Just how thirsty were the 670 summits???

[kootenayguy]

Hey guys- Ive heard a lot of great stuff recently in regards to the reliability factor of the 1998-2001 summit 670's. Only downside is that ive been told they like to drink the fuel-
Also looking at a couple of 700 summits of the same vintage.........Wondering what anyone's thoughts or opinions are in regards to both the fuel consumption of the 670s and the 700s as well as the reliability of the 700s.

Also if anyone can tell me what makes a 700 summit a "Highmark" edition, that would be apreciated too-

sincerely yours,

ignorant rookie

 

[Summiteer]

The 670's had some flooding issues when they get turned upside down , makes them hard to start, good, strong motors though. I don't think the 670 was horrible on fuel, but the mileage wouldn't compare to todays machines. I can't recall many serious issues with the 700 but they only made them for a couple of years. The himark was the first sled that came stock with a 151"X2" track the rest of the summits in '00 came with the 136"X2" I don't think there were any other significant differences.

 

[meierjn]

Stange... I have a 98 670X and don't think it is that hard on fuel at all. In fact, mine usually seems to be on par or the same as the people I ride with. Maybe I'm not riding it as hard as I should be...

 

[Bogger]

I run a 99 670x and a 98 670x.... I get better fuel consumption than plio's 07 M8... I've heard of the flooding issues but have not experienced them myself, not sure if the previous owners did a fix but I've rolled both and parked on downward slopes and not had issues with flooding...

both mine have 144" x 2" tracks and the 99 has reverse, I'm not a mechanic by any streatch of the imagination but I managed to rebuild the 99 top end by myself with advise and tips from friends and the S&M crew and have over 1000km on the new top end with zero issues.

my 98 is twin piped which seems to make a difference on power delivery (could just be me) risers are a must to offset the low centre of gravity, I have yet to install one on either but have rode one with a rizer and it makes a world of difference.

 

[kootenayguy]

Stange... I have a 98 670X and don't think it is that hard on fuel at all. In fact, mine usually seems to be on par or the same as the people I ride with. Maybe I'm not riding it as hard as I should be...

Thanks alot bud- Good to hear someone say that, because I am in no way going to be the type of guy (nor is my wife) who has the thumb to the bar the whole day long.........Maybe I should say for myself at least- Ive driven in a car with her soooooo.......maybe ill leave it at that LOL

Thanks again man- As your the second person to say that the milleage thing isnt an issue, and the simple fact that theres heaps of them available in BC for under $3000 I think Ive got my decision all but made

 

[Grinny]

My 98 670x gobbles fuel. It could be the way I ride, but my buddy has the same motor in his sled and he gets about 1/3 more mileage than I do.

 

[Sleeper700]

The 670 was last used in 99. In 2000, the 700 replaced it. The 670 is a rotary valve intake (technology not used by any of the manufacturers anymore, but still reliable), the 700 uses reeds. I have never had a 670, but most guys say there is huge potential in that motor. The 670 can be easy to flood, especially if it spends some time on it's side or upside down, but there are tricks to get it started. Some of these include closing the fuel shut off valve (if the sled has one) and pulling the cord a bunch of times to remove excessive fuel, putting new spark plugs in, among others. With the 700 (and all newer Rotax engines), you just hold the throttle wide open, and start pulling the rope. It will start usually within 10 pulls. I have a 2000 Summit 700 with the 136" track that my wife now drives. It has over 5500km on it, and I have never touched anything that wasn't regular maintenance, or me breaking something. I think that the 700 was rated a little higher horsepower stock, and can be tweaked for a bit more, but it sounds like the 670 has more room for gains. The 700 Highmark was a spring only option, and it came with a 151" track, instead of the 136". Hopefully this answers some of your questions....??

 

[magnet]

i have the 670 as well love it, it was last avail on the snowchecked summits in 99 any built for the 99 model year after that had the 700 or 600. 800 wasn't avail in a twin till 2001 i believe.
fuel mileage is comparable to anything else out there between 600 and 800 cc. but like it was said needs a riser,and sway bar removed if you want sidehilling ability. but longevity of these engines is forever if they are left alone in stock form. have heard some guys say oil pumps were an issue but i have never had one yet.

 

[Iron Horse Racing]

We also have a 98 670X and it has been to the mountains as well as we ride it lot around home.....fuel isnt the issue or power...just the 136" x 2 track....

Have had troubles strating it when it's been working then layed over on it's side and shut off....we dont fight or argue if it dont start first pull just change the plugs and go again....

 

[Bogger]

i have the 670 as well love it, it was last avail on the snowchecked summits in 99 any built for the 99 model year after that had the 700 or 600. 800 wasn't avail in a twin till 2001 i believe.
fuel mileage is comparable to anything else out there between 600 and 800 cc. but like it was said needs a riser,and sway bar removed if you want sidehilling ability. but longevity of these engines is forever if they are left alone in stock form. have heard some guys say oil pumps were an issue but i have never had one yet.

How do I go about the swaybar removal magnet????

I've seen the attachment on a newr sled where it is a quick realease and you can snap it on and off as you choose... but pulling over is both mine and the wifes bigges complaint... If I can try the swaybar trick then that might help...

 

[Toy4Fun]

There are 4 rivets per side that hold the sway bar bushing to the tub, drill them out and remove the bushings. I removed the trailing arms to free up the sway bar, then it comes out pretty easy. It rides much better without it.