R
Wow, that's a big statement... Kelseys AC stuff always worked great for me and it looks like his Poo stuff is just as good... Haven't got it on the snow yet but it sounds like I gave my money to the right guy.
Vohk built carls cycle 900 turbo pro
- Thread starter aus091
- Start date
Wow, that's a big statement... Kelseys AC stuff always worked great for me and it looks like his Poo stuff is just as good... Haven't got it on the snow yet but it sounds like I gave my money to the right guy.
Yes he did, after riding it hard for two day in the trees and a couple big pulls and not getting the sled to hiccup or bog one single time I am laughing at the people that think you need a $2,500 standalone
A
2860 would give snappy bottom end on a 800, decent mid and not as much 3 topend. Add to that a 900 big bore and 11,000 feet. Need a 3 series turbo. 2860 is wheezing to feed that 900 that high up.
Dream sled though. I guess boondocker specs its kits with a 2860? Maybe do a kpa 3071, or garret 3071. Kpa 3 series with oiless center section would be a sexy turbo on a high elevation 900 big bore.
Can someone explain how a rkt 858 or even his dropin kit can compare to a carls 900?
Im actually asking.
Dream sled though. I guess boondocker specs its kits with a 2860? Maybe do a kpa 3071, or garret 3071. Kpa 3 series with oiless center section would be a sexy turbo on a high elevation 900 big bore.
Can someone explain how a rkt 858 or even his dropin kit can compare to a carls 900?
Im actually asking.
Net crankshaft horsepower is only loosely relative to engine displacement, though there is some truth to the old adage "There is no replacement for displacement" it doesn't always hold true. There is a tremendous number of variables that effect horsepower, and sometimes the right combination of things will produce a dynamic result. ie do you remember when Cat claimed to have a 140hp 700? that was considerably more power than some 800s being offered at the same time... Nobody believed that until they hit the snow. Current Formula 1 engines are 1600cc, rev over 15,000 rpms and build 750 hp. The Polaris engine is very compact and thus employs a monoblock style cylinder which maximizes the area available for port volume, this is just one possible reason why we see the results we do in testing between these packages. Another is simply a function of rpm, remember that horse power is a derivative of torque and rpms, that said the Carls engine revs 500 rpms less than the RKTek packages. Anyway don't take my word for it, go line them up 
C
nothing special about that video, my sled would spank it any day of the week..post another video to prove your sled, that was weak
A
Net crankshaft horsepower is only loosely relative to engine displacement, though there is some truth to the old adage "There is no replacement for displacement" it doesn't always hold true. There is a tremendous number of variables that effect horsepower, and sometimes the right combination of things will produce a dynamic result. ie do you remember when Cat claimed to have a 140hp 700? that was considerably more power than some 800s being offered at the same time... Nobody believed that until they hit the snow. Current Formula 1 engines are 1600cc, rev over 15,000 rpms and build 750 hp. The Polaris engine is very compact and thus employs a monoblock style cylinder which maximizes the area available for port volume, this is just one possible reason why we see the results we do in testing between these packages. Another is simply a function of rpm, remember that horse power is a derivative of torque and rpms, that said the Carls engine revs 500 rpms less than the RKTek packages. Anyway don't take my word for it, go line them up
Yeah... what he said ^ lol
Similar threads
