All things equal, which climbs & floats better, ZX or Rev?

Motley Doo · Sep 6, 2009

Hear me out on this...

The Rev, being rider forward, demands putting more weight on the skis, however, with a lack of a true bellypan, I would have to think that unless the skis are actually ontop of the snow, that is a lot of suspension hanging down, causing drag under the snow.

The ZX on the other hand, has more weight over the track, which does hurt its true back end float ability, however, as previously mentioned, the REV can be kind of unstable coming down hill in the deep. the zx, no such problem, my line of thinking on this is that the bellypan helps float the front of the sled instead of nosediving.

So.......when is someone going to build a rider forward ZX?! Have the lack of weight on track, the biggest advantage with the REV, and have the big, smooth bellypan of the ZX sled. The Rev did have an advantage of about 25lbs on the zx, but that can be easily solved. I guess I'll have to try then.....

HANDSOME · Sep 6, 2009

Crasher said:
Down hill in deep powder gets a little wierd on the rev. It feels like it wants to nose under compared to the ZX. Once you get it figured out, it has hands down much funner to ride, for me anyhow.
A little power on while going down hill in deep helps. I took my ZX and REV out on the same day and on the same areas. For deep powder the REV handled the poweder much better. It just floats on top where my ZX would trench down.

Crasher , do you have a 16" wide track on your zx ?
I doo on mine and it made a huge difference. The belly pan thing has nothing to do with the highest mark on the hill but boonin it may. I would say the spindle to driver distance and tunnel clearance make some difference that would be hard to change on the zx.I have not compared my zx to a rev .

winter brew · Sep 6, 2009

Part of the reason the Rev (and to even more extent the XP) get around better in the deep is the placement of the engine....the heaviest part of the sled is much closer to the drivers/track. With the XZ and most older sleds the engine is waaay out in front. It takes more power and weight transfer to get the skis up out of the snow, where the rev/XP can remain flatter and use less power to lift and more to forward propulsion. Less weight doesn't hurt either. JMHO-:beer;

turboal · Sep 6, 2009

the zx chassi when modified ie. drop and roll the chain case , use 16 wide with anti ratchet spkts . cut the steering post off just 1/2 inch from brace and reweld on a t post . that will bring you forward in the foot wells and give you what the rev is .

AKrider · Sep 6, 2009

Motley Doo said:
So.......when is someone going to build a rider forward ZX?! Have the lack of weight on track, the biggest advantage with the REV, and have the big, smooth bellypan of the ZX sled. The Rev did have an advantage of about 25lbs on the zx, but that can be easily solved. I guess I'll have to try then.....

I like this idea! Seems like the best of both worlds. The ZX, IMO, is a far more durable chassis than the Rev. Seems like a guy could use the '04 Polaris Pro-XR 440 race sled as a pattern of how to do it. Those sleds had steering post over engine steering, the steering post exited the hood between the gauges, and it used a tall seat. The steering hoop was modified as well. I remember sitting on one at a dealer and it was definitely rider forward.

Seems like it wouldn't be too difficult or expensive to drop weight off the ZX. As far as motor placement, the ZX already had the motor placed very close to the drivers. I don't see how the Rev could be any closer? With the Rev, they basically moved the rider closer to the engine, so it might appear that the engine was placed further back.

JustinB · Sep 7, 2009

In my opinion the zx is awesome in the powder so easy to pull around but I have been riding a gen 2 polaris for 7 years. My question is does putting the drop brackets on and lowering your skid away from the tunnel help at all in flotation and climbing? Also what risers are you guys running Im going 6" and not sure if I should get a pivot or what?

2walla · Sep 7, 2009

Some of it depends on the riders weight. I am 250 without gear and I can't get all the way forward on the rev or it will submarine... On my zx I am in the footwells. The rev out climbs on an open hillside, but get into the trees on a difficult technical climb and the ZX handles better.

Motley Doo · Sep 8, 2009

Someone has already messed around with a rider forward ZX once, I can't remember the company(maybe someone can help me out with this!!). It was a full mod zx, had a big 670 motor in it, AC skid, had one of those cool old school BR tech hoods that had the molded headlight pod in it. But they had taken and moved the entire steering hoop/tank/seat up something like 6 inches!!! Ever since seeing that sled I've wanted to try something like that.

I do think though that Winter brew has a point there with the motor being over the drivers. I wonder if you couldn't work on moving the engine back and running something like a XP chaincase design, with the clutches almost stacked.

Wow! This is turning into quite a project!!

LB_ · Sep 8, 2009

AKrider said:
With the Rev, they basically moved the rider closer to the engine, so it might appear that the engine was placed further back.

I've often thought about the whole rider-forward thing. It just seems ineffective to have the two heaviest parts (rider and engine) over the ski's. I've often wondered whether it is a case of moving the engine-back. This would help transfer weight from skis to track.

Has anyone ever weighed the proportion of weight on skis and track for a Rev vs ZX?

