On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:37:49 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
>news:b-mcnQvh5uyhRguiU-KYiw@magma.ca...
>> As for rocks... Well it's like any machine. Put the wheels on the
>> highest rocks to climb over or go around.( I don't climbs rocks for fun)
>
>ive met a few argo and argo type rigs on the trail in 6x6 and even 8x8
>configurations. theyre a great all around machine, but my experience with
>them has left me with the impression that they arent at home in rocks. im
>not talking about crossing a rock here and there, im talking about in more
>aggressive areas like daniel at uwharrie, or anywhere at tellico. while you
>can make it go, it seems to require far more effort than i would want to put
>into it. skid steer just is not effective in off camber rocky situations.

This is what I am wondering about Nathan. I know of relatively flat
surfaces it should have no problem but it doesn't look like it has a
lot of stretch for the wheels over big gaps and the ground clearance
is about 6 inches or so.
That's not to knock it it's just that I'm wondering about how it will
work for my needs.
Also I wonder how well it can climb hills at only 24 mph top speed. If
you run out of grunt there's no where to go.
Be nice if they upped the power and speed and gave it some
articulation.

 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:37:49 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"FrankW" <fworm@mxznorpak.ca> wrote in message
>news:b-mcnQvh5uyhRguiU-KYiw@magma.ca...
>> As for rocks... Well it's like any machine. Put the wheels on the
>> highest rocks to climb over or go around.( I don't climbs rocks for fun)
>
>ive met a few argo and argo type rigs on the trail in 6x6 and even 8x8
>configurations. theyre a great all around machine, but my experience with
>them has left me with the impression that they arent at home in rocks. im
>not talking about crossing a rock here and there, im talking about in more
>aggressive areas like daniel at uwharrie, or anywhere at tellico. while you
>can make it go, it seems to require far more effort than i would want to put
>into it. skid steer just is not effective in off camber rocky situations.

This is what I am wondering about Nathan. I know of relatively flat
surfaces it should have no problem but it doesn't look like it has a
lot of stretch for the wheels over big gaps and the ground clearance
is about 6 inches or so.
That's not to knock it it's just that I'm wondering about how it will
work for my needs.
Also I wonder how well it can climb hills at only 24 mph top speed. If
you run out of grunt there's no where to go.
Be nice if they upped the power and speed and gave it some
articulation.

 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:44:04 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2atdpv4almcn8nh8hkcobmaucq47i4im22@4ax.com.. .
>> I won't
>> ever be able to ride a Quad agaid so the Rhino is looking mighty good
>> and I'll be interested to see what Nathan says about it's
>> capabilities.
>
>so far im amazed by this machine. the proof lies in the rocks though, and
>thats coming this weekend.

Well it looks damn good for most uses although rocks can be very
slippery. So I will be interested to see how well it fares.

>> Quads are fast and it would be nice if they could double the speed on
>> the Argo.
>
>my '01 arctic cat 500 4x4 manual runs out about 52mph....58 with the
>"normal" tires on it. there are many faster machines, but i prefered the
>low end torque of the cat. now they have the 650 vtwin cat that gives you
>the best of both. another option is the polaris ranger. i was going to get
>the ranger until yamaha announced the release of the rhino about 6 months
>ago. both are great machines, but i went with the smaller rhino because i
>dont like the polaris front drive system. it works like "auto" 4x4 on the
>expedition. if you put it in 4x4, the front wheels dont pull until the
>machine senses rear wheel slippage and then it locks them in. when there is
>no more slippage, it releases the front drive. i would have gone that route
>for the benefits of a side by side, but im glad now that i waited.

Soo I think around 50-60 mph is a good speed unless you are on the
highway with all the other commuters.
The Kodiak 650/700 looks like a decent quad for a swing arm. I don't
know how well they will implement their IRS. But My back cannot handle
the position I'd have to be in on a quad.
I believe the Cats are using the Kawi engines now.

