Pipe/power differences over the years

kidwoo · Oct 31, 2017

I've seen a bunch of people reference power differences across the proclimb years. I think mine (2016) is rated at 104kw which is 139hp :face-icon-small-dis

Weren't the stickers on the 2014s like 108 or 112kw?

There are different pipe part numbers, for instance:

2014-2016: 1712-792

2017: 2712-013

ECUs for 2014/15 are different as well. 2016 and 2017 are the same, so is it the older ecu map that did it?

Anybody mix and match any of this stuff? Say a 2017 pipe or a 2015 ECU on a 2016?

I love my 16 but I know it's missing some ponies.

kidwoo · Nov 1, 2017

No one's done this? Really?

I'm seeing some old ECUs on ebay with numbers like 0730-190 for proclimbs but AC doesn't even recognize these as a part number. Assuming they were updated?

What's the vote? 2017 pipe, or old ecu? I'm doing one of them :face-icon-small-hap

Old & slow · Nov 2, 2017

kidwoo said:
I've seen a bunch of people reference power differences across the proclimb years. I think mine (2016) is rated at 104kw which is 139hp :face-icon-small-dis

Weren't the stickers on the 2014s like 108 or 112kw?

There are different pipe part numbers, for instance:

2014-2016: 1712-792

2017: 2712-013

ECUs for 2014/15 are different as well. 2016 and 2017 are the same, so is it the older ecu map that did it?

Anybody mix and match any of this stuff? Say a 2017 pipe or a 2015 ECU on a 2016?

I love my 16 but I know it's missing some ponies.

The 17 pipe mounts different there is no performance change, if you buy the 17 pipe you will need the matching belt guard. They moved it down to stop melting the hood/intake. As far as the ECM goes would you not be better off with a boondocker? If you want more power go with something that works instead of guessing or hoping it will make it better. The Jaws Big Shark works, first hand experience. I like the looks of the Speed Werx Fat Daddy Adjustable having the restricted end for elevation is what they need. Jaws does the same with an internal restriction.
That's why most cans loose power at elevation and they dyno them all at lower elevation.

Readymedic · Nov 2, 2017

That sticker was on the back of the tunnel on the 14's.

bgraff1 · Nov 2, 2017

ECM's have to match the style of injectors you have (circle, square and triangle I believe) so that will be your different part numbers. as far as I know 2012-2016 are all the same. arctic cat never stated any HP changes throughout the years until the new motor came out

sno*jet · Nov 2, 2017

tunnel sticker

what if its a rating taken somewhere after the clutches, would that make sense?
guys on here were all gung-ho about the new 17 mapping when the MC came out but i still think it was all in the dropped case.

kidwoo · Nov 2, 2017

I knew about the three injector/ECU combos. Good info on the 17 pipe just being a different mount...thanks! I've been looking at the Jaws setup, it's just that an ecu or stock pipe are cheaper to find. Plus I've seen the fit, or lack of fit, with those pipes. Not realy keen to go melting my hood. And there's something different about the 16s, everyone's been saying it since they came out.

I switched my 16 to 8t drivers without dropping the case yet and it certainly felt like it freed up the track some. It still just doesn't feel as strong as some of the other years, especially the 17s. Like a lot of people I'm convinced there's something else going on beyond the dropped case.

Thanks for all the info guys. Just trying to nail down what's really different.

Readymedic: weren't the older ones like 112kw or something?

kiliki · Nov 2, 2017

My 14 has 113 kw on the tunnel and my 16 has 109kw

Mike from langley · Nov 2, 2017

Engine power

My ‘15 says 113

kidwoo · Nov 2, 2017

I'm out to corral those 5 lost horses

boondocker97 · Nov 2, 2017

If you want to keep everything else stock, get yourself one of those hillclimb flashed ECUs talked about in the other thread. Then you'll know you have about as much squeezed out of a stock motor on pump gas as you can.

knifedge · Nov 2, 2017

Research clutching

DONT buy more parts until you clutch the sled... clutching is BIG

Clutching makes a huge difference

Id only go with BMP clutch kit if you want a kit as they use a steeper angle helix...i did not like the 43 and 180/270 spring

10k ft
I ran MDS with 122/285 spring and 43 helix with 180/270 spring and 7 tooth 20/49 same gearing as 8 tooth 19/50--- it was a different sled..ran really well, BUT im going back to the stock 48 helix with 180/270 spring spring this year...might also try a 50 or 52 helix....shallower helix is the wrong direction i believe...

kidwoo · Nov 2, 2017

knifedge said:
Research clutching

DONT buy more parts until you clutch the sled... clutching is BIG

Clutching makes a huge difference

Id only go with BMP clutch kit if you want a kit as they use a steeper angle helix...i did not like the 43 and 180/270 spring

10k ft
I ran MDS with 122/285 spring and 43 helix with 180/270 spring and 7 tooth 20/49 same gearing as 8 tooth 19/50--- it was a different sled..ran really well, BUT im going back to the stock 48 helix with 180/270 spring spring this year...might also try a 50 or 52 helix....shallower helix is the wrong direction i believe...

No offense but this is kind of the problem when everyone says 'mess with clutching'. Usually they themselves are still searching around. And god help us if wyoboy gets involved

If there was a unified voice on a particular setup I'd be down. But I can't seem to find one. To be honest there's nothing that stands out about the stock clutching to me to change other than maybe helix angles. And honestly that's kind of a preference thing. I like smooth gradual shifting where some guys just like to feel a punch. But I'm right in the stock zone of 6k-9k elevation and other than the primary not shifting all the way out, it seems to work pretty well.

Besides, clutching doesn't change the motor output rating. They did something to the 2016s. Something goofy.

kidwoo · Nov 2, 2017

boondocker97 said:
If you want to keep everything else stock, get yourself one of those hillclimb flashed ECUs talked about in the other thread. Then you'll know you have about as much squeezed out of a stock motor on pump gas as you can.

I kind of realized something this morning. I bought my last sled, a 2010 m8 from someone who's kid was on the AC race program. There's a really good chance I may be using a non-stock ecu programmed m8 as my reference.

sno*jet · Nov 2, 2017

kidwoo said:
Besides, clutching doesn't change the motor output rating.

so you believe there were significant power output differences between the years, when measured at the crank? I doubt it. couple ponies maybe.
I think its either
1. a rating measured somewhere after the primary, like at the driveshaft, (different clutching over the years) or
2. the number is put there for purchasing/insurance reasons.
Corvettes had motors in the past that put out more than what was listed, so more people could actually finance/insure them.
My 17MC came with "certificate of origin for a vehicle" like a title looking thing from cat, and says 147 hp s.a.e. on it. these are known 160 class sleds. And the new 18 motor has the lower kw rating also and it aint no slouch for sure. i wouldnt worry too much about the sticker.

kidwoo · Nov 2, 2017

I'm not going by just the sticker, trust me.

I'm going by aftermarket pipe maps and how the sleds ride. 2016 is different for pretty much every aftermarket company who has dynoed them and watched AFR numbers while figuring out controller numbers. The stickers just verify this. The jaws map on the boondocker boxes actually PULL fuel from almost the entire range up to WOT. That's weird. And according to them unique to the 16s. Just wondering if anyone had dug into it with stock parts.

sno*jet · Nov 2, 2017

well its odd you mentioned "especially the 17" as it has the lower kw rating. so the sticker is kinda useless right.
fwiw i rode with a stock '16ltd at about 8k and he pulled all the same steep stuff i did. i was kinda impressed as i read on here how the 16s were geared too low and whatnot. and for sure he didnt have any work done but a can. have you pulled your power valves and made sure they arent contacting your pistons? 800 miles on mine, i could see a line where the carbon at least has left a mark on mine. i sanded off the edges of them a bit after cleaning, i want 100% of that compression that the sled came with new. then synch up the apv cables with a good digital caliper.

kidwoo · Nov 3, 2017

I peaked in at the pistons when I went to repaint my y pipe last season and didn't see any scuffing.

Haven't checked the cables.....probably due for that since I never did it and I know they stretch a little after new and I'm 1300 miles in.

Chewy22 · Nov 3, 2017

kidwoo said:
I'm not going by just the sticker, trust me.

I'm going by aftermarket pipe maps and how the sleds ride. 2016 is different for pretty much every aftermarket company who has dynoed them and watched AFR numbers while figuring out controller numbers. The stickers just verify this. The jaws map on the boondocker boxes actually PULL fuel from almost the entire range up to WOT. That's weird. And according to them unique to the 16s. Just wondering if anyone had dug into it with stock parts.

It sure seems like there is something different on the 17 Mtn Cat mapping compared to 16. AC isn't telling the full story.

WyoBoy1000 · Nov 6, 2017

Its not the ecu, all cats since 2010 are rated at 160hp at sea level. Stickers are there to please government.

The difference in a 16 vs 17 mountain cat is 8t drivers and a little free r track so you can adjust suspension better.

The steeper helix does seem to be better.

Im trying to figure out the clutching because so far of i had to habe something that ripped I'd go back to the old secondary.

Do I wouldn't do anything until we can do some testing. 43 is snappy and fun, the 48 had a little more on top. They important part is to put the right primary spring in to wake it up.

Pipe/power differences over the years

Well-known 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

Well-known 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