JustinB · Sep 8, 2009

LB_ said:
I've often thought about the whole rider-forward thing. It just seems ineffective to have the two heaviest parts (rider and engine) over the ski's. I've often wondered whether it is a case of moving the engine-back. This would help transfer weight from skis to track.

Has anyone ever weighed the proportion of weight on skis and track for a Rev vs ZX?

I think it is more of centering the weight and lowering the center of gravity ricky carm. bike they roll the motor forward pegs up and forward so the weight is balance and easier to transfer. Sorry know more about bike then sleds but i think the newer sleds are seeking that center of gravity withe the two heaviest things on the sleds.

winter brew · Sep 8, 2009

It's a matter of moving the engine back AND rider forward so the engine is basically "almost" under the rider....that and moving the fuel back a bit so the rider has leverage over the heaviest parts of the sled so it becomes easier to handle....so the rider has leverage on the sled and not the other way around. It seems to work well for both riding ease and deep snowability...is that a word? :beer;

JustinB · Sep 8, 2009

winter brew said:
It seems to work well for both riding ease and deep snowability...is that a word? :beer;

it is now

AKrider · Sep 8, 2009

I recall one of the reasons Doo gave for going to reed valves was that there was no room for the carbs on a rotary valve motor due to the engines close proximity to the close off panel at the front of the tunnel on the ZX chassis. I believe the Rev and ZX chassis share the same tunnel. As I recall, the Rev bulkhead uses a different style of motor mount plate that lowers the engine down compared to the ZX. They were able to lower the motor because the steering post went above the engine. With the Rev, the seat and tank were then slid forward and the airbox was made much smaller and pulled in air from the side.

The Rev bulkhead is much different and instead of having the radius rods bolt up right in front of the motor, the nose got stretched out a bit and the a-arms were set in place. This would put the motor more towards the center of the chassis than the ZX, but I don't know by how much. The motor placement would be very difficult to change on the ZX. Seems like an over the engine steering post, modded steering hoop and airbox would not be too difficult for someone with the right equipment. I'd think a Rev seat and tank could then be used and a guy would have a pretty similar rider forward position as compared to the Rev.

The weight of the engine being further forward would probably be balanced out from the floatation given by the tub when riding in powder. I'd be really curious to see some pics of guys who tried something similar.

AKrider · Sep 8, 2009

double post

SKEEZER · Sep 8, 2009

Back in the Saddle again

Have been away awhile, saw this thread and thought I would throw my 2 bits worth in.
I sold my 2005 Rev to buy a new XP in 2008 . Huge upgrade ., Having said that I still have my 2003 800 HO ZX. it has been my backup sled and now is getting handed down to my 15yr old Son. The ZX had been Light weighted < Boss Highrise, Simmons Ski. Light weight hood and many other goodies. Th Noss has been removed and it is getting a new Motor with a 860 kit. I know this is a bit over the top for my son but i can't wait to ride it. I have had many miles of back country boon docking on this ZX and look forward to the extra HP from the 860.

Having said all that The XP can make a good rider out of almost anyone. they are so well balanced that it really is a treat to ride and you don't feel like you have been run over by a truck when you get down the montain.

And Yes Alberta Boy its me ( I'M BACK)

SKEEZER

Alberta Boy · Sep 9, 2009

SKEEZER said:
And Yes Alberta Boy its me ( I'M BACK)
SKEEZER

Holy Crap!!!! I thought that you were dead! How are you? You can probably see that I have relocated a bit further from the mountains...

I am on a ZX now (Polaris went bye bye! lol) and am loving it... especially with all of the goodies!

Vailguy · Sep 9, 2009

My .02

I have a ZX and a Rev summit.

ZX is a 151" HO with the skid setback. RKT head, vforce reeds, team second, pipes, and 7" riser, powder pro's, fox pro's, and seat.
The sled is great!
Kelsey's head and pistons are amazing for high altitude riding.
The skid setback on pre 03's definately reduces trenching and for me would be a requirement for consideration.

That being said...
last year, I bought a stock 07 144" summit mid season.
The powdermax 16" track is great for moving through the pow without the trench.
My ZX could not outclimb the rev.
The stock engine and clutching (fixed) were a powerful combo, that outperformed the ZX
The 144" track did not trench as much as the 151", and was more agile.

Knowing what I know now, if given the choice between to two.
I would take the Rev over the modified ZX.

Both are great sleds.
But I do believe the Rev chassis technology makes for more enjoyable riding.
Just my .02

-l-

AKrider · Sep 10, 2009

Was the 151 a 15" or 16" wide?

Motley Doo · Sep 10, 2009

What year of zx vailguy?

Vailguy · Sep 10, 2009

Sled Chassis v.2 is a 02, previously was a 03 (cased the first one). On the 02 I did the skid setback 3.5 back .75 down I think. With a 2" drop in the back. Track was a 15" x 151 camoplast challenger.

All things equal, which climbs & floats better, ZX or Rev?

Well-known member

Premium Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Premium Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads