Speedwerx supercharger install pics.

[carlc]

The supercharged sleds are not hard to start, in fact they are probably the nicest, most reliable 1-2 pull mod sled I have ever been around. And they do make just as much or more power pound for pound than a turbo. My old sled was a boondocker at 8.4 lbs, we raced a supercharged sled at 6.8 lbs and could never touch it.

 

[WyoBoy1000]

What do you mean by "blow the fuel through"?... Are we still in denial that the SC's won't make big power after it won the Jackson hole dash for cash last year and dominated the X Games "drag race" as I like to call it, because the first person to the top of the hill usually won the race. That SC Cat was killing claimed 300hp sleds at Xgames. Not sure how much boost it was running. Supposedly the SC Pro RMK that Carls built for Levi Lavalli was running 23psi.

Yes I believe the turbos will make more power boost for boost but its hard to say the SC's don't make power and won't build any power over so much boost when Speedwerx has proved that wrong numerous times.

I know that and I also know of the failures to get there, I know they are getting better but we are talking about a 1200 build that had never been done. Not something you want to take on without any experience.

The supercharged sleds are not hard to start, in fact they are probably the nicest, most reliable 1-2 pull mod sled I have ever been around. And they do make just as much or more power pound for pound than a turbo. My old sled was a boondocker at 8.4 lbs, we raced a supercharged sled at 6.8 lbs and could never touch it.

Everyone I've heard from says they are harder to pull over? ? But like I said it's what I've heard. Not that they don't start just hard to pull and the 1000 is already a harder pull. Are you saying it doesn't take any more effort than a stock sled?

6-7lbs is what I've heard is reliable for the average guy, and that's coming from a reliable source. When you turn it up like a turbo there is not enough back pressure and causes failures. Yeah its getting better and it has been done but the whole point of a supercharger is for instant power. A really well setup 1000 already pulls hard off bottom and a 1200 wouldn't need it, therefor it would be much wiser to run a proven turbo setup over SC. Wouldn't you think. Remember this has nothing to do with the current 800 setup,

 

[tundramonkey]

They are not any harder to pull over than a stock sled. Fuel consumption is a bit worse than stock, but not by much. Maybe a gallon more through out the day.

A properly setup stock 1000 doesn't have nearly the same pull off the bottom as a 800 with a supercharger, not even close. Not saying a 1000 is a dog off the bottom, just not as strong as a 800 supercharged.

As for adding a supercharger to 1200 over a turbo. That's a tuff call. The bottom end would be almost to much I would think. But to each his own.

 

[Sparx]

Let's start clearing this up a bit better. Carlc, the Super your referring to is a Cat right, not a Polaris?

The sled I rode was a Cat, no questioning the fuel consumption. I spent enough time on a sled to know the difference, this is one thirsty unit. Was it as lean as it could be? Definitely not, but it wasn't puking fuel out the exhaust like many other sleds I seen.

Definitely was rich off the bottom and it made it easy to flood. Was a set technique to clear out the unburnt fuel if it didn't catch first pull or two. Nothing magical, just a couple pulls with the kill switch on. Then it would fire with just off idle throttle. It wasn't flawless and hard at times for people not used to pulling over big blocks like the 1000's on their own. If anything was to blame here it would be pointed a the Power Commander for complication of use over quick adjustability due to the need of the laptop.

If a sled is empty next to another that only burnt 1/2 a tank, I can assure you it's thirsty. Running a TM1200 race gas, TM8 race gas/propane, XM and an M1000, got a good base platform to understand fuel consumption in the Mountains with alot of other friends in the group running stock machines for comparison. As mentioned if you read clearly, the exact same setup Proclimb from his brothers unit was in the trailer we rode the second day running just a pipe setup. No comparison, only other sled I seen burn this much fuel was a Supercharged Apex. I'm sure you could get a 50mile deep pow day, but not riding the way I ride and weighing 250lbs geared up.

I don't think the super was any harder to start than my TM1200, easier if anything for sure. Just hard to pull and crack the throttle at the same time if your not used to pulling a 1000+cc sled over. Cracking the throttle makes a huge difference in relieving the compression to aid in starting, and in the case of the Super we rode with Speedwerx tuning, to clean it up to fire easier and spin over faster.

There is a difference in between the SC800 and my TM1200 in the bottom end. The SC800 feels more electric and smooth like a 4 stroke. The 1200 is more a torque effect after the belt is engaged and rolling like 10-15mph. The SC800 is like right at engagement and makes a difference in how little it will smoke the belt as a result. It's not like it surges or pulses like a typical 2 stroke at engagement coming off an on all the time. it's like you could hold it right at clutch engagement so smoothly and hold it there. BUT! You need good traction. You need it to tame the instant torque it can apply to the track or it will spin until you've gained enough momentum to find new traction.

We rode the SC the first day, then the piped Proclimb the next day, and SC again the last day. Really good reference and the conditions stayed the same all 3 days. The XM never touched it's reserve fuel, neither did the Piped ProClimb. Everyday we took the SC out it needed fuel and burnt up every bit it had flashing reserve back to the truck.

The owner snowchecked a new 2016 from SpeedWerx through Jeremy, it will be interesting to spend more time with that unit next season no doubt. It really was amazing how well it ran on the bottom end especially locally around 1000ft elevation. Definitely alot better than my Turbo's on many levels.

 

[kiliki]

awesome post!
you nailed it, now if SW would get the base map leaned out a bit and offer some real tuning for the pcv you would have a almost home run. the off side is the cost of the SC over the turbo, now days you can put a well set up turbo on for about 2k less than the SC.
Tundra monkey how was your fuel consumption?
I ride a lot of steep and deep with trees and trail mix, most days are 60-80 miles with 10-30 of that round trip with trail to get the off to the play areas.
so as a side note have had m1000, tm1000, piped PC and a few guys in our group have tm8s so i know what the fuel consumptions are the the SC800 eat more fuel.

 

[WyoBoy1000]

Doing the 1000 in the pc there is an advantage in the clutching department of you know how to get it and you can make it launch better and smoother

 

[Sparx]

Funny thing, on the trail ride up it really didn't seem that thirsty for some reason and I was riding it most of the trail up really aggressively trying to wheely the whoops. But the tank is always on the high end there anyways, so it's tricky to gauge trail consumption on a short trail. Just came down hard when riding in the deep trying pulls back to back.

One thing to note though... The snow was unusually deep and super heavy like mashed potatoes. It was loading the machines down and packing the skids up bad. It almost made the snow slippery like snot underneath about 1ft under and you could dig down a few feet easy trenching the big pulls. It was poor spring weather for us and had snow 3ft easy just a couple days prior and setup some.

The last day stuck in the canyon we weren't even riding much cause we were getting stuck so much. We went down in the drainage with maybe just under 1/2 a tank, ran out before making it back to the top and had the 1 gallon spare brought down to us by a buddy on a 174x2.5" Pro. His sled did great climbing out where the SC800 was having a hard time keeping a straight line and hooking up. My 163x2.5" XM struggled but did better than the SC800 no doubt making it back to the truck in the same situation with over 1/4 tank easy not using any of the spare. We had a buddy on a Big Bore Turbo'd snow bike that wanted nothing to do with going down in there to get us the fuel, neither did the other 174" T3 member in our group. It wasn't a good spot to be in. A snow bunje and a 30ft sling would have been nice to get that SC800 out of that hole.

I can assure if it was my sled it wouldn't have been setup like that. It felt useless in that setup.
I wouldn't have that track, that Ice Age Motion pivot, and no Skinz front end susp either. A KMod on a 174x2.5" Camo X, lower gearing and high boost pulley. Maybe a 4gal or two Mountain addiction track jugs on the tunnel. lol
Oh and vertical post like the other PC... The owner took some suggestions for the 2016 build. As mentioned before, can't wait to try that out and see the improvements SW makes to the fueling and see if it helps trim it's consumption.

Our trails to the hills are usually 10-20 miles back, so you can get some 60 mile days tacked up at times. The last day was maybe a 10 mile ride in at best, no excuse there. Snow was marginal on that hill compared to the first day as well, which was the deepest day and most hill pulling.

 

[Iceman56]

awesome post!
you nailed it, now if SW would get the base map leaned out a bit and offer some real tuning for the pcv you would have a almost home run. the off side is the cost of the SC over the turbo, now days you can put a well set up turbo on for about 2k less than the SC.
Tundra monkey how was your fuel consumption?
I ride a lot of steep and deep with trees and trail mix, most days are 60-80 miles with 10-30 of that round trip with trail to get the off to the play areas.
so as a side note have had m1000, tm1000, piped PC and a few guys in our group have tm8s so i know what the fuel consumptions are the the SC800 eat more fuel.

What complete, intercooled turbo kit can you buy for $4,500?? I actually thought $6,500 was a decent price compared to most turbo kits

 

[tundramonkey]

awesome post!
you nailed it, now if SW would get the base map leaned out a bit and offer some real tuning for the pcv you would have a almost home run. the off side is the cost of the SC over the turbo, now days you can put a well set up turbo on for about 2k less than the SC.
Tundra monkey how was your fuel consumption?
I ride a lot of steep and deep with trees and trail mix, most days are 60-80 miles with 10-30 of that round trip with trail to get the off to the play areas.
so as a side note have had m1000, tm1000, piped PC and a few guys in our group have tm8s so i know what the fuel consumptions are the the SC800 eat more fuel.

My fuel consumption was only about a 1/2 to a full gallon more than a stock sled with the same miles ridden on any given day.

With that said, I think fuel consumption has way to many variables. Yeah a lot of people want big HP with great fuel economy, but its just not reality. If you keep any sled pinned its going to get terrible mileage. But I've seen 800's and 1000's get better mileage than 600's because you don't need to hold the throttle to the bar to get where you want to go.

Maybe its just my riding style vs others. I spend a lot of time in the tree and don't need to have it pinned.

 

[carlc]

Thanks tundramonkey. As I have said before, the fuel consumption has been a noon issue for the six cat superchargers we have in the stable. Fuel consumption is tough to meter sled to sled, in fact did you know the three shapes on the ecus each have a different fuel map that is based off the injector flows? That is a variable. Weigh of sled, rider,equipment, throttle position habits, snow conditions, elevations, hunidity, temp. All have an effect on fuel consumption. All I can say is that the six charged sleds we have, none of the customers have complained about economy.

And as far as a 2k cheaper turbo? Let's line them up. Then let's line them up 2000 miles later, along with a list of replaced parts.

Wyoboy, I agree that a charger would be overkill on a 1000. But damn it would be fun.

 

[carlc]

And you can't judge the proclimb by the fuel gauge, it should only he calculated at the pump. Also, if you had fuel dripping out the pipe, you were extremely very way much too rich! Trims on the pod300 gauge or on the laptop can adjust fuelig without changing the map, maybe the numbers were messed with there

 

[Hardass]

Theres no way that a super charged or turboed sled pushing more air through the motor is going to get the same or even close to the same mileage as a stock sled.you cant build the kind of power being described off of compressed air only.

 

[Iceman56]

Theres no way that a super charged or turboed sled pushing more air through the motor is going to get the same or even close to the same mileage as a stock sled.you cant build the kind of power being described off of compressed air only.

If the boosted sled and stock sled are held at the same throttle position all day then no they won't get same mileage... What some are saying is the boosted sleds don't need to have the throttle pinned even half as long as a non boosted sled to go the same places. Resulting in close to the same fuel consumption. If your boosted sled is tuned in perfect and running extra injectors these things can get surprisingly good mileage.

I have ran the old carbarated ski doos out of fuel with my turbo and was riding a lot more and harder then he was.

 

[Hardass]

so me and my buddy both have 71 chevelles with 502s in them his is stock with headers mine has a supercharger on it the tree hits green and im gone and at the finish line long before he gets there my fuel consumption is way higher than his even though we went the same distance. your saying we should have similar fuel consumption? because it takes him longer to get there?

 

[tundramonkey]

so me and my buddy both have 71 chevelles with 502s in them his is stock with headers mine has a supercharger on it the tree hits green and im gone and at the finish line long before he gets there my fuel consumption is way higher than his even though we went the same distance. your saying we should have similar fuel consumption? because it takes him longer to get there?

I think you are looking at this from a different perspective. In your scenario I would agree that the supercharger would consume more fuel.

Look at it from the standpoint of both vehicles going the same speed and distance.

The supercharged vehicle will most likely travel at the same speed at lower rpm than the vehicle without the supercharger. Therefore, fuel consumption should be relatively close between the two.

 

[WyoBoy1000]

Thanks tundramonkey. As I have said before, the fuel consumption has been a noon issue for the six cat superchargers we have in the stable. Fuel consumption is tough to meter sled to sled, in fact did you know the three shapes on the ecus each have a different fuel map that is based off the injector flows? That is a variable. Weigh of sled, rider,equipment, throttle position habits, snow conditions, elevations, hunidity, temp. All have an effect on fuel consumption. All I can say is that the six charged sleds we have, none of the customers have complained about economy.

And as far as a 2k cheaper turbo? Let's line them up. Then let's line them up 2000 miles later, along with a list of replaced parts.

Wyoboy, I agree that a charger would be overkill on a 1000. But damn it would be fun.

Line them up and see what happens now and 2k later?? Hmmm. I think I will build a turbo for next year, very interesting

 

[Hardass]

Maybe i am looking at it wrong but i can tell you this no one is going to ride around at partial rpm so they can get the same fuel economy as a stocker.Is that what people are doing? HaHaHa I built my own turbo set on a m8 and it runs awsome every day instant on off throttle responce probably got 1500 miles on it now of pretty hard riding and no parts replaced yet and it doesnt seem like ill have to replace anything anytime soon.Well i did change the belt once.

I have rode a 4 stoke supercharged machine and that thing was awsome for sure instant power. This two stroke supercharger thing has been going on for some time now but still does not seem to have much traction yet. No one i have talked with or myself has seen one around which always led me to believe they may not be working out very well. I would love to ride around with one for a day maybe even try it out so i have first hand knowledge of what they can do.

 

[turboless terry]

They are awesome. My buddy has a pro. I get to ride it whenever I want. Way more fun than a turbo. Fuel consumption is the only downside I see. I was going to pull the trigger but decided to wait for the axys. He has 10 grand in his. That is why they haven't caught on yet.

 

[Iceman56]

Do the Speedwerxs Cat Superchargers run extra injectors or bigger ones? I am pretty sure the Pro Superchargers run only the Bullydog so that they have to run bigger injectors which IMO makes a big difference in fuel economy.

 

[tundramonkey]

Do the Speedwerxs Cat Superchargers run extra injectors or bigger ones? I am pretty sure the Pro Superchargers run only the Bullydog so that they have to run bigger injectors which IMO makes a big difference in fuel economy.

The kit comes with bigger injectors to replace the stock ones.