maxwell
Active VIP Member
Lots of us burn away more than 1000 litres a season
2013 Sled weights
- Thread starter jhurkot
- Start date
Lots of us burn away more than 1000 litres a season
trench
Active VIP Member
There's been a few people weighing their 2013's POO's...
2013 Pro RMK 163" 521lbs RTR: has anyone weighed the 2013s yet? - SnoWest Snowmobile Forum
2013 Pro RMK 155" 507lbs RTR: Weighed the 2013 PRO today- REAL weight 16lbs lighter - SnoWest Snowmobile Forum
Gas tank size: Poo 11.5gals, doo 10.6 gals
2013 Pro RMK 163" 521lbs RTR: has anyone weighed the 2013s yet? - SnoWest Snowmobile Forum
2013 Pro RMK 155" 507lbs RTR: Weighed the 2013 PRO today- REAL weight 16lbs lighter - SnoWest Snowmobile Forum
Gas tank size: Poo 11.5gals, doo 10.6 gals
Last edited:
Garage weight means nothing to me. Weigh them after a day on the hill, see which brand packs in the most snow, which brand has the most storage area to pack weight in, etc etc. No one rides a garage weight with no fuel and no tools in the back.
Doo started it with the lightweight revolution, however now its to the point where boards are flimsy and manfacturers are producing sleds by bonding parts with epoxy. Polaris had a great idea when they built the bulkheads from cast and allowed the a-arms to be the weak link, then designed it so that the arms could be replaced in under 2 hrs.
Now they have gone too far by making too many items integrated into the chassis IMO (chaincase etc), if you tweak the tunnel you can no longer replace just individual components or you have to figure out a way to bond the parts together again, not sure how strong re-bonded seams would be and lots of straigtening will be required to make sure that the mating surface are aligned just right. This translates directly back to costs. The Cat/Pro/Doo/Yammy might be cheaper initially, but replacing a few parts can eat up any differences quickly off the initial price and should be considered. Also consider lost riding time due to repairs.
I'm all for lightweight but it seems like things are almost too weak now for us mountain guys. I'm not saying they should be able to take a head on at 60 with no damage but I'm not an eastern trail rider and I don't want to have to stick to the trail for fear of scrubbing a small tree at 15 km/hr that will bend my bulkhead or tunnel. Most buyers are not going to hang a sale over 15-20 lbs between brands, you might accumulate that much difference in snow on the hill any way. I say add 20 lbs of structure back into the sleds in the right spots and you'd have strong and light for us western riders. I'd rather pay $1000 more initially to have a sled that lasts a season and can take a little rub, than one that needs constant repairs/parts replacement.
fredw
Active VIP Member
well just going off last year when we had a large group and there were a few poos... we left the parking lot at 930 and bu three they were pushing to go back, the etecs ran till dark and we came in amost half of what fuel they used...
so at least 20lbs has to be added to their weight for fuel, we have ran over 100kms boosted on the etec in deep snow... with fuel to spare
so at least 20lbs has to be added to their weight for fuel, we have ran over 100kms boosted on the etec in deep snow... with fuel to spare
takethebounce
Active VIP Member
I think garage weights are still what people want to see. Weighing them after a day on the hill has some merritt I get that but then you might as well weigh the sled with the rider at ride weight at that point.
Maybe one guy kicks more snow off his board than the other guy. Maybe someone rides harder than the next guy and burns more fuel.
Make all the assumptions you want and set all the criteria you wish but the only weight that can be compared apple's to apple's is what it weighs in the shop. You want ride ready weight then fill to the top with fuel.
What about the guys who burp their tanks and the guys who dont?
In the shop, sled matched to equally equipped sled. Then you can argue the rest at the top of the hill.
Sent from my HTC-Z710a using Tapatalk 2
Maybe one guy kicks more snow off his board than the other guy. Maybe someone rides harder than the next guy and burns more fuel.
Make all the assumptions you want and set all the criteria you wish but the only weight that can be compared apple's to apple's is what it weighs in the shop. You want ride ready weight then fill to the top with fuel.
What about the guys who burp their tanks and the guys who dont?
In the shop, sled matched to equally equipped sled. Then you can argue the rest at the top of the hill.
Sent from my HTC-Z710a using Tapatalk 2
- Thread starter
- #30
jhurkot
Active VIP Member
fred, you're a trail rider. if you ride "deep snow from 9:30am until way after dark" and only burn half a tank, then that's the reality. i rode a lot last year with etecs and noticed that when snow was deep fuel usage was very close to the pro (with cat being the worst). i won't argue about the etecs fuel economy under trail riding and low throttle conditions. it really shines but when it's to the bars ALL DAY LONG, there is no fuel savings.
barleyfarmer
Active VIP Member
With the fuel mileage is everyone sure that the speedo's are reading kmph or mph!Drives me nuts when guys say they put on so many k's when their machine reads in miles!Just saying!
trench
Active VIP Member
Are you for real? Half as much fuel? Your embarrassing yourself with statements like this. The only time I got low on fuel with my Pro was on a long spring riding day, your gonna burn 20 pounds less fuel in a day?
Last edited:
Boostmonkey
Active VIP Member
maxwell
Active VIP Member
Compared to cat foooorsure. The m8 in our group is dumping 10 litres in just to get down the trail while we still have over quarter tank or more. The Polaris I have no idea. Also oil. I'm using probly 30% less oil per day than other brands but that's not much weight at all just cost
trench
Active VIP Member
Ha Ha I only got 80 Kms out of my last tank but I was going 60 MPh all day long!!!
fredw
Active VIP Member
actually one of the riders that were with us is on this fourm, or ask darrel baker or any of the other group, when we filled in the am, if memory serves me right we were all around the 30 to 35 liters and the poos were closer to 50... after filling spare jerrycans
Dazzler
Active VIP Member
I think technology is a good thing....to me light is good, these mountain sleds today have come so far in the last 10 years that it is hard to keep up (unfortunately LHF didn't get that memo)!!! They are getting so much easier to handle and ride right out of the box, they are all reasonable on fuel consumption and they all seem to take a pretty good hit, I personally think that these newer sleds can take a harder hit... The good news for those that don't mind spending a few more dollars, want years of reliability, don't mind a heavier machine..... still have Yamaha!!!
SledMamma
Active VIP Member
True about the Cat. I used MY jerry can at the end of the trail before heading into the alpine and then I used Jer's fuel can heading out. The ProClimb sniffs oil tho- I overfilled it the first couple times we went out thinking that it would guzzle oil like the old M8's. Not at all. Jer's Pro used more oil than my Cat for sure.
BUT FredW needs his head examined with his anecdotal tales of fuel consumption on the Pro... Sniffing too much sled exhaust in his garage this summer I am thinking'
snopro
Active VIP Member
I'm not sure on the other brands but I will say the Etec is very stingy at low to mid throttle settings but at WOT all day in fresh pow it is not much better than a PTEK.
mach123
Active VIP Member
LMAO funny chit.......I just know that you can't run out on a dooooooo. LOL
Similar threads
