.
Yes, I know it made sense to use what they had back then. And I have a certain respect for Polaris' innovation. Time to move on, as evidenced by the RZR 900.
@WKHalford Yes, the actual word is really the point. I never said their clutch design was the best in the world; I simply stated that they were the first to implement an auto transmission on an ATV, along with independent rear suspension, and many other innovations that have been copied (and improved upon) over the years. I'm not slamming Yamaha; they now have power steering (so you can pat yourself on the back for that), and I'm sure that idea will be copied by other manufacturers.
@WKHalford Because Polaris has been making snowmobiles longer than ATVs, the most logical idea would be to pull a CVT out of one and put it in an ATV. It's not just a logical idea, but it makes good business sense. Why design a totally different transmission when you have 40+ years of R&D in CVTs that can handle more power than any ATV currently puts out? Polaris has always had larger load capacities than most of the competition... Their CVT must be doing something right
@mscmatt And speaking of ideas, the wet clutch is a better one. Because of that, combined with a one-way sprag clutch, it allows engine braking without any electronic trickery. I'm not sure what the Sportsman uses that's related to the CVT to maintain engine braking until that final moment the machine comes to a halt, but I would imagine that it's probably more complicated, like Kawasaki's KEBC stepper motor.
Yamaha figured it out before Polaris. Now it's Polaris copying ideas.
@WKHalford In fact, I think the new RZR 570, with it's 900-based Pro Star engine, also has the wet clutch. And it's not quite so heavy or powerful as to overcome the older design like the 900 is.
So I can see new design being used across the Polaris line, with the Sportsman's Fuji-built 550 maybe being replaced by the 570, and the 850 maybe being replaced by the 900. I think that's a good idea, don't you?
@WKHalford Still talking about the clutch (because you have nothing else to talk about)? Once again, I'll explain to you that this discussion isn't about the RZR (even though it is a good machine), or even Polaris vs. Yamaha. It's about whether or not weight can be beneficial for a utility ATV. You're trying to avoid the original point of discussion because you've run out of good points to back up your argument. Maybe you should go troll in the comments section of a RZR video...
@mscmatt The video itself is about Polaris versus Yamaha. That makes Polaris versus Yamaha a valid discussion. So the CVT differences between the 2 are valid, and why Polaris is getting away from the older design.
Not I'm not a troll. I own a Grizzly 550 EPS, which is one of the ATVs featured in the video. So I have valid things to say, as well as a lot of general experiences with ATVs. And I belong to 3 different ATV forum sites.
If none of that were the case, THEN I'd be a troll.
@WKHalford That's an impressive resume you've got there Mr. Halford. I don't belong to any ATV forum sites; I just ride. I've had something to ride since I was 11 - a couple bikes, a couple ATVs, and a snowmobile... I'm not a certified technician or mechanic by any means, but I've been riding long enough to know what a good machine is. I know you own a Grizzly. Your user name might as well say WKHalfordOwnsAGrizzly.
@mscmatt I ride a lot too. I stated all of that to make a point. I'm not satisfied to just ride, but to learn all I can. That's one reason I come here.
I don't just own a Grizzly, also a Wolverine 450. Sometime within the next few months I'm either gonna make the Wolverine a project ATV (it's almost stock), or replace it. If replaced, the replacement may be a non-Yamaha, just so I can get experiences with other brands. Maybe a Kingquad, Arctic Cat, or maybe even a Polaris.
@mscmatt I didn't used to like much of anything that Yamaha had. Then I bought the'06 Wolverine, my first Yamaha. Although not the greatest performer, it impressed me with it's overall goodness and solid durability.
Then I replaced my '03 Honda ST1300 sport/touring streetbike with an '08 Yamaha FJR1300 sport/tourer. Although the Honda has some advantages, the Yamaha is the better of the two overall. Even in durability.
At one time, I preferred Kingquad over Grizzly. That's changed.
@mscmatt Besides, the advantages and disadvantages of more weight versus less weight has already been discussed more than enough, correct? I think we've agreed on that as much as we are going to, correct?
@WKHalford I don't think a Polaris Sportsman would be good for any kind of racing or jumping, but neither is a grizzly. I also don't think it would be very fun on the sand dunes among banshees and 2 stroke dirtbikes with sand paddles. It's far too slow and heavy for any of these activities. As far as mud goes, it's easy to find holes that will swallow any kind of ATV (or even a jeep), but realistically - a stock sportsman vs. a stock _______ typically has an easier time in the mud.
There both good 4 wheelers, chill out
pedobear12233 7 months ago
If your gunna talk shit about the grizzly and you like polaris, shut the fuck up, half of the people who debate have never rode both of them and you just say shit about the other one
OverxKiIllx 1 year ago
That 20% more weight is what gets you through the mud. I can ride mine all day and not feel fatigued. I have a stock 2002 sportsman 500 and it does great in just about every situation I put it in. I would have to say that it's slower than most other ATVs, but it performs where it counts - 4x4... I have yet to see anything that'll beat a sportsman, except another sportsman with mods. Again, I'm not talking about drag racing, I'm talking about off roading. There's nothing wrong with weight.
mscmatt 1 year ago
@mscmatt lighter is better for mudd dumbass! why do you think jeeps are such good boggers?
