2011 RMK Pro 155 Weight as delivered

VOHK · Sep 24, 2010

I weighed this unit as delivered, for those who may be unfamiliar with how they come, here is an overview. Unit starts and runs (very little fuel), coolant full, brake, suspension and chain case fluids full, some injection oil (pint-ish), drive belt (no spare), hardware and tools in bag on tunnel. I use a suspension scale and tare with three tie downs. This unit weighed 452lbs +/- a couple lbs as most scales vary. On the very same scale the Arctic M8 153 SP as delivered was 476lbs. Should be exciting to how light we get the new RMK as our builds progress.

milehighassassin · Sep 25, 2010

Nice! Did you see this thread?
http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=225794

Pretty much the same thing, although you guys are getting a little different numbers. He is claiming 452 "dry" no fluids"

Monty · Sep 25, 2010

Is there a big weight savings with the pipe silencer on the polaris like there is on the cat?

mountainhorse · Sep 25, 2010

Erik...

Thanks for that post.

So, for a true dry weight (no coolant, no injection oil, no gasoline) the published numbers are pretty accurate (436 lbs)

I figure 1 gallon of gas (about 7 lbs), 1 gallon of coolant (about 8 lbs), 1 qt of injection oil (2 lbs)... about 17lbs total in fluids....

452 -17 ... 435lbs dry.....

Good to see some accurate weights from the factory for a change.

24 lbs starting differnce from the M8.... should be interesting.

Should be a good Polaris year for Alpine:face-icon-small-win

Maybe you will be a "Cat Convert" this year... LOL.

Big thanks to you for putting that on the scale.

Did Rocky tell you when to expect some bolt on goodies??

mountainhorse · Sep 25, 2010

The hydroformed stock muffler on the Pro is pretty light... the proto weiged 11.4 lbs on the scale... an aftermarket should be able to drop about 3 lbs on that... some will be lighter but would not pass the Colorado (and other) noise laws for sleds (in the field testing).

IMO.... possible weight savings could be approx 8 lbs for a Timbersled suspension, 2 lbs for an EZ Ride/Holz, floats in front -3 lbs, pipe and muffler -6 lbs, 1 lb for insulation, Timbersled front suspension -7 lbs, FTX (real) Carbon hood and side pan6els -6 lbs, HL delete -4.5 lbs...... looks like about 35 lbs reduction without getting "wacky" for a dry weight of around the 400 lb mark.... not bad!!

milehighassassin · Sep 25, 2010

400 lbs dry would be amazing! Port the track for another couple lbs!

Can any weight be shed on the shocks?

Jaynelson · Sep 25, 2010

Thanks for puttin it on the scale, that is pretty damn good I'd say!

mold · Sep 25, 2010

You folks certainly seem to have a lot of extra time on your hands!?!!?

mountainhorse · Sep 25, 2010

milehighassassin said:
400 lbs dry would be amazing! Port the track for another couple lbs!

Can any weight be shed on the shocks?

That, approx, 400lbs dry would be with Float 2 shocks... EVOL-X or R shocks will weigh about the same.

Further porting of the already center-ported Series 5.1 single ply track, that already has oversized track windows, would probably weaken the track considerably.

Not a whole lot more to drop weight with...Maybe FTX Carbon Tunnel sides and tunnel-roof-panel, thinner wall Cromo steering post and idler arms, tubular tie rods and alloy ends, tubular drag-link and alloy ends, shed the center driver, lightweight gears, lighter/smaller taillight, Brembo (Ski Doo) master cylinder, lighter skis. SPG LW seat, Ti A-Arms.

Maybe down to 385-390 dry with all the above.

milehighassassin · Sep 25, 2010

mold said:
You folks certainly seem to have a lot of extra time on your hands!?!!?

Welcome to summer! (or anything other than winter)

switchback · Sep 25, 2010

I am getting that tingly feeling!!!!

theshadowrider · Sep 25, 2010

Dry weight joke.

First off I think the Pro's are awesome and love how they cut weight. I think that the way that the sled builders weigh the sleds is a joke. Who rides without oil, coolant, gas, ect. Why not list its weight without a track and motor while they are at it and call it the empty weight. Just list its weight ready to ride so we can compare! I know it won't happen just a thought I was having!

AndrettiDog · Sep 25, 2010

theshadowrider said:
First off I think the Pro's are awesome and love how they cut weight. I think that the way that the sled builders weigh the sleds is a joke. Who rides without oil, coolant, gas, ect. Why not list its weight without a track and motor while they are at it and call it the empty weight. Just list its weight ready to ride so we can compare! I know it won't happen just a thought I was having!

I get your sarcasm. Dry weights are not what we deal with but are the only way to compare sled to sled. Not all the sleds have the same fuel, oil, coolant capacities. It's just like the HP comparison. A 160 HP sled doesn't have 160 HP at 10,000 feet so why do we care? It's all for comparison and bragging rights.

mountainhorse · Sep 25, 2010

I hear ya too. A low dry weight (no coolant, no oil, no gas)... gives RELATIVE weights..

With all the mods out there... it is nice to see a facory offering that is lighter than most of the mods.

You are right though we dont ride dry sleds... gas and oil and coolant need to be part of the equation....

A 435 lb dry sled will still be noticeably lighter than a 480 lb dry sled :face-icon-small-win

Add 12 gallons of fuel, 1/2 gallon of oil... 1.25 gallons of coolant and you are adding another approx 100 lbs to the sled

turbonium · Sep 25, 2010

arm scale

Was able to hold kid in right arm while squirmin and pick up back of sled with left only (pretty high) with on;ly minor grunting.:face-icon-small-ton

VOHK · Sep 26, 2010

Milehighassassin the thread you pointed to was referencing an estimated dry weight of an Assault I weighed an RMK Pro wet (very different unit). This is where I agree with shadowrider regarding the references to dry weight, I prefer weight reference to be "wet no fuel". I believe this is a reasonable comparison due to the variance in fuel capacity from one manufacturer to another. Consider a units coolant capacity being far larger than its competitors may result in a lower "dry weight" yet a higher "wet no fuel weight". A similar thought experiment may be applied to a 4 stoke sled who's fuel economy is far greater then its smelly counterpart, yet when weighed with no fuel seems less appealing until its range is considered. So at the end of the day, when comparing two strokes with relatively similar fuel economy, "wet no fuel" seems about the fairest. Also worthy of mention is scale to scale differences, especially when breaching our northern border (evidently theirs works quite different than ours). I have weighed hundreds of sleds in varying states over many years, all with the same scale and technique, this doesn't guarantee I am right but does guarantee a great standard of comparison.

theshadowrider · Sep 26, 2010

VOHK said:
Milehighassassin the thread you pointed to was referencing an estimated dry weight of an Assault I weighed an RMK Pro wet (very different unit). This is where I agree with shadowrider regarding the references to dry weight, I prefer weight reference to be "wet no fuel". I believe this is a reasonable comparison due to the variance in fuel capacity from one manufacturer to another. Consider a units coolant capacity being far larger than its competitors may result in a lower "dry weight" yet a higher "wet no fuel weight". A similar thought experiment may be applied to a 4 stoke sled who's fuel economy is far greater then its smelly counterpart, yet when weighed with no fuel seems less appealing until its range is considered. So at the end of the day, when comparing two strokes with relatively similar fuel economy, "wet no fuel" seems about the fairest. Also worthy of mention is scale to scale differences, especially when breaching our northern border (evidently theirs works quite different than ours). I have weighed hundreds of sleds in varying states over many years, all with the same scale and technique, this doesn't guarantee I am right but does guarantee a great standard of comparison.

I agree with you. I think it would be nice to have a ready to ride sled weight to a given distance. Some sleds have enough fuel to go double the distance and some sleds get better fuel economy. So compare sleds ad a ready to ride weight with enough fuel to go a given distance like 50 or 100 miles. Then you could have an equal comparison of actual riding weights of sleds, which is what really we are concerned with! Anyway, sorry to go off on a tangent. I can't wait to ride a pro, and someday own one, when they are a few years older and I can afford one!

snowmobiler · Sep 26, 2010

its good to finally see skidoo might have some competiton on the hills this winter.its been lonely at the top

KAWGRN · Sep 26, 2010

I think the only weight that counts is the one 1 mile from the gas station when I'm stuck up to my a@@ thats the real world!!!!
and any one know what a D-8 weighed in the same condition????

M.M. 700 · Sep 26, 2010

theshadowrider said:
First off I think the Pro's are awesome and love how they cut weight. I think that the way that the sled builders weigh the sleds is a joke. Who rides without oil, coolant, gas, ect. Why not list its weight without a track and motor while they are at it and call it the empty weight. Just list its weight ready to ride so we can compare! I know it won't happen just a thought I was having!

If they would start weighing sled "wet" you would see them start making small oil tanks/gas tanks/etc...

2011 RMK Pro 155 Weight as delivered

Well-known member

Moderator: Premium Member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator: Premium Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator: Premium Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads