Search results

Actually this thread should be called "Thank you Polaris for a very strong substructure". Poo engineered this in so that the a arms will be mashed but not take out the rest of the substructure. A arms are not weak at all. Changing a arms is a breeze on a Poo. This is one of the reasons I ride a...

Wow this is fun...look how easy it is to get nice sensitive folk to talk to you. Lets try this some more. Ok...Doo sucks cause all my Poo buds say so. Must be true. OK....fun starts. Maxwell tell me more about the terrible clutching Poo has. And that track....man is it bad. I only gots a 2" x...

And the the Doo is dynoed at 155 hp. Doesn't matter really. Just got a kick out of Doos advertising power to weight. They forgot to mention they came in second. Just making sure the masses get the truth or a reasonable facsimile of it anyway. Poken fun. Nothing better to Doo when you have no...

So...Summit X weight is 464 lbs and the Pro RMK is 417 lbs. A difference of...........................47 lbs less for the Pro. Power to weight ratio is 2.84 lb/hp for the Summit X and 2.69 lb/hp for the Pro Rmk based on manufacturers stated weights. Although 3rd party dyno tests show all...

Did you see the riders performance last year. What is there to be proud about?

Definately some nice improvements. Most were needed to keep up with the competition. Track flexing and suspension flex should help the chassis to compete with the RMK. Mountain bar finally is rigid. Is the steering flat (vertical) yet? doesn't look like it (Please correct me if I am wrong)...

Ski Doo you got to be joking! Flat green???? Take an ugly looking body, add flat green and what do you have? I won't comment further. I was expecting far more from Doo.

Agreed. Dissapointed in the whole front end in the looks dept. I was hoping the ugly would be designed out. Oh well. These sleds lack the clean sharp lines I like to see. Some good ideas. Hope they prove to be an improvement. Doesn't look like they will come close to the Pro Ride in weight. I...

For all you folks that are worried about breaking the belt and loosing braking ability...ask yourself if you worried the same about the chain drive systems. Break a chain and you may not have had braking either. So what is the diff. One thing to consider is that these belt drives are far less...

Yea... that's it.... bad hearing....;). I have an MBRP race can on my 02 RMK and that is loud but love the sound. Hi polaris011. Missed you at West Yellowstone. Plan to come next year.

If I did mountains more I would go to a bigger lug for sure. I am considering a new wrap for next year and a jaws can for sound effects. Leaving the rest stock so I have no problems.

My sled is stock without any mods. When I rode at West Yellowstone we were riding up to 10000 feet and I only changed the primary clutch to 10-60 weights. Temps were around 0 C on average. No need to make any other changes. Clutch temps were not an issue. I will not be adding vents as they are...

Strasbourgh hills has enough snow to ride. Ever rode this area? 45 miles from Regina. Was at Green water 3 weeks ago and was not bad. Alot better now I am told.

The engines on these may stumble once in a while while in break in. Do not worry about this. Mine did the same and dealer told me that goes away. Mine did go away and no issues since in 250 miles. I use 60 gram weights at elevations of 6.6 to 10 K ft. I run the SBA 144 x 2". Hit the rev limiter...

331 miles and runs solid.

Well...just returned home from a 3 day excursion in West Yellowstone backcountry. Rode my 2012 SBA 2" track. I can honestly say I have never had so much fun and rode a sled in deep powder with such ease. I have riden there 3 years in a row on my 2002 800 RMK and it did a great job but this 144"...

Good to hear. Thanks

Where did you ride may I ask?

Neither. Launched off of snow banks. No problems with the sled at all. Let me know how the snow is at Moose Range as this is my old home stomping grounds (Nipawin/Carrot River that is)