Eriklee123 1 year ago
@Eriklee123 You're the dumbass! Jeep Wranglers are heavier than they look - over 3700 lbs. They're far from light. In comparison, older Ford Explorers are 3800 lbs. If you want to talk about a light SUV, talk about Suzuki Samurais and Geo Trackers - they are light. Jeeps do good because of their short wheelbases, same as Suzukis. If the jeep were to do better than the other 2, it's because it's heavier. Learn some facts before you argue about something you know nothing about dumbass!
mscmatt 1 year ago
@mscmatt acually no...more wight in mud gets you stuck easier, and going trail riding on hills that wight takes more power to pull around
OverxKiIllx 1 year ago
@mscmatt acually no...more weight in mud gets you stuck easier , get good mud tires and going trail riding on hills that weight takes more power to pull around.
OverxKiIllx 1 year ago
@OverxKiIllx From my experience, I've found the extra weight of the polaris (690lbs dry) to work to my advantage. The Grizzly is a good ATV, but I've gone through some mud holes that will defeat them - and they had better tires than me. Both machines had independent rear suspension, and the grizzly even had more power. I will also say that the Grizzly had a better 4x4 system, but it didn't seem to matter with this mud hole... Weight trumps everything else. That's all there is to it.
mscmatt 1 year ago
@mscmatt Although extra weight might help in SOME situatiions, extra weight is almost always a liability while recreational riding, especially in the rough stuff. In SOME mud, where there is a solid bottom within reach of the tires for the tires to grip on to, extra weight probably helps. But in mud with no bottom within reach of the tires, sand, steep hills, jumps, rock crawling, etc., the extra weight hurts.
WKHalford 1 month ago
mscmatt 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt Towing: Yes, but makes little/no difference if the load is light and/or easy to move.
Steep hills: Low C/G helps, not weight. The more steep, the more power and traction needed to pull extra weight uphill. I proved this true when riding my BF750 and Wolverine 450 back to back up steep, slick hills.
Creek crossing: Yes, weight reduces chances of floating, keeps tires in contact.
Mud: Again, depends on type of mud and if there's a solid bottom within reach of the tires.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt Rock crawling: Custom rock buggy builders don't add anything not related to safety, performance, durability, or reliability. Why? They don't want any more weight than necessary. Many build modified Toyotas, Samurais, Jeeps, etc. because of the advantages of smaller and lighter.
Polaris builds a good ATV, and has made many improvements over the years. And they are good for work.
But for the best overall performance in recreational situations, lighter is almost always better.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@WKHalford I'm willing to agree with that - we're not going to see custom rock buggy builders strapping weights to their vehicles... At the same time, these buggies aren't designed to haul/tow things year 'round, plow snow in the winter, etc. Looking at the industry from the last 15 years, it appears that most manufacturers have been copying Polaris' ideas in the form of independent rear suspension, automatic transmissions, push button 4x4, etc. They know what they're doing...
mscmatt 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt They were first in many ways. Being first doesn't mean better. It wasn't hard for them to use a snowmobile's CVT. But up until the RZR 900, no Polaris CVT ever had a wet clutch like Yam/Suz/Arctic Cat.
There's a reason why the RZR 900 has a wet clutch: durability.
The wet clutch is 1 reason why Yamaha is known as having the industry's best CVT. There's no belt wear when it engages like Polaris/Can Am/Kaw, and is 1 reason why I prefer Yamaha for things like rock crawling.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt I would imagine that the RZR 900 has a wet clutch because of it's massive power and heavier weight. Plus, I'm sure they want a more durable CVT for racing.
I imagine that more Polaris models will be be designed with a wet clutch in the future. It just makes sense to have it.
Them equipping the RZR 900 with a wet clutch tells me that the older CVTs without one have limitations, and therefore is inferior to a wet clutch design. So they basically had to copy the Yamaha design.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@WKHalford Point well taken; but you and I both know this discussion isn't about wet clutches or the RZR 900. We're straying from the original point of discussion, which was whether or not weight is good or bad for a full size 4x4 utility ATV. I'm coming from the point that it is - for its intended purposes. You were saying that it wasn't - for purposes that aren't necessarily in line with what a 4x4 utility ATV is meant for.
mscmatt 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt The point about the wet clutch stemmed from you saying they were first with an automatic. I used the wet clutch that several brands use as an example of how first isn't necessarily better.
I used the RZR 900 as an example of how CVT design limitations forced them to make a change in their CVT, part of which is likely due to extra weight.
What a utility ATV is intended to be used for is up to the buyer/rider. Most are used for recreation, where less weight is usually better.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@WKHalford The transmission was one of a few items that I cited when talking about Polaris as an industry leader... You focus on the tranny because other companies have come out years later and made improvements, which is to be expected in any industry. I also specifically used the word "idea," not "design" when talking about the tranny. So really, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill with this argument.
mscmatt 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt The actual word used isn't really the point. You were pointing out firsts, as if that is significant a few decades later. I'm focusing on what idea is better now, and making a point about why it's better now, with weight being a factor.
This is a Yamaha versus Polaris comparison, correct? And that's what I'm doing.
Yes, I know it made sense to use what they had back then. And I have a certain respect for Polaris' innovation. Time to move on, as evidenced by the RZR 900.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@WKHalford Yes, the actual word is really the point. I never said their clutch design was the best in the world; I simply stated that they were the first to implement an auto transmission on an ATV, along with independent rear suspension, and many other innovations that have been copied (and improved upon) over the years. I'm not slamming Yamaha; they now have power steering (so you can pat yourself on the back for that), and I'm sure that idea will be copied by other manufacturers.
mscmatt 3 weeks ago
@WKHalford Because Polaris has been making snowmobiles longer than ATVs, the most logical idea would be to pull a CVT out of one and put it in an ATV. It's not just a logical idea, but it makes good business sense. Why design a totally different transmission when you have 40+ years of R&D in CVTs that can handle more power than any ATV currently puts out? Polaris has always had larger load capacities than most of the competition... Their CVT must be doing something right
mscmatt 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt And speaking of ideas, the wet clutch is a better one. Because of that, combined with a one-way sprag clutch, it allows engine braking without any electronic trickery. I'm not sure what the Sportsman uses that's related to the CVT to maintain engine braking until that final moment the machine comes to a halt, but I would imagine that it's probably more complicated, like Kawasaki's KEBC stepper motor.
Yamaha figured it out before Polaris. Now it's Polaris copying ideas.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@WKHalford In fact, I think the new RZR 570, with it's 900-based Pro Star engine, also has the wet clutch. And it's not quite so heavy or powerful as to overcome the older design like the 900 is.
So I can see new design being used across the Polaris line, with the Sportsman's Fuji-built 550 maybe being replaced by the 570, and the 850 maybe being replaced by the 900. I think that's a good idea, don't you?
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@WKHalford Still talking about the clutch (because you have nothing else to talk about)? Once again, I'll explain to you that this discussion isn't about the RZR (even though it is a good machine), or even Polaris vs. Yamaha. It's about whether or not weight can be beneficial for a utility ATV. You're trying to avoid the original point of discussion because you've run out of good points to back up your argument. Maybe you should go troll in the comments section of a RZR video...
mscmatt 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt The video itself is about Polaris versus Yamaha. That makes Polaris versus Yamaha a valid discussion. So the CVT differences between the 2 are valid, and why Polaris is getting away from the older design.
Not I'm not a troll. I own a Grizzly 550 EPS, which is one of the ATVs featured in the video. So I have valid things to say, as well as a lot of general experiences with ATVs. And I belong to 3 different ATV forum sites.
If none of that were the case, THEN I'd be a troll.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@WKHalford That's an impressive resume you've got there Mr. Halford. I don't belong to any ATV forum sites; I just ride. I've had something to ride since I was 11 - a couple bikes, a couple ATVs, and a snowmobile... I'm not a certified technician or mechanic by any means, but I've been riding long enough to know what a good machine is. I know you own a Grizzly. Your user name might as well say WKHalfordOwnsAGrizzly.
mscmatt 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt I ride a lot too. I stated all of that to make a point. I'm not satisfied to just ride, but to learn all I can. That's one reason I come here.
I don't just own a Grizzly, also a Wolverine 450. Sometime within the next few months I'm either gonna make the Wolverine a project ATV (it's almost stock), or replace it. If replaced, the replacement may be a non-Yamaha, just so I can get experiences with other brands. Maybe a Kingquad, Arctic Cat, or maybe even a Polaris.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt I didn't used to like much of anything that Yamaha had. Then I bought the'06 Wolverine, my first Yamaha. Although not the greatest performer, it impressed me with it's overall goodness and solid durability.
Then I replaced my '03 Honda ST1300 sport/touring streetbike with an '08 Yamaha FJR1300 sport/tourer. Although the Honda has some advantages, the Yamaha is the better of the two overall. Even in durability.
At one time, I preferred Kingquad over Grizzly. That's changed.
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt Besides, the advantages and disadvantages of more weight versus less weight has already been discussed more than enough, correct? I think we've agreed on that as much as we are going to, correct?
So it's time to move on, correct?
WKHalford 3 weeks ago
@WKHalford I don't think a Polaris Sportsman would be good for any kind of racing or jumping, but neither is a grizzly. I also don't think it would be very fun on the sand dunes among banshees and 2 stroke dirtbikes with sand paddles. It's far too slow and heavy for any of these activities. As far as mud goes, it's easy to find holes that will swallow any kind of ATV (or even a jeep), but realistically - a stock sportsman vs. a stock _______ typically has an easier time in the mud.
mscmatt 3 weeks ago
@mscmatt trust me, ride a Grizzly 550 for a solid, 10 hour days worth of riding and you will never want anything else, trust me
THizzle80 10 months ago
mega failure bud next time when oyu show a vid try to go in the same exact spots as compition
littlerye69 2 years ago