RMK800 OR AC800 - Page 3 - Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups
Snowmobile Performance and Tech Share your tech tips, show off your project, ask a question.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of (permalink) Old 04-22-2000, 03:38 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

look corey, ive heard from a cat/polaris/yamaha dealer that polaris does have the best 800 twin out there. torque numbers stand at 15 more lbs. torque and he stands by it. so believe what you want to hear and keep your mouth shout

p.s. your 700 rmk and my xc600sp-any time, any place

Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of (permalink) Old 04-23-2000, 09:58 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

Tell you what, I know an engineer for Polaris and I will email him today and get the exact torque number. And I would love to go against your 600 Where are you?

Corey in UTAH

post #23 of (permalink) Old 04-24-2000, 10:29 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

When you two get done comparing dick sizes maybe someone could answer my ques.
about how the Ski-Doo will compare to the Artic Cat. I know just Proto's have been out so far but has anyone had the chance to run these two together. Funny how Doo has had Exhaust valves for years and now that other manufac. have come up to speed the rags are just facinated by them

Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #24 of (permalink) Old 04-24-2000, 10:47 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

The mags are fascinated because the exhaust valve is controlled by the timing curve, not a mechanical valve.

I would go with the Doo, even know I like Cat better. I think the Cat has way more potential and should be stronger in stock form, but Cat needs to prove they can build a reliable sled. Also, the Doo is available in a 151"

Corey in Utah

post #25 of (permalink) Old 04-25-2000, 09:35 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

me personally, i like the doo just cause of looks and graphics, but both motors are junk

post #26 of (permalink) Old 04-25-2000, 09:38 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

still waiting for the numbers there corey, unless you know i am right i accept your apology

p.s. i know people who know numbers too so dont give me a line of bs

post #27 of (permalink) Old 04-26-2000, 03:07 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

According to the article "Stage tuning the Polaris 800 RMK" in the Winter 1999-2000 SnowTech magazine, one of the few
magazines I trust, the stock 2000 800 RMK made a peak of 86.3 ft lbs of torque at 7400 RPM with a top H.P of 126.8 at 8000 RPM.
The most they could make out of the motor in the tests was 158.7 HP at 8300 RPM, 101.6 ft lbs at 8200 RPM. No way in hell the
new 2001 800 RMK will make over 100 ft lbs of torque stock without some serious engine redesign, such as stroking the motor with
crank and rod redesign. The CDI upgrade will clean some of the power up, but no way will it increase torque by 17 ft lbs.

If you can't buy what you want, BUILD IT!!
post #28 of (permalink) Old 04-26-2000, 08:25 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

Well said... I assume the 158 HP motor had some mods? I was a little reluctant to give the numbers, but he said 131-135 HP with around 88 ft-lbs of torque. I think your dealer is feeding you a line of $hit if he is saying 120 ft-lbs. If it had that much torque, I would have one tomorrow So, no apology needed

Corey

post #29 of (permalink) Old 04-26-2000, 10:14 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

Yeah, roger that. To get 158.7 H.P. they needed SLP twin pipes, billet heads, high flow airbox, V Force reeds and porting. Also
needed a diet of 1 gallon race gas to 4 gallons 91 octane pump gas to run good.

If you can't buy what you want, BUILD IT!!
post #30 of (permalink) Old 04-26-2000, 05:47 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: RMK800 OR AC800

the mag is talking track torque i am talking engine torque, trucks have a hard time putting 158hp to the rear wheels so they measure at the flywheel, like the dealer said, 120 lbs

Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome