850 E_TEC
- Thread starter dejadoo
- Start date
P
They did everything I could have asked of the new sled the motor work is beyond anything else out there. No other sled is in the same league from a technology standpoint.
But than again what I really want is the same technology in a snowlike where do I put my money down on that one.:face-icon-small-dis
But than again what I really want is the same technology in a snowlike where do I put my money down on that one.:face-icon-small-dis
X
why 850cc
today i talked to a rotax engineer, why they did the 850cc with nearly the same hp than the 800cc etec. The reason is because they limited the rpm's to 7900 because of the Sound and loudness of the Motor. so they lost about 300rpm compared to the 800cc and so they Need to give the Motor 50cc more to get the same hp than the former etec! But he said the hp dosen't really matter. The torque is important, and the new 850cc etec delivers way more torque then the 800 etec.........
today i talked to a rotax engineer, why they did the 850cc with nearly the same hp than the 800cc etec. The reason is because they limited the rpm's to 7900 because of the Sound and loudness of the Motor. so they lost about 300rpm compared to the 800cc and so they Need to give the Motor 50cc more to get the same hp than the former etec! But he said the hp dosen't really matter. The torque is important, and the new 850cc etec delivers way more torque then the 800 etec.........
D
If you listen carefully to skidoos promo video they claim that the new primary holds rpm very well .... If the new primary in fact did hold rpm very well there would be no need for clickers.
Does Poo, Cat or Yammi use clickers to hold rpm ?
DPG
W
So you are saying a poo or cat need no clutch weight change from 2500 ft to 10000 ft of elevation as they will maintain proper operational RPM? I think you need to dig a little deeper.
Last edited:
W
800 Etec RPM recommendation is 7900, on a summit anyhow.
T
WE do not have to listen carefully we SKI DOO people understand there use. Some of us ride from 1500k - 10000k multiple times per year. Listen carefully and don't speak you may learn something here.:eyebrows:
But once again if you look at actually how boat motors are classified by hp and not size and I think Poo rates their motors at about 162hp then Axys should more than compete with the fat girl and her 165hp. I have always thought they should have their hp on the side and not their cc. Who cares if it's an 1100 4stroke. That really isn't the class it fits in. Maybe that's something to suggest to the big 3.5 manufacturers.
DPG, didn't you get to ride a proto last weekend? If so, what was your take on it?
B
Yea. That's right. Spill the beans DPG.
HP Claim
Interesting how no one has figured out that the PTec was 151 hp and if you take that number times 10%....it equals 166.1 (151*1.1). So I would think 165 is probably an accurate number for the new 850.
Also everyone seems to whine about how the 17 weighs so much, but has anyone looked at what new Poo owners are having to do with the Axys right after they buy one? They are having to swap out the A arms to ones that hold up since the OEM ones on the Axys break after a small bump. So do you want cheap and breakable or reliable?
As far as the "holds RPM" claim goes. Everyone knows every Manufacturer can not make an engine/drivetrain that will hold max RPM when going from 7500k to 10k in altitude. My group has seen the lack of hold on all makes where we ride. We start in a parking lot at 7500 and ride up to 9k-10k in altitude. None of the Polaris', Cats or Doo were ever able to hold max RPM when going through those altitude changes, so why not have the ability to make a small change?
But then again I could really stir the pot and tell you guys how awesome Duane's Paragon secondary is after putting one in a 01 Summit 800 and being able to keep up with all the new stuff on the hill, but that's for a different thread/section.
Interesting how no one has figured out that the PTec was 151 hp and if you take that number times 10%....it equals 166.1 (151*1.1). So I would think 165 is probably an accurate number for the new 850.
Also everyone seems to whine about how the 17 weighs so much, but has anyone looked at what new Poo owners are having to do with the Axys right after they buy one? They are having to swap out the A arms to ones that hold up since the OEM ones on the Axys break after a small bump. So do you want cheap and breakable or reliable?
As far as the "holds RPM" claim goes. Everyone knows every Manufacturer can not make an engine/drivetrain that will hold max RPM when going from 7500k to 10k in altitude. My group has seen the lack of hold on all makes where we ride. We start in a parking lot at 7500 and ride up to 9k-10k in altitude. None of the Polaris', Cats or Doo were ever able to hold max RPM when going through those altitude changes, so why not have the ability to make a small change?
But then again I could really stir the pot and tell you guys how awesome Duane's Paragon secondary is after putting one in a 01 Summit 800 and being able to keep up with all the new stuff on the hill, but that's for a different thread/section.
S
....previous reply about polaris stock plus this one....i'm buying sleds, not polaris stock....my last 3 poo's (16, 10, 09) were all undependable, 1 engine, 2 electronics....the primary reason the 950/1000 sleds didn't turn out was engine weight (cat/doo/poo), just terrible engine (poo/doo)...but this 850 e-tec isn't any heavier than 800 e-tec, and the overall sled is claimed to be 25 lbs lighter....plus i bought 2 13 800 e-tecs that i never touched for mechanical/electrical failure, something i can't say about ANY polaris product i have ever owned (sleds/atvs)..as always, just my experience, but valid for me...:sun:
D
I recommend doing some research before posting any more about ski doo clutches. I'm not sure you are understanding the purpose of clickers.
B
Don't doubt the track stand tuning guru.
I like this new design.
As a preface.. I am only referring to the stroke similarities of the engines below... NOT anyting else... comparing the old Poo 900-CFi to this new 850 Rotax would be like comparing a 1972 Chevelle engine to a new LS-7. (no chevy jokes please, just an analogy)
This is just a good discussion, in place of actual sleds to ride for the time being.
I say this from experience... besides the older chassis tech...a 900 RMK (866cc) with the lower 7600 RPM setup has incredible throttle response...a real stump puller.
A 2006 900 RMK with an inexpensive SLP pipe/head/reed kit and re-flash (stock bore and porting) pumps out a real 173hp on pump gas. That would be phenomenal on any sled...at 7900 RPM no less. You can feel this when you ride the sled.
Interested to see what the 11 years in tech advancements will do with this same stroke
That being said, in the same chassis... the 800/700/600 (70mm/68mm/64mm stroke, respectively) have a very noticeable difference in nimbleness factor compared to the 80mm stroke .. even when weight of the sled is similar. I still have my 2007 Dragon 935 (I cant sell it... literally... and it is fun on spring hill pulls).
The 2014 Summit SP 154" 600HO E-Tec that I rode compared to the same year/track/SP Summit SP 154" 800R E-Tec felt different to me...the 600 was more nimble when I rode them. The weight of the two sleds is within a couple of pounds of each other... heck.... the 800 had a light can on it... so it was lighter in weight...Both were fitted with Toms full compliment of same shocks and Alt-impact arms. (husband/wife sleds).
Every change has a cost and a benefit. How much the nimbleness is important over/compared-to power is only a question that each rider can answer... a 230 lb rider will have a different answer than a 150 lb rider... or an expert level rider to an intermediate...tree rider compared to hill climber.
Which is more important... only you can answer that for yourself.
Stroke does play a role in the agility of the sled. Plain physics The larger the inertia of the gyro (rotating assembly) I've felt it in person... how much the other tech (light clutch and hopefully lighter flywheel) of this new 850 SkiDoo engine affects this will be interesting to see. Not just the weight overall...but also the placement of that weight from the centerline of the crank... the new 2-piece rods, at the rim of the crank, are heavier than the previous rods and will induce inertia.
Is the new 850-Rotax crank actually 6 pieces? The bob-weights look like they have a secondary weight bolted to them, 2 per cylinder.
SkiDoo is claiming ...."there are 2 forged pieces to the crankshaft"... which seems true..but there are more 'non-forged' pieces on there as well.
That crank looks heavy to me... but that may just be me... I'll concede that.
Static weight of the motor should not be confused with inertial forces the mill can induce in the chassis while riding at WOT.
MANY things have been lightened on this 850 compared to the 800 E-TEC... but I'll bet that the Crank/Rod assembly isn't one of them.
The porkchop 80mm crank of the Poo 866cc and the porkchop 80mm crank of the 845cc SkiDoo mill seem similar in layout...I'd be very surprised if Poo Crank wasn't lighter. The Poo Crank vibed less with the addition of heavier full circle crank... but was a 'gyro guidance system" in operation.
The new lighter pDrive clutch will be a 'big deal' in this consideration.
With a light clutch... I'm curious to see the "nimbleness" factor of a high rotational-inertia motor will have with all the other tech this sled has.
The new clutch is not only claimed lighter... but more of the weight is near the centerline of the crank... less inertia from that alone.
I wonder what the actual weight of the 80mm SkiDoo Crank is compared to the weight of the 76mm SkiDoo crank.
The 866cc Polaris was a buzz-bomb of a vibrating motor... no doubt about it, that was it's downfall...I'll bet my bottom dollar 850 Rotax engines are very smooth.
Side questions:
Where are these 850 E-TEC's made ?
Can you run the new clutch on the 800 E-TEC ?
What is the actual weight of the new pDrive Clutch?
(I only see a comparison of to the weight of the TRA, 15% less)
I, for one, am excited to feel how this monster-stroke 850 Rides... with so much evolution, experience and quality that this new REV-4 is showing I'm hoping it is as nimble as the previous generation.
Will the 850 be the "weapon of choice" compared to an 800 in tight, technical riding... we'll see. Smaller riders would notice a difference faster than heavier/taller riders would... if that difference is big or not...that's the question.
JUST TO BE CLEAR... I'm a fan of this new motor already... and really hope this engine does well for everyone... I may be on a Doo in 2018.
850 SkiDoo E-TEC Crank
866 Polaris Crank.
2017 pDrive ... Looks light
.
As a preface.. I am only referring to the stroke similarities of the engines below... NOT anyting else... comparing the old Poo 900-CFi to this new 850 Rotax would be like comparing a 1972 Chevelle engine to a new LS-7. (no chevy jokes please, just an analogy)
This is just a good discussion, in place of actual sleds to ride for the time being.
The 80mm stroke will be a torque-MONSTER....
With amazing bottom end response, like only a large stroke can give.
With amazing bottom end response, like only a large stroke can give.
I say this from experience... besides the older chassis tech...a 900 RMK (866cc) with the lower 7600 RPM setup has incredible throttle response...a real stump puller.
A 2006 900 RMK with an inexpensive SLP pipe/head/reed kit and re-flash (stock bore and porting) pumps out a real 173hp on pump gas. That would be phenomenal on any sled...at 7900 RPM no less. You can feel this when you ride the sled.
Interested to see what the 11 years in tech advancements will do with this same stroke
That being said, in the same chassis... the 800/700/600 (70mm/68mm/64mm stroke, respectively) have a very noticeable difference in nimbleness factor compared to the 80mm stroke .. even when weight of the sled is similar. I still have my 2007 Dragon 935 (I cant sell it... literally... and it is fun on spring hill pulls).
The 2014 Summit SP 154" 600HO E-Tec that I rode compared to the same year/track/SP Summit SP 154" 800R E-Tec felt different to me...the 600 was more nimble when I rode them. The weight of the two sleds is within a couple of pounds of each other... heck.... the 800 had a light can on it... so it was lighter in weight...Both were fitted with Toms full compliment of same shocks and Alt-impact arms. (husband/wife sleds).
Every change has a cost and a benefit. How much the nimbleness is important over/compared-to power is only a question that each rider can answer... a 230 lb rider will have a different answer than a 150 lb rider... or an expert level rider to an intermediate...tree rider compared to hill climber.
Which is more important... only you can answer that for yourself.
Stroke does play a role in the agility of the sled. Plain physics The larger the inertia of the gyro (rotating assembly) I've felt it in person... how much the other tech (light clutch and hopefully lighter flywheel) of this new 850 SkiDoo engine affects this will be interesting to see. Not just the weight overall...but also the placement of that weight from the centerline of the crank... the new 2-piece rods, at the rim of the crank, are heavier than the previous rods and will induce inertia.
Is the new 850-Rotax crank actually 6 pieces? The bob-weights look like they have a secondary weight bolted to them, 2 per cylinder.
SkiDoo is claiming ...."there are 2 forged pieces to the crankshaft"... which seems true..but there are more 'non-forged' pieces on there as well.
That crank looks heavy to me... but that may just be me... I'll concede that.
Static weight of the motor should not be confused with inertial forces the mill can induce in the chassis while riding at WOT.
MANY things have been lightened on this 850 compared to the 800 E-TEC... but I'll bet that the Crank/Rod assembly isn't one of them.
The porkchop 80mm crank of the Poo 866cc and the porkchop 80mm crank of the 845cc SkiDoo mill seem similar in layout...I'd be very surprised if Poo Crank wasn't lighter. The Poo Crank vibed less with the addition of heavier full circle crank... but was a 'gyro guidance system" in operation.
The new lighter pDrive clutch will be a 'big deal' in this consideration.
With a light clutch... I'm curious to see the "nimbleness" factor of a high rotational-inertia motor will have with all the other tech this sled has.
The new clutch is not only claimed lighter... but more of the weight is near the centerline of the crank... less inertia from that alone.
I wonder what the actual weight of the 80mm SkiDoo Crank is compared to the weight of the 76mm SkiDoo crank.
The 866cc Polaris was a buzz-bomb of a vibrating motor... no doubt about it, that was it's downfall...I'll bet my bottom dollar 850 Rotax engines are very smooth.
Side questions:
Where are these 850 E-TEC's made ?
Can you run the new clutch on the 800 E-TEC ?
What is the actual weight of the new pDrive Clutch?
(I only see a comparison of to the weight of the TRA, 15% less)
I, for one, am excited to feel how this monster-stroke 850 Rides... with so much evolution, experience and quality that this new REV-4 is showing I'm hoping it is as nimble as the previous generation.
Will the 850 be the "weapon of choice" compared to an 800 in tight, technical riding... we'll see. Smaller riders would notice a difference faster than heavier/taller riders would... if that difference is big or not...that's the question.
JUST TO BE CLEAR... I'm a fan of this new motor already... and really hope this engine does well for everyone... I may be on a Doo in 2018.
850 SkiDoo E-TEC Crank
866 Polaris Crank.
2017 pDrive ... Looks light
.
Last edited:
165 hp makes sense to me.
If SkiDoo claims 156hp for the 800cc mill... and there are 16x50=800.. 17x50=850....
156/16=9.75hp/50cc for the 800R E-TEC
Then
17x9.75 = 165.75...
Seems right to me... AND impressive. Especially at 7900 RPM :face-icon-small-coo
.
If SkiDoo claims 156hp for the 800cc mill... and there are 16x50=800.. 17x50=850....
156/16=9.75hp/50cc for the 800R E-TEC
Then
17x9.75 = 165.75...
Seems right to me... AND impressive. Especially at 7900 RPM :face-icon-small-coo
.
Last edited:
I
It's been mentioned in another thread that they are doing quite well in testing.
Eric, in one of Norona's vids, Rotax guy Rich Kilne claims the new P-Drive is 2.8 lbs ighter than the TRA-7.
D
No, I had the chance however it was difficult to get to the location for the demo ride.
DPG
Similar threads
