• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

IN DEPTH: 2018 M8000 Sno Pro

d1100t

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 30, 2011
1,814
400
83
Saskatchewan Canada
2018

Nice.
I'm looking forward to getting the chance to ride one.
I'd like to be able to update my 2016 with the body work running boards and maybe the clutch.
I hope there's a body work kit???
 
J
Nov 29, 2010
104
14
18
AK
Myself and the rest of the Snowest test crew have been putting in some hard miles on the 2018 M8000 Sno Pro, this thing is insane. Huge difference over a 16 or 17. Enjoy the read!

https://www.snowest.com/2017/02/review-2018-arctic-cat-m8000-sno-pro-

Did you guys notice or can maybe measure if the motors been moved over, my fatty 15 panels rub hard on primary when laid over I cant imagine 2 inches narrower! I heard mention of "new" motor mounts in the tech interview you guys did.
 

Iceman56

Well-known member
Premium Member
Nov 27, 2007
1,249
466
83
Taylor honest opinion since I know you ride a lot of both. What do ya think of it compared to an Axys? What do you like better about each sled??
 

kidwoo

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 28, 2008
2,630
1,875
113
I appreciate that you took the testing seriously enough to buy a matching jacket.

#theextramile
 

ranger12

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 24, 2012
522
333
63
Dickinson ND
I didn't measure the motor but it appears to be in the same place as the previous model. I am going to measure the width of the motor from the outside of the primary across to the recoil. I have a 17 Mtn Cat sitting next to it in my shop. The recoil appears to not stick out as far as the previous model, but is in the same place as the previous one so it could be moved a little. If I get time I will do some measuring.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20170214_172729967.jpg
    IMG_20170214_172729967.jpg
    113.2 KB · Views: 260
  • IMG_20170214_172907655.jpg
    IMG_20170214_172907655.jpg
    92.9 KB · Views: 262
J

JJ_0909

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Nov 16, 2009
1,023
1,033
113
I mean this with no disrespect, but the entirety of this could have been written from the sales brochure...

1) Clutches engage low. Cool, but to many, myself included, this would be a detriment in trees. I want some RPM in the trees. RPM is the key to HP after all, and I want a bit of HP on the bottom end when trying to "cut" into the snow, something essential for sidehilling.

Is engagement something the user can adjust? Is it like normal using a different spring to change this? How were belt temps? How much belt dust was under the hood?

Give us some real information!

2) Your comments on suspension...

" The front shocks are improved for 2018 with increased volume and a shorter negative spring which offers improved ride and handling, especially in the initial stroke travel."

A shorter air spring will add some support to the initial part of the travel, at the expense of "suppleness". Talk about this. Don't just say "the ride was improved". How was it improved? Why was this a good thing? What was the catalyst to that?

Adding air volume does not, by itself, increase the sled's "plushness". It does help in giving the sled a more consistent feel as the shock's spring isn't as likely to be effected by barometric pressure or air temps. Talk about this...

Any change in "feel" has more to do with leverage ratios and valving than it does the spring itself, especially if it was a positive change (feels "more supple" and the negative spring was shorter)

3) So the chassis is the same right? Just the panels are new? Give us some real world comparison as to the differences. Compare the two.

I could pick this whole thing apart, but again, you guys are better than this. You can clearly ride, just back it up with some articulation or hire someone who can ;)

Sorry for being so brazen, but somebody had to say something...

J
 
Last edited:

Chewy22

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 17, 2009
1,987
1,355
113
Montana
I mean this with no disrespect, but the entirety of this could have been written from the sales brochure...

1) Clutches engage low. Cool, but to many, myself included, this would be a detriment in trees. I want some RPM in the trees. RPM is the key to HP after all, and I want a bit of HP on the bottom end when trying to "cut" into the snow, something essential for sidehilling.

Is engagement something the user can adjust? Is it like normal using a different spring to change this? How were belt temps? How much belt dust was under the hood?

Give us some real information!

2) Your comments on suspension...

" The front shocks are improved for 2018 with increased volume and a shorter negative spring which offers improved ride and handling, especially in the initial stroke travel."

A shorter air spring will add some support to the initial part of the travel, at the expense of "suppleness". Talk about this. Don't just say "the ride was improved". How was it improved? Why was this a good thing? What was the catalyst to that?

Adding air volume does not, by itself, increase the sled's "plushness". It does help in giving the sled a more consistent feel as the shock's spring isn't as likely to be effected by barometric pressure or air temps. Talk about this...

Any change in "feel" has more to do with leverage ratios and valving than it does the spring itself, especially if it was a positive change (feels "more supple" and the negative spring was shorter)

3) So the chassis is the same right? Just the panels are new? Give us some real world comparison as to the differences. Compare the two.

I could pick this whole thing apart, but again, you guys are better than this. You can clearly ride, just back it up with some articulation or hire someone who can ;)

Sorry for being so brazen, but somebody had to say something...

J

Looking forward to your ride report when you demo one. Don't forget all the details you alluded to above! :)
 

boondocker97

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 30, 2008
4,053
2,764
113
Billings MT
I mean this with no disrespect, but the entirety of this could have been written from the sales brochure...

1) Clutches engage low. Cool, but to many, myself included, this would be a detriment in trees. I want some RPM in the trees. RPM is the key to HP after all, and I want a bit of HP on the bottom end when trying to "cut" into the snow, something essential for sidehilling. Some of us like a low engagement and it was a complaint with earlier cats. He did say it was still a firm engagement, just lower.

Is engagement something the user can adjust? Is it like normal using a different spring to change this? How were belt temps? How much belt dust was under the hood?

Give us some real information!

2) Your comments on suspension...

" The front shocks are improved for 2018 with increased volume and a shorter negative spring which offers improved ride and handling, especially in the initial stroke travel."

A shorter air spring will add some support to the initial part of the travel, at the expense of "suppleness". Talk about this. Don't just say "the ride was improved". How was it improved? Why was this a good thing? What was the catalyst to that? The air spring is not shorter, the negative spring is. Different things. Negative spring is inside the shock not the air chamber and works against the initial sticktion of the air seals. After the shock starts moving you don't want the negative spring in the equation anymore. If the negative spring is shorter, you can actually run a little lower initial pressure because you don't have to counteract it so far into the stroke.

Adding air volume does not, by itself, increase the sled's "plushness". It does help in giving the sled a more consistent feel as the shock's spring isn't as likely to be effected by barometric pressure or air temps. Talk about this... The bigger thing here is increased air volume makes the air spring less progressive and that on it's own can make things less harsh. I would expect this to be more of a factor in the mid-stroke though. Which is where your shocks are operating a lot when going through moderate trail chop.

Any change in "feel" has more to do with leverage ratios and valving than it does the spring itself, especially if it was a positive change (feels "more supple" and the negative spring was shorter) Spring rate is a big factor to consider when you are talking about leverage ratios at slow-speed movement. I agree Valving does takeover though as shaft speeds increase. A longer rear shock should have changed a leverage ratio somewhere.

3) So the chassis is the same right? Just the panels are new? Give us some real world comparison as to the differences. Compare the two.

I could pick this whole thing apart, but again, you guys are better than this. You can clearly ride, just back it up with some articulation or hire someone who can ;)

Sorry for being so brazen, but somebody had to say something...

J

I would love more technical reviews too, but if you're going to critique a review make sure your information is correct.
 
J

JJ_0909

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Nov 16, 2009
1,023
1,033
113
1) Clutches engage low. Cool, but to many, myself included, this would be a detriment in trees. I want some RPM in the trees. RPM is the key to HP after all, and I want a bit of HP on the bottom end when trying to "cut" into the snow, something essential for sidehilling.

"Some of us like a low engagement and it was a complaint with earlier cats. He did say it was still a firm engagement, just lower."

That's great, again, I asked for more information, not whether or not this is a good thing. I don't care how "firm" engagement is, if I can't tune for RPM, I find this to be a detractor from the sled, especially for anyone who is going to put boost to it...




Is engagement something the user can adjust? Is it like normal using a different spring to change this? How were belt temps? How much belt dust was under the hood?

Give us some real information!

2) Your comments on suspension...

" The front shocks are improved for 2018 with increased volume and a shorter negative spring which offers improved ride and handling, especially in the initial stroke travel."

A shorter air spring will add some support to the initial part of the travel, at the expense of "suppleness". Talk about this. Don't just say "the ride was improved". How was it improved? Why was this a good thing? What was the catalyst to that? The air spring is not shorter, the negative spring is. Different things. Negative spring is inside the shock not the air chamber and works against the initial sticktion of the air seals.


"After the shock starts moving you don't want the negative spring in the equation anymore. If the negative spring is shorter, you can actually run a little lower initial pressure because you don't have to counteract it so far into the stroke."

By your logic running zero negative spring would give the plushest ride as you can run the lowest pressures. This is not the case.

Changing the volume of the negative spring does change how the suspension will ride, but just because you are lowering your air pressure does not mean the suspension is "plusher off the top".

Generally shortening a negative spring will give a less supple feel off the top"(as you noted, less "force" pulling the spring into its travel) but will arguably be more supportive earlier in the stroke. (keeping positive pressure and volume constant)

Put another way, a shorter negative spring will change the spring *curve*, and due to the nature of air, likely make the curve more progressive, meaning more force is required to move the shock earlier in its travel (EG, it gets firmer faster).

Out of a ton of air spring testing, I'm yet to have anyone, myself or a fellow tester get on suspension with less of an air spring and go "oh man, this is plusher or more supple". Its the opposite. Which is fine, but would run the opposite direction of what the tester said...




Adding air volume does not, by itself, increase the sled's "plushness". It does help in giving the sled a more consistent feel as the shock's spring isn't as likely to be effected by barometric pressure or air temps. Talk about this... "The bigger thing here is increased air volume makes the air spring less progressive and that on it's own can make things less harsh. I would expect this to be more of a factor in the mid-stroke though. Which is where your shocks are operating a lot when going through moderate trail chop."


Overally, sure, a larger air spring will make the spring more linear. So does adding more of a negative spring ;) , though a larger positive chamber has more effect on the middle part/later part of the stroke and the negative spring interacts more with the early part of the stroke. So basically what Cat did (trying to really read between the lines) was make the sled's spring rate harder off the top but more linear through the mid/later part of the travel.




Any change in "feel" has more to do with leverage ratios and valving than it does the spring itself, especially if it was a positive change (feels "more supple" and the negative spring was shorter) Spring rate is a big factor to consider when you are talking about leverage ratios at slow-speed movement. I agree Valving does takeover though as shaft speeds increase. A longer rear shock should have changed a leverage ratio somewhere..


Overall I'm asking for more information, maybe I could have articulated this better, but my point is for this to be an "in depth" review, its poorly done. Literally, there was no "in depth" information that one couldn't discern from the PR.
 
Last edited:

ranger12

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 24, 2012
522
333
63
Dickinson ND
JJ_0909


What is it specifically that you would like to know about the 18 early build? I have one, and have some pretty good experience on it and should be able to answer your questions. I am not a shock expert by any means with the Fox Floats though. The biggest thing I noticed with the 18 shocks is that I have not really messed with them at all. I just evened out the front shocks and decreased the rear shock pressure some. I actually like them better than the EVOL shocks. From the varying snow conditions that I have ridden in they just seem to work! It seemed like the EVOL shocks were good one day and not as good the next.


As far as the low engagement, you don't need the engagement any or much higher than it is. With the added torque of the somewhat new motor a higher engagement would be detrimental. The 18 setup is pretty good! I have never said anything good about the factory clutching on an Arctic Cat until the 18. The 18 can use a little work but it is pretty darn good from the factory out of the box.
 
J

JJ_0909

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Nov 16, 2009
1,023
1,033
113
JJ_0909


What is it specifically that you would like to know about the 18 early build? I have one, and have some pretty good experience on it and should be able to answer your questions. I am not a shock expert by any means with the Fox Floats though. The biggest thing I noticed with the 18 shocks is that I have not really messed with them at all. I just evened out the front shocks and decreased the rear shock pressure some. I actually like them better than the EVOL shocks. From the varying snow conditions that I have ridden in they just seem to work! It seemed like the EVOL shocks were good one day and not as good the next.


As far as the low engagement, you don't need the engagement any or much higher than it is. With the added torque of the somewhat new motor a higher engagement would be detrimental. The 18 setup is pretty good! I have never said anything good about the factory clutching on an Arctic Cat until the 18. The 18 can use a little work but it is pretty darn good from the factory out of the box.

Good stuff!

To start, I'd like to see, on paper from 'Cat the changes to the suspension. Fox 100% has these revisions, and its common practice in other adventure-sports industries to disclose this. I put that burden on SW however. That was half my point. We should ask for a better level of detail with this stuff, not just a qualitative "the shocks were way more awesomer" - that's something a 7th grader could write.

Good info on the clutching. What does it engage at out of curiosity. Still not clear if engagement is tunable...

Thanks!
 
J

JJ_0909

ACCOUNT CLOSED
Nov 16, 2009
1,023
1,033
113
JJ_0909


What is it specifically that you would like to know about the 18 early build? I have one, and have some pretty good experience on it and should be able to answer your questions. I am not a shock expert by any means with the Fox Floats though. The biggest thing I noticed with the 18 shocks is that I have not really messed with them at all. I just evened out the front shocks and decreased the rear shock pressure some. I actually like them better than the EVOL shocks. From the varying snow conditions that I have ridden in they just seem to work! It seemed like the EVOL shocks were good one day and not as good the next.


As far as the low engagement, you don't need the engagement any or much higher than it is. With the added torque of the somewhat new motor a higher engagement would be detrimental. The 18 setup is pretty good! I have never said anything good about the factory clutching on an Arctic Cat until the 18. The 18 can use a little work but it is pretty darn good from the factory out of the box.

Good stuff!

To start, I'd like to see, on paper from 'Cat the changes to the suspension. Fox 100% has these revisions, and its common practice in other adventure-sports industries to disclose this. I put that burden on SW however. That was half my point. We should ask for a better level of detail with this stuff, not just a qualitative "the shocks were way more awesomer" - that's something a 7th grader could write.

Good info on the clutching. What does it engage at out of curiosity?Still not clear if engagement is tunable...

Thanks!
 

CO 2.0

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
4,470
2,994
113
44
Fort Collins, CO
I bet cat is still using cheaper internal pistons compared to what fox sells. If cat can save $20 per sled and 99.9% of people not having a clue, then they will do it. At least cat started using aluminum pistons over steel like they used through 13. But I doubt they are using the high flow aluminium pistons.
 
Premium Features