The Ranger looks pretty rugged but the specs on the Rhino seem better.
Still I wonder how well the Rhino will perform in mud and water. Mud
always seems to be the toughest on ATV's.

I don't suppose you'd care to take the Rhino through some decent
Mudholes while you're out? :)

 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:44:04 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2atdpv4almcn8nh8hkcobmaucq47i4im22@4ax.com.. .
>> I won't
>> ever be able to ride a Quad agaid so the Rhino is looking mighty good
>> and I'll be interested to see what Nathan says about it's
>> capabilities.
>
>so far im amazed by this machine. the proof lies in the rocks though, and
>thats coming this weekend.

Well it looks damn good for most uses although rocks can be very
slippery. So I will be interested to see how well it fares.

>> Quads are fast and it would be nice if they could double the speed on
>> the Argo.
>
>my '01 arctic cat 500 4x4 manual runs out about 52mph....58 with the
>"normal" tires on it. there are many faster machines, but i prefered the
>low end torque of the cat. now they have the 650 vtwin cat that gives you
>the best of both. another option is the polaris ranger. i was going to get
>the ranger until yamaha announced the release of the rhino about 6 months
>ago. both are great machines, but i went with the smaller rhino because i
>dont like the polaris front drive system. it works like "auto" 4x4 on the
>expedition. if you put it in 4x4, the front wheels dont pull until the
>machine senses rear wheel slippage and then it locks them in. when there is
>no more slippage, it releases the front drive. i would have gone that route
>for the benefits of a side by side, but im glad now that i waited.

Soo I think around 50-60 mph is a good speed unless you are on the
highway with all the other commuters.
The Kodiak 650/700 looks like a decent quad for a swing arm. I don't
know how well they will implement their IRS. But My back cannot handle
the position I'd have to be in on a quad.
I believe the Cats are using the Kawi engines now.

The Ranger looks pretty rugged but the specs on the Rhino seem better.
Still I wonder how well the Rhino will perform in mud and water. Mud
always seems to be the toughest on ATV's.

I don't suppose you'd care to take the Rhino through some decent
Mudholes while you're out? :)

 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 22:44:04 GMT, "Nathan Collier"
<JeepMail@7SlotGrille.com> wrote:

>"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2atdpv4almcn8nh8hkcobmaucq47i4im22@4ax.com.. .
>> I won't
>> ever be able to ride a Quad agaid so the Rhino is looking mighty good
>> and I'll be interested to see what Nathan says about it's
>> capabilities.
>
>so far im amazed by this machine. the proof lies in the rocks though, and
>thats coming this weekend.

Well it looks damn good for most uses although rocks can be very
slippery. So I will be interested to see how well it fares.

>> Quads are fast and it would be nice if they could double the speed on
>> the Argo.
>
>my '01 arctic cat 500 4x4 manual runs out about 52mph....58 with the
>"normal" tires on it. there are many faster machines, but i prefered the
>low end torque of the cat. now they have the 650 vtwin cat that gives you
>the best of both. another option is the polaris ranger. i was going to get
>the ranger until yamaha announced the release of the rhino about 6 months
>ago. both are great machines, but i went with the smaller rhino because i
>dont like the polaris front drive system. it works like "auto" 4x4 on the
>expedition. if you put it in 4x4, the front wheels dont pull until the
>machine senses rear wheel slippage and then it locks them in. when there is
>no more slippage, it releases the front drive. i would have gone that route
>for the benefits of a side by side, but im glad now that i waited.

Soo I think around 50-60 mph is a good speed unless you are on the
highway with all the other commuters.
The Kodiak 650/700 looks like a decent quad for a swing arm. I don't
know how well they will implement their IRS. But My back cannot handle
the position I'd have to be in on a quad.
I believe the Cats are using the Kawi engines now.

The Ranger looks pretty rugged but the specs on the Rhino seem better.
Still I wonder how well the Rhino will perform in mud and water. Mud
always seems to be the toughest on ATV's.

I don't suppose you'd care to take the Rhino through some decent
Mudholes while you're out? :)

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s7bepvssm5fdr52r1q00v789db1cj6ub3b@4ax.com...
> Well it looks damn good for most uses although rocks can be very
> slippery. So I will be interested to see how well it fares.

you and me both! expectations are high with my goal being to find its
limitations.


> Soo I think around 50-60 mph is a good speed unless you are on the
> highway with all the other commuters.

most of my riding is below 20mph. the only time i run faster is if im
driving on the highway to the trailhead (which you arent supposed to do
anyway).


> The Kodiak 650/700 looks like a decent quad for a swing arm. I don't
> know how well they will implement their IRS.

since the swing arm has _zero_ articulation, i would avoid swing arm quads
if you have any plans of riding rocks. sure they do it, but most of the
rollovers i see are swing arms in rocks. other than off camber crawling the
swing arm will do fine. in fact, it can make for a "zippier" quad on twisty
trails because there is no lean in corners. its also better suited for
heavy work. arctic cat had everything up to '03. their "ACT" suspension
was a live axle on coil springs with upper and lower control arms just like
a tj has. it was perfectly suited for work and articulated like nothing
else. i cant understand why they dropped the ACT suspension for fully
independent. well, i understand why......the market was heading in that
direction.....but the ACT should have remained an option like it was in '02.
ill be hanging on to my '01 cat for a long time i think.


> But My back cannot handle
> the position I'd have to be in on a quad.

i think thats why SxS (side by side....as in rhino/mule/ranger/gator) are
becoming so popular. several of my relatives now have rangers instead of
atv's for that same reason. course now theyre talking about looking into
rhinos. :-)


> I believe the Cats are using the Kawi engines now.

cats have always used suzuki engines until this past year when suzuki and
kawasaki merged. it worked out too, that v-twin kawi 650 is an awesome
engine. theyll still use the suzuki 250/300/400/500 and then the kawi 650.


> The Ranger looks pretty rugged but the specs on the Rhino seem better.

the ranger is rugged.....its one hell of a machine. while the specs on the
rhino are a little better, it really depends on what youre looking for. the
ranger fits 3 people easily with seat belts, the rhino 2. its almost
impossible to roll the ranger over simply because of its massive width.
we've had my brothers 6x6 ranger http://tinyurl.com/rzlk in some really
wicked inclines and it never rolled over. i cant speak for the 4x4 ranger
because everyone i know runs the 6x6, but as the numbers stack up.....

power- rhino/660cc 6x6 ranger/500cc
seating- rhino/2 6x6/3
tilt bed payload- rhino/400lbs 6x6/1000lbs
towing- rhino/1200/lbs 6x6/1500lbs
suspension travel- rhino/7.2" 6x6/6.25"
clearance- rhino/12.1" 6x6/7.2"

theyre both great choices for work or play, with the rhino doing a little
better in the play area and the ranger doing a little better in the work
area.


> Still I wonder how well the Rhino will perform in mud and water. Mud
> always seems to be the toughest on ATV's.

we dont just have mud around here, we have swamps with really big gators.
:-) i had it in the swamp yesterday and i was _really_ pleased. i didnt
get as far as i can get with my arctic cat, but my arctic cat weighs half as
much and is running 26" x 10" vampire mudders (by interco/super swamper)
front rear and the rhino is running 25"x 8" front and 25" x 10" rear
rawhides. although i couldnt get quite as far in the boggy swamps, i never
needed to get towed out. i could always back out on my own power. in all
fairness i feel i could have done better had i gone WOT and slung the mud a
little harder, but WOT isnt an option until after 20 hours. i think the
rhino could follow the cat in about 90% of anywhere id want to go. it was
only when it really gets bad that forward momentum was lost. fwiw, my
rubicon wont get down the road that leads to the bog, so just getting to the
bog impressed me. ill probably try again after breakin.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s7bepvssm5fdr52r1q00v789db1cj6ub3b@4ax.com...
> Well it looks damn good for most uses although rocks can be very
> slippery. So I will be interested to see how well it fares.

you and me both! expectations are high with my goal being to find its
limitations.


> Soo I think around 50-60 mph is a good speed unless you are on the
> highway with all the other commuters.

most of my riding is below 20mph. the only time i run faster is if im
driving on the highway to the trailhead (which you arent supposed to do
anyway).


> The Kodiak 650/700 looks like a decent quad for a swing arm. I don't
> know how well they will implement their IRS.

since the swing arm has _zero_ articulation, i would avoid swing arm quads
if you have any plans of riding rocks. sure they do it, but most of the
rollovers i see are swing arms in rocks. other than off camber crawling the
swing arm will do fine. in fact, it can make for a "zippier" quad on twisty
trails because there is no lean in corners. its also better suited for
heavy work. arctic cat had everything up to '03. their "ACT" suspension
was a live axle on coil springs with upper and lower control arms just like
a tj has. it was perfectly suited for work and articulated like nothing
else. i cant understand why they dropped the ACT suspension for fully
independent. well, i understand why......the market was heading in that
direction.....but the ACT should have remained an option like it was in '02.
ill be hanging on to my '01 cat for a long time i think.


> But My back cannot handle
> the position I'd have to be in on a quad.

i think thats why SxS (side by side....as in rhino/mule/ranger/gator) are
becoming so popular. several of my relatives now have rangers instead of
atv's for that same reason. course now theyre talking about looking into
rhinos. :-)


> I believe the Cats are using the Kawi engines now.

cats have always used suzuki engines until this past year when suzuki and
kawasaki merged. it worked out too, that v-twin kawi 650 is an awesome
engine. theyll still use the suzuki 250/300/400/500 and then the kawi 650.


> The Ranger looks pretty rugged but the specs on the Rhino seem better.

the ranger is rugged.....its one hell of a machine. while the specs on the
rhino are a little better, it really depends on what youre looking for. the
ranger fits 3 people easily with seat belts, the rhino 2. its almost
impossible to roll the ranger over simply because of its massive width.
we've had my brothers 6x6 ranger http://tinyurl.com/rzlk in some really
wicked inclines and it never rolled over. i cant speak for the 4x4 ranger
because everyone i know runs the 6x6, but as the numbers stack up.....

power- rhino/660cc 6x6 ranger/500cc
seating- rhino/2 6x6/3
tilt bed payload- rhino/400lbs 6x6/1000lbs
towing- rhino/1200/lbs 6x6/1500lbs
suspension travel- rhino/7.2" 6x6/6.25"
clearance- rhino/12.1" 6x6/7.2"

theyre both great choices for work or play, with the rhino doing a little
better in the play area and the ranger doing a little better in the work
area.


> Still I wonder how well the Rhino will perform in mud and water. Mud
> always seems to be the toughest on ATV's.

we dont just have mud around here, we have swamps with really big gators.
:-) i had it in the swamp yesterday and i was _really_ pleased. i didnt
get as far as i can get with my arctic cat, but my arctic cat weighs half as
much and is running 26" x 10" vampire mudders (by interco/super swamper)
front rear and the rhino is running 25"x 8" front and 25" x 10" rear
rawhides. although i couldnt get quite as far in the boggy swamps, i never
needed to get towed out. i could always back out on my own power. in all
fairness i feel i could have done better had i gone WOT and slung the mud a
little harder, but WOT isnt an option until after 20 hours. i think the
rhino could follow the cat in about 90% of anywhere id want to go. it was
only when it really gets bad that forward momentum was lost. fwiw, my
rubicon wont get down the road that leads to the bog, so just getting to the
bog impressed me. ill probably try again after breakin.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Scooby Don't" <Scooby_do_not@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s7bepvssm5fdr52r1q00v789db1cj6ub3b@4ax.com...
> Well it looks damn good for most uses although rocks can be very
> slippery. So I will be interested to see how well it fares.

you and me both! expectations are high with my goal being to find its
limitations.


> Soo I think around 50-60 mph is a good speed unless you are on the
> highway with all the other commuters.

most of my riding is below 20mph. the only time i run faster is if im
driving on the highway to the trailhead (which you arent supposed to do
anyway).


> The Kodiak 650/700 looks like a decent quad for a swing arm. I don't
> know how well they will implement their IRS.

since the swing arm has _zero_ articulation, i would avoid swing arm quads
if you have any plans of riding rocks. sure they do it, but most of the
rollovers i see are swing arms in rocks. other than off camber crawling the
swing arm will do fine. in fact, it can make for a "zippier" quad on twisty
trails because there is no lean in corners. its also better suited for
heavy work. arctic cat had everything up to '03. their "ACT" suspension
was a live axle on coil springs with upper and lower control arms just like
a tj has. it was perfectly suited for work and articulated like nothing
else. i cant understand why they dropped the ACT suspension for fully
independent. well, i understand why......the market was heading in that
direction.....but the ACT should have remained an option like it was in '02.
ill be hanging on to my '01 cat for a long time i think.


> But My back cannot handle
> the position I'd have to be in on a quad.

i think thats why SxS (side by side....as in rhino/mule/ranger/gator) are
becoming so popular. several of my relatives now have rangers instead of
atv's for that same reason. course now theyre talking about looking into
rhinos. :-)


> I believe the Cats are using the Kawi engines now.

cats have always used suzuki engines until this past year when suzuki and
kawasaki merged. it worked out too, that v-twin kawi 650 is an awesome
engine. theyll still use the suzuki 250/300/400/500 and then the kawi 650.


> The Ranger looks pretty rugged but the specs on the Rhino seem better.

the ranger is rugged.....its one hell of a machine. while the specs on the
rhino are a little better, it really depends on what youre looking for. the
ranger fits 3 people easily with seat belts, the rhino 2. its almost
impossible to roll the ranger over simply because of its massive width.
we've had my brothers 6x6 ranger http://tinyurl.com/rzlk in some really
wicked inclines and it never rolled over. i cant speak for the 4x4 ranger
because everyone i know runs the 6x6, but as the numbers stack up.....

power- rhino/660cc 6x6 ranger/500cc
seating- rhino/2 6x6/3
tilt bed payload- rhino/400lbs 6x6/1000lbs
towing- rhino/1200/lbs 6x6/1500lbs
suspension travel- rhino/7.2" 6x6/6.25"
clearance- rhino/12.1" 6x6/7.2"

theyre both great choices for work or play, with the rhino doing a little
better in the play area and the ranger doing a little better in the work
area.


> Still I wonder how well the Rhino will perform in mud and water. Mud
> always seems to be the toughest on ATV's.

we dont just have mud around here, we have swamps with really big gators.
:-) i had it in the swamp yesterday and i was _really_ pleased. i didnt
get as far as i can get with my arctic cat, but my arctic cat weighs half as
much and is running 26" x 10" vampire mudders (by interco/super swamper)
front rear and the rhino is running 25"x 8" front and 25" x 10" rear
rawhides. although i couldnt get quite as far in the boggy swamps, i never
needed to get towed out. i could always back out on my own power. in all
fairness i feel i could have done better had i gone WOT and slung the mud a
little harder, but WOT isnt an option until after 20 hours. i think the
rhino could follow the cat in about 90% of anywhere id want to go. it was
only when it really gets bad that forward momentum was lost. fwiw, my
rubicon wont get down the road that leads to the bog, so just getting to the
bog impressed me. ill probably try again after breakin.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
news:20031022205316.21232.00001529@mb-m13.aol.com...
> That's buffering.

sweet! what machine offers like 45 seconds of buffering? i looked at one
years ago, but havent noticed one since.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com

 

"Matt Macchiarolo" <mlmacchia@aol.comspambgon> wrote in message
news:20031022205316.21232.00001529@mb-m13.aol.com...
> That's buffering.

sweet! what machine offers like 45 seconds of buffering? i looked at one
years ago, but havent noticed one since.


--
Nathan W. Collier
http://7SlotGrille.com