What Makes the 800 down on Power? (lots of 2 stroke info)

AKSNOWRIDER said:

Glad to hear they do care and are great at what they do , but if that's the case, then why in all this time(08 CFI 800 till 2014cfi 800) haven't they definitively fixed the motor issues?A couple tweeks to at least bring the reliability in line would be a huge money maker for Polaris and if they added just equal power output with that reliability they would own the industry...

Click to expand...

Mike, that is such a true statement. They have the chassis that mod sled builders have dreamed of creating for years. The handling characteristics are outstanding, but if they were to produce a top quality, high HP, reliable mill, the only people buying the yellow and green sleds would be the lifelong die hards. Polaris would own 90% of the mountain segment. (well maybe I exaggerate, but you get my point)

P.S. This thread was stupid to begin with and has now gotten way off base. I wanna go watch some fighter jets and top fuelers while I wait for it to snow.....

Yeah Mark..I killed this thread..I apologize to everyone..Just pisses me off when peeps guess about stuff they truly don't understand( and no I am no expert..)but I have built and killed a ton of engines over the years(building engines for a living and fun since I was 16) from mild to wild..and truly learned the hard way what it takes to make reliable HP..

.this motor was by far my favorite.I built it in the late 80's and ran it in my last racer, it featured dual 500+hp pro fogger kits(this in a time when pro mods ran dual cheater kits) and big rpm.it consisted of tufftrider steel crank, x-rayed,filled block, brodex-3 ported race heads holding 2.4 and 2.0 titanium valves, BME billet 15.5-1 pistons and billet rods,.822/.865 roller cam, fully baffled,doored custom milodon wet pan,dual NOS pro fogger kits, dual 1150 dominator carbs, complete msd 7al igniton, and many many small tricks...

Ak, thanks for sharing lots of good info and turning this thread into some good reading

If it wasn`t for dyno sheets many (IMO) would not think the Pro is down on power. I love the powerband and snap out of the box on the Pro.
According to my dealer I have an exceptional large percentage of time at 100% throttle (something they made a policy to check on a trade-in look over after the Dragons). But, when riding I use the snap and torque more than I felt I did on the last brand I was loyal to lol.

Building a structurally stronger base engine to make more HP for 10% or less of the actual use, and adding 20 lb to the front of a Pro, would be a step backwards IMO. Building an exotic material engine is pretty costly and the tech is new and unexplored so please Poo, don't build me a stronger motor that weights more for the sake of a 10% power gain on the top that most rarely use.

When Cat went to an 800 my M7 (stock but clutched, suspension lol, and track) out performed the 8's for a full year (until the awesome SLP pipe came out).
When Doo went to 800 (speaking of Doo 800's, hard to find one for sale that doesn't say "fresh short block" or "fresh top end" installed under warranty), my HM700 ( head jetting, clutching) outperformed them until the 2003.5 Rev came out.

Every year I come across more and more high mile Pro's under second and third owners that haven't got a clue what's been done or needs to be done lol. Maybe those Pro's are so worn out that they can't break, maybe those Pro's are the lucky ones lol. I just know the owners are happy and grinning when we meet because they are riding side by side with other brands and love the fact that they need to stop and help the others get unstuck (always a good chance to beat your chest and rub it in lol)

I voted with my wallet and changed brands last year. I did it not for the power (because my M7's and HM700 had plenty power for me and performance once set-up) but to make a statement lol about QC to my last brand. The motor is only one part of the package. The package is what it is all about for me. Something that was powder ready and set-up to perform best in virgin snow out of the box.
Through my eye's the Pro was beautiful. Quality welds, fasteners, minimalist design, and the #'s seen on my scales (how did they do that LOL) is what caught my eye. After a week I loved the engine response and how the clutches put that to the snow.

I wish every Pro owner could spend a season on the more powerful Suzuki 800 in the '12 PC package (in relation to the trouble free better set-up for mountain use M package) or a couple of years on the more powerful (but heavier) 800 ZX package after owning a 700 in the same chassis.

Careful what you wish for because after 6 hrs in real snow the "package" is more important than the HP you have IMHO.

Disclaimer lol, my sleds are never stock lol. If I was controlled somehow and needed to ride something stock, hands down there is only one I would do that on and that's this Pro we are complaining to Poo about. Too old to fight my sled nowadays.

I really didn't see an overwhelming number of durability issues with the 2013 800's... even on this forum where we seem to look with a magnifying glass. .. I think they are making tweaks and adjustments as time goes by.

I may be missing something... I've been know to be dense from time to time.

The big battle will be keeping a 2 stroke engine in the sleds... Heck... with the way things are... could ban two strokes on the hill... just like jetskis on certain bodies of water/areas.... ARGH.





.

AKSNOWRIDER said:

Maybe Eric, you can get them all togeather and come on snowest for a special little chat with owners..quite sure many owners here would enjoy having a talk with them on some of their "well thought out engineering". (engines, driveshafts, a-arms). I too have great respect for you Eric.. but no one can deny that there are engineering related failures that can/could be avoided in the pro.

Click to expand...

I've seen less engineering failures and more production failures... "QC"

Glued arms... good idea...MOST are not having issues... significant number have bad glue joints...

Engines... Some with over 2500 miles on original pistons and no issues.. others with very little mileage and issues... Both are the same design.. but QC seems to be off.

Same with the QD system... some friends of mine with turbos on the 2013's and no issues... others with belt problems galore. Driveshafts... same story even on the Turbo/non...

QC seems to be the common denominator to me as there are plenty of hard riding happy PRO owners and a fair amount that are having issues with durability.

As you push the envelope of weight and power... with common consumer available materials (pre fab carbon tube is the most exotic on the sled)... then the durability in extreme situations can rear it's head...

Like with your tunnel side plates...heavy tunnel loading or bottoming of the skid... pretzel city...which is why your plates work...but then play the weight penalty game if they were to install them stock.

Lots to consider in the OEM... from front side marketing logistics, to sales, to engineering, to production to customer service....

Do I think that Polaris can monitor, learn and improve... YES

Is the PRO RMK a great sled... well.... most of us on this thread own one or more...



Cheers,
MH.

AKSNOWRIDER said:

its not the follow thru Eric..its the people..all Engineers hired should be required to spend 2 years working at dealerships on product before they are allowed to design anything...engineers have 4 yrs of book learning but no practical common sense or real word experience..meaning they use theory vrs proveable fact in design...

Click to expand...

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! AK for president!! :usa2:

Ok, they probably have some practical experience (I pray) but you're still on the mark. Create some positions in the design line that uses some of the old timers from the dealership network. Employ them a couple of months each year on and of to go over the prototypes or maybe even before that.

Wishful thinking I guess since it would risk a lot of leaks, but it sure could help put some practical insight into the process.

RS

And there is where you have it Norway... and AK...

Publicly traded companies, liability managment to keep share holders happy and outside contractors... circle of trust issues etc.

Publicly held companies have lots of rules and issues to deal with.

I did vote with my wallet and got the 2013 RMK...Digging it... and will mod it up too!

I think you will find brand new pistons from a new mfg in the 2014's once they are opened up this season.

mountainhorse said:

And there is where you have it Norway... and AK...

Publicly traded companies, liability managment to keep share holders happy and outside contractors... circle of trust issues etc.

Publicly held companies have lots of rules and issues to deal with.

I did vote with my wallet and got the 2013 RMK...Digging it... and will mod it up too!

I think you will find brand new pistons from a new mfg in the 2014's once they are opened up this season.

Click to expand...

Mr. MH,

What else can you share about the new pistons in the 2014?

Thanks in advance.

Craig.

There are several guys I have rode with that don't spend anytime on internet snowmobile forums that have no clue that some of these CFI 800's have problems. Funny they own them and and use them. One is even 2010 Dragon 800.

Hmmm...

I'm not sure if you are patting Bruce on the back or kicking him in the teeth... Still I have had way too many dealings with Bruce and you can count on one thing, I will NEVER deal with him again!!! In his prime he made an awesome product and had some real cool ideas. These days his level of service stinks, that and I haven't heard of any new tech stuff in whats left of his shop... so I really don't think he belongs in this conversation.

RoffRider said:

well ive only researched the cfi2 on hcs...i would have came here but i would have had to register...which i did not too long ago...and if you give me a link to where polaris show the injector location, and where it is pointed...that would be great...if you can tell me why every snowmachine in the last 40 years uses the center chamber design then i will drop the topic

also if you have an exact port map of the pro motor...post it up...please

another one...bruce at PSI sells this stuff for a living...is it bad when people talk him down? i dont like salesman who lie...sorry if that makes you feel bad...but when im spending thousands of dollars on a bigbore kit i would like to know some info that isnt stretched

Click to expand...

With everyone gettin all Grumpy and Smokey on here I say screw it and have an INDY motor built...:face-icon-small-ton

Back to topic :face-icon-small-dis

Polaris has always shot for the best handling sleds with good ergonomics for some time now, this is a priority for the engineers when scratching out a new sled. A big part of the equation is cutting back on rotating mass to reduce the gyro effect from spinning components, this makes for a light feeling flickable sled. Cutting the weight on the rotating assembly in the engine is significant in reducing gyro, it is spinning faster than anything else. So you end up with a 800 mill that has the smallest footprint in its class and for reliability the peek torque is down lower in the rpm range so you end up with a weaker less reliable engine.

That is how I see it.

So did anyone else notice that the crank in the 2014 IQR 600 took a significant weight loss? Something like 1.5-2 lbs?

I also wonder if the 2014 won't have different pistons Eric, have heard something similar.

I think the 2014's are going to be a bigger jump in engine reliability than any previous year since 2011.

I think that the new IQR crank will be tested extensively in the Pro and probably in the '15 motor, as Polaris has a history of testing future consumer parts and motor components in the race program first.

All of this is based off some wording from Polaris insiders...careful wording. The powertrain engineers clearly have something good up their sleeves.

Boyko said:

Back to topic :face-icon-small-dis

Polaris has always shot for the best handling sleds with good ergonomics for some time now, this is a priority for the engineers when scratching out a new sled. A big part of the equation is cutting back on rotating mass to reduce the gyro effect from spinning components, this makes for a light feeling flickable sled. Cutting the weight on the rotating assembly in the engine is significant in reducing gyro, it is spinning faster than anything else.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. The gyro effect is a huge factor. A good reference point to this is a CR500. With motor of, going down hill (coasting at speed) it handles very different than with the motor running doing the same maneuvers.

Engineering

I happen to know a fair amount of the engineers at Polaris and have worked in engineering at Polaris myself. SO, I will say that there are some that do not have much field experience, BUT Polaris genuinely seeks out those engineers that DO have passion for the sport and DO have tons of hands on experience. I can guarantee you that the engineers at Polaris have FAR more hands on experience than a lot of other companies in other industries.

For all those that think that it's engineering's fault that the Pro RMK isn't perfect, you are very mistaken. The engineers at Polaris desperately try to fix everything they can.... They are given "x" amount of development dollars to develop certain parts of the vehicle that those "up stairs" told them too. Polaris isn't a huge group of engineers calling all the shots guys - the engineers are in design, testing, validation, manufacturing, etc. Not marketing, not business, not upper level management. There's a thing called corporate structure and engineering makes the best with what they're given to work with.

tdbaugha said:

There's a thing called corporate structure and engineering makes the best with what they're given to work with.

Click to expand...

Very typical in most industries. One exception is Boeing. They are an "engineering company that sells airplanes."

RKT said:

LOL...



1) The dyno sheet on my website of the stock engine is an engine with some miles on it and the SAME dyno shows tha CAT HO at 145HP.. :face-icon-small-coo:face-icon-small-ton

So, do the math.. CAT 145 Polaris 138.. 7HP difference.. which is what I see as well with testing.. On other dynos The Cat comes in at 157HP.. Hmmm 157-7= ????:cheer2: So is the CAT really 145HP?

Dynos are just a TOOL.. the final number is NOT important.. what IS important is the "delta" or difference in output power when you add a performance part (or 2 or 3).. This is how you determine of the part is effective...
Every dyno , due to calibration, can and read different but the "delta" should remain constant if the dyno is properly calibrated..

..

Click to expand...

Were are the dyno sheets on your website??

Why is all these dyno reports all over the map(never consistent)??