94'-95' Summit

WAmtnsledr · Oct 7, 2009

hey i was looking at 94' and 95' Summits, and i thought the guys in the ski doo forum could answer a couple questions

, couldn't really find much information anywhere else. Does anybody know the dry weight and hp ratings of 94 and 95 470's, 583's, and 670's? I really like the looks of these sleds and wanted to possibly buy one. Are they reliable, and i guess what i want to know the most, are they good mountain sleds,can they boondock with the best of them and do they have the power to climb any steep hills, can they sidehill at all, is it like throwing around a tank in the pow,etc. Thanks for any help.

onlyrotax · Oct 8, 2009

Powder Special 500 said:
hey i was looking at 94' and 95' Summits, and i thought the guys in the ski doo forum could answer a couple questions, couldn't really find much information anywhere else. Does anybody know the dry weight and hp ratings of 94 and 95 470's, 583's, and 670's? I really like the looks of these sleds and wanted to possibly buy one. Are they reliable, and i guess what i want to know the most, are they good mountain sleds,can they boondock with the best of them and do they have the power to climb any steep hills, can they sidehill at all, is it like throwing around a tank in the pow,etc. Thanks for any help.

I think the 470's were about 80-85 hp, 583's were 100 or 105 with 40mm carbs, 670's pushing 120hp, probably the best mod for these sleds was to swap in an sc-10 rear suspension which will improve the ride and lose several pounds at the same time. They were very reliable but compared to todays sleds they are a tank, we are still running a 94 stx 583 as a loaner sled, the 583 is still untouched after 15 years. Get rid of some weight, put on a can (the stock silencer must weigh 30 lbs), modern skis, modern lightweight track-------hmmmm--------I might start looking for an old green summit myself.

WAmtnsledr · Oct 8, 2009

thanks for all the info!!!!

do you think they were probably around 520-530 dry?

onlyrotax · Oct 8, 2009

Powder Special 500 said:
thanks for all the info!!!! do you think they were probably around 520-530 dry?

If I remember right the 94 Summit was advertised at 490lbs, dry.

wildcard28 · Oct 9, 2009

That sled set-up right would definetly be a neat mountains sled, it could also make a good sleeper, shave some weight off it, like all foam and any components not really needed, longtrack it, do a Rev Seat conversion or taller seat and Handle bars, sno-eliminator type running boards and some TLC and would make a fun sled, but will always be heavier than a newer sled an won`t handle the same. but build what you enjoy. Those F Chassis sleds are cool looking.

Good Luck.

http://s375.photobucket.com/albums/oo197/ddcard/

WAmtnsledr · Oct 9, 2009

awesome sled wildcard28!!!

onlyrotax, when you said they were a tank compared to the newer sleds i thought you meant ike 520+, 490 lbs. isn't that heavy, only a couple pounds heavier than a new Assault!! And after checking them out some more i'm leaning towards a 95' 670. thanks for all the feedback!

DRD · Oct 9, 2009

I'd look a few years newer and get a 98 or 99. A little better sled and you get DPM instead of the HAC.

WAmtnsledr · Oct 9, 2009

yeah, that's probably a better idea......

onlyrotax · Oct 9, 2009

Another thing about the F chassis that I did not care for was the wide, flat belly pan on the front, they seemed to push a lot of snow instead of splitting it or floating over it. The S chassis was essentially the same sled but it had a more rounded belly pan that was shaped like the bottom of a boat and went through deep snow a lot better, if you can put on longer shocks and get the front end of the F chassis up in the air a little bit it will go through the snow a lot better.

WAmtnsledr · Oct 9, 2009

i just think it would be awesome making one insane F chassis summit..... maybe a turbo... hahaha, probably could never do that.

780mod · Oct 30, 2009

U can definately turbo one of these back in 98 there was a guy in our town with 95 turbo 670summit and it haul'd a s s. I did a 95 machZ up with a sc-10 and all the summit goodies but in the end went back with the s chassis over the f doo to the weight and ride quality but they look fast. tripple s chassis kick butt

NoSecondChances · Oct 30, 2009

If you do buy one, re-jetting is mandatory. I dropped my 95 670 from 410's to 370's, went leaner on the needle with AA2's and raised the clip one position. EGT on it and she ran 1200's all day, pulled like a freight train.

Onlyrotas is right, can's and suspension were really heavy. But if a guy wanted to do full mod on one, you could really chop them down, they had lots of fat to trim. If you could get one really cheap it would be a fun little sled. I would only consider the 583 or the 670. The 470 was a good motor but the added weight of the sled would not lend itself to the sub-500cc class very well. You'd have to make it REALLLLLYYYY light in order for a 470 to be able to climb some decent hills. IF you're building a sled for a wife or kid, the 470 would be a decent choice.

One of the bonuses was the nice big tank, no jerry cans. Longer shocks up front to get the nose up in the air and a different track are all mandatory.

Bulkhead and tunnel clearance for the bigger tracks is another issue here, need a longer chaincase, drop and roll or 7T drivers to have decent clearance with a 2" track. I think you can get away with 8T drivers, but a 2" track is tight with this setup (assuming my memoery is accurate). Its been a few years since I worked on one.

WAmtnsledr · Oct 30, 2009

thanks for all the suggestions NoSecondChances

:beer;:beer;:beer;

eazyduzit509 · Oct 31, 2009

98-99 670 X was pushing 130hp i believe... Few more goodies than the NON-X.

meche · Nov 1, 2009

I owned a '95 and a '97, both 670's. The 95 actually had a little more power than the 97, and the 95 got a lot better fuel economy, but the 95 was a tank. The rear suspension was no good at all, and same with the brake. It had the same brake as my '86 Formula Plus, and that brake just was not strong enough for the lug track, it would quickly fad and you'd have to come home without brakes. Also, the torque of the track tricked the self adjuster to mess up, and that was a PITA to fix on the hill. If you get a 95, i'd suggest buying a chaincase off of a 96-99 to upgrade the brake, and the rear suspension off of the newer sled too. I bet you can buy those parts for cheap now. The 97 climbed twice as good as the 95, better track, 35 lbs lighter, better suspension, and I agree with the belly pan differences. Oh, and I believe the '95 was advertised over 500 lbs. However my '95 was indestructible. around 8000 miles had to replace my needle and needle seat because that was the first item to wear out! had not even been into the clutch yet. Pretty amazing.

travisbsbl · Dec 14, 2009

Ya I have a 1995 Summit 670.. put longer shocks on the front.. made a world of difference.. other than that it's all stoc

k... It is for sale too

wildcard28 · Dec 16, 2009

Those chassis`s are definetly a neat lookin body style, would make a good project and cool mountain sled.

Wildcard28

Search

94'-95' Summit

WAmtnsledr

Well-known member

onlyrotax

Free Member

WAmtnsledr

Well-known member

onlyrotax

Free Member

wildcard28

Well-known member

WAmtnsledr

Well-known member

DRD

Free Member

WAmtnsledr

Well-known member

onlyrotax

Free Member

WAmtnsledr

Well-known member

780mod

Free Member

NoSecondChances

Free Member

WAmtnsledr

Well-known member

eazyduzit509

Free Member

meche

Free Member

travisbsbl

Free Member

wildcard28

Well-known member

Similar threads