DynoTech on the Poo 800-Some thoughts
- Thread starter Ron
- Start date
Great question Eric.
As for my quote ( the only thing that saved them is the Mono-Block Cylinder )
I was comparing the OEM Production cylinders of the two Polaris Motors,
and the OE cylinder rarely get the amount of time invested in them. Within the time a model year allows. If you seperate the OE Mono block cylinder inot TWO production seperate cylinders the power will go down.
Thios is the exact same reason the XLT/XCR 580/600 was a Mono Block ( To short between centers )
Example ( Take a Full Mod 1987 600 Indy Motor built to the MAX, And then take a 1997 XCR 600 Full Mod Built to the MAX)
which one makes more power ???
hands down the 1987 600 Indy Motor ( Why ) Their the exact same stroke 60mm.
The 1987 600 has a longer crank ( PERIOD )
Theres not even enough room on 1997 XCR Motor to put seperate cylinders so it ad to be a Mono Motor. If you put seperate cylinders on a 1997 XCR 600 it would loose power ( and the the bigger you make it the worse the ratio of power loss for work donewould get.
Carls gets more out of them because of three things -
#1 - There Bigger
#2 - There cylinder porting is better
#3 - Case porting.
BUT the fact remains - The motor is to short to get as much full Mod Power out of it as the old motor.
And another fact, If Carls took as much time that has gone into the big after market cylinders the Mono Block would make more power.
The reason the motor is showing such good response to Bore & Porting is the size of the throttle Bodies.
And the Fuel injections takes the paraniod sled owner out of the loop that would be running 520N to 600 Main jets.
even a bad fuel map is better then most week-end tuners by a long shot.
Oh and by the way _ stock for stock the old 700 would give the new dragon motor more then wants in the same chassis.
if you take the Old 800 and put te CFI on it and take it to the max level it will hands down make more power then the old motor.
The crankshaft is to short on the new motor to make the same power. ( that is the bottomline. ) And you won't find one real engine builder that will argue this.
Why does a Polaris Watercraft Motor & a Arctic Cat T-Cat Motor make more power than any other motor in a MAX bore & porting situation
One reason - Crankshaft length.
In the end - The motor with the longest distance between centers will win.
And if it doesn't _ its because the engine builder missed something.
SNOW JW - It wasn't until you spoke here, That I realized how little you know.
Last edited:
S
Im with Snow JW, on this. Ive spoken to and worked with alot of wanna be tunners, I wont name names but they have thier brand name all over other peoples parts that they sell as there own, none of them have the common know how that Snow does. Not to mention he can actually talk shop with you in a way you can understand. I also like the fact he doesnt up sell you on junk that wont work for your aplication just to make a quick buck. I personally think hes been around the sled world enought to know when someones blowing smoke. Come on all, a old 700 with #s better than the 09 800?/ Right
S
How feasible is this? Have you thought about trying it? or is it reinventing the wheel? I dont think fit would be a huge problem, but mapping maybe?
Just thinking of WC motor applications, guys that have dropped the BB 800's in the IQ chasis.. ect....
Last edited:
I am with snow on this one..a 97/98 bone stock 700 bolted into a dragon chassis will get spanked bad by a bone stock 08/09 800 dragon.. 4I am sorry Indy, I have great respect for your knowledge and your work but not even close with a old stock 700...
Sledwolf - I respect your defense for Snow JW.
I didn't post any of this to start trouble.
Just stating the facts, They are in the figures. Arn't they ????
Big Block Motor - Bore & stroke - 85mm X 70mm
Big Block Motor Cylinder base - Inner transfer measurment width 10 -1/8
Small Block Motor - Bore & stroke - 85mm X 70mm
Small Block Motor Cylinder base - Inner Transfer measurment width 9 -5/8
My measurments on the small block are off a 2007 small block on the shelf, I don't have a 2008/09 800 here. Now if someone can tell me they stretched the small block to the Big Block length then I would have to eat crow.
But if they did stretch it to as big or bigger then the big Block its not the small block motor at all.
I don't have one of these motors here to lock in the measurment, I have been told to motor is from the small block base..............
In the end, Power from a motor is based on air flow. And if the motor is narrower the transfers have to be smaller.
I simply posted so not to give to much credit to the Polaris new motor when its really just monster throttle bodies and CFI for the credit.
OK, I can except some of you not buying the Old 700 eating the new motor............
can someoen tell me where 25hp came from over the old motor ????
So as Outlaw wondered ??? what would any of your thoughts be if you put 40mm carbs on the new motor & the new throttle bodies and CFI on the old motor ?? what do you think would happen ???
The whole intent of the post was not to let to much credit to go Polaris for a Motor that is nothing special over the old motor.
The new chassis & tracks are amazing to ride, And I believe the credit is going to the wrong area.
Last edited:
I can respect your thoughts on that.
I would sure like to see it happen.
Tell me this...........Do you believe that the small block can be built to beat a old Big Block 910 Struthers if they both had CFI throttle bodies ??????
6
BB vs CFI challenge
I have a 71 Skiroule 440 with horsepowermeister bottom end that will beat either any Polaris big block or CFI motor in any chassis. I'm a little down on cc's, so I reserve the right to use a turbo, nitrous and a Jado rocket booster. Take that one Polaris!
I have a 71 Skiroule 440 with horsepowermeister bottom end that will beat either any Polaris big block or CFI motor in any chassis. I'm a little down on cc's, so I reserve the right to use a turbo, nitrous and a Jado rocket booster. Take that one Polaris!
well dan..I don't know for sure but I can tell you this..in automotive apps we always give up top end power with injection..weather it is mechanical or the latest digital..on the dyno we always lost top end power(in trade for big midrange and low rpm torque and response)..the big advantage to injection in either world is better fuel control..on my 440 ci big block chevy running 2 500 hp fogger kits we couldnt keep fuel around the jets with holley 1150 dominators(this is with jet tubes, cut floats ,chamber dividers , you name it we tried it...went to enderlie top hat on this motor and fixed fuel control problems but lost top end hp..big time..even with alot of work on ports, cam profiles, piston domes we never gained back the top end hp.. so I don't know how well the old motor would take to the injection compared to the cfi 800 motor..the only diff in the motors as I see it would be the transfers..the bib block motor has thicker transfers but seems to me the small block has wider transfers..and until you put them on a wet flow bench and compare..it is hard to say which would work better..I know from experience biggest port isnt as important as best flow...
V
Aren't the transfers on the BB engines small in comparison to the SB? I always thought the design of the BB engine was not as good as the SB. Why does the SB 600 have so much more power than the BB 600?
Voodoo, you are correct the small block has much better stock design. ( smaller really isn't the problem ) just a very poor design.
Thats where the 910 Carls kit shines. They fixed the case and cylinder porting errors that the stock cylinders and case suffered from.
S
I had a well thought out response, but now it got all shot up..... I think this is turning into more of a carb vs. cfi debate than motor to motor....
My thoughts in a small nut shell were this.... old BB 800 CFI vs SB 800 CFI. If you follow Dans theory on crank length the BB wins. The bore and stroke on both motors are the same. Essentially the motors are probally more alike than most people think, or am I wrong with that statement. So, that leaves the crank length... am I missing the boat on this?
Dan.... if you are wanting to try this out I might have a good application for you. I just dont think it is feasible for this year, but maybe next year. Let me know if you are interested.
Also, I am waiting for you to drop the big bomb on this thread. Typically it comes about at this point where someone asks the right question..... and the light comes on for everyone..
My thoughts in a small nut shell were this.... old BB 800 CFI vs SB 800 CFI. If you follow Dans theory on crank length the BB wins. The bore and stroke on both motors are the same. Essentially the motors are probally more alike than most people think, or am I wrong with that statement. So, that leaves the crank length... am I missing the boat on this?
Dan.... if you are wanting to try this out I might have a good application for you. I just dont think it is feasible for this year, but maybe next year. Let me know if you are interested.
Also, I am waiting for you to drop the big bomb on this thread. Typically it comes about at this point where someone asks the right question..... and the light comes on for everyone..
Last edited:
My take...
Some qualified techs like the small blocks (Struthers, SLP, etc)
Some qualified techs do not (RKT (Kelsey), IndyDan etc)
Time will tell as these engines, in 800 form [or bigger] are relatively untested in the real world... not that many on the snow last year and this year with the entirely new ECU (not just the map) and other tweaks will make this interesting.
Turbos this year have gone full-on mainstream, so I, for one, will be watching how well these things hold together...
Put some boost on a motor and crank it for a while.... we'll see pretty well by February if these things are holding up
Ron, Indy and others on this thread have pointed out that a Dyno is not the real world where a motor has to actually work in the chassis with the clutching and the other aspects of setup... and be "friendly" to the person behind the handlebars.
Last years D-8's had some lackluster perf issues on SOME of the sleds delivered (pinching pistons, bad fuel economy etc) but all in all, for such a little motor (originally designed as a 440) they are making most consumers happy... SnoWesters are a different breed, most looking for that "sumthin' xtra" out of their sled...but overall we are a small percentage of the sledding community.
No haggling from me over who's BB or Turbo "RIPS" best... all of these guys that are making kits are just like you and I... trying to make a living at something we like to do in the face of some pretty pizz-poor economic times. I hate to see all of these boot-marks on other peoples backs as someone is trying to push their own products... kinda reminds me of the political race.
Dig thru this forum... look for all the different sides of topics and decide for yourself what you want to do...
Money is a good tool, but you cant eat it....
The dyno is a good tool but you cant ride it..
Pray for snow my friends!!
Some qualified techs like the small blocks (Struthers, SLP, etc)
Some qualified techs do not (RKT (Kelsey), IndyDan etc)
Time will tell as these engines, in 800 form [or bigger] are relatively untested in the real world... not that many on the snow last year and this year with the entirely new ECU (not just the map) and other tweaks will make this interesting.
Turbos this year have gone full-on mainstream, so I, for one, will be watching how well these things hold together...
Put some boost on a motor and crank it for a while.... we'll see pretty well by February if these things are holding up
Ron, Indy and others on this thread have pointed out that a Dyno is not the real world where a motor has to actually work in the chassis with the clutching and the other aspects of setup... and be "friendly" to the person behind the handlebars.
Last years D-8's had some lackluster perf issues on SOME of the sleds delivered (pinching pistons, bad fuel economy etc) but all in all, for such a little motor (originally designed as a 440) they are making most consumers happy... SnoWesters are a different breed, most looking for that "sumthin' xtra" out of their sled...but overall we are a small percentage of the sledding community.
No haggling from me over who's BB or Turbo "RIPS" best... all of these guys that are making kits are just like you and I... trying to make a living at something we like to do in the face of some pretty pizz-poor economic times. I hate to see all of these boot-marks on other peoples backs as someone is trying to push their own products... kinda reminds me of the political race.
Dig thru this forum... look for all the different sides of topics and decide for yourself what you want to do...
Money is a good tool, but you cant eat it....
The dyno is a good tool but you cant ride it..
Pray for snow my friends!!
Last edited:
I think what I Dan is saying is that the old BB can be modded better cause the center to center of the con rods are further apart therefore allowing possibly a bigger piston to be installed and definatley larger transfer ports to be plumbed in and this will result in more power being made .
To re cap;
the the new SB is more limited in how big you can make it because of its physical dimensions as compared to the old BB and therefore the SB wont make as much power in full mod trim,as the BB would
To re cap;
the the new SB is more limited in how big you can make it because of its physical dimensions as compared to the old BB and therefore the SB wont make as much power in full mod trim,as the BB would
You mean this three page rant is about 10mm of bore pitch? Wow. Word on the street is that the 860's were on a par with 910's without having to replace broken cranks regularly like in sled_guy's buggy. Power out of separate cylinders with a "short" crank? whodathunkit.
Eactly.
And I understand how sledders can be optimist and soon forget what has happened in the past.
My point in picking on the New small Block.
Lets go back to 1998 600 Xc Big Block.
1998 600 XC BB - Little to no crank problems 68mm stroke
1998 700 XC BB - A few crank problems here & there but exceptable. 68mm stroke
2000 800 ---BB - Hundreds and hundreds of crank problems. 70mm stroke
1999 440/600 SB - Little no crank problems 64mm stroke
2007 700 SB - A few crank problems here & there but exceptable 68mm stroke
2008 800 SB - Very few built ( Not even 5% ) of the 800 BB 's built. 70mm stroke
So my Point being - IMO - The crank problems are coming like a train wreck. It an't the stroke thats kills them. Its more power & Polaris quality control.
The quality control is vital when the power increases.
Justin, that would be a funny project.
Eric - that was very well said.
RICK - I would love to see one of each ( fresh motors ) 860 SB & the 910 BB nose to nose.
AKSNOWRIDER - I agree that the carbs seem to be an easier FULL throttle high HP Net.
But IMO the size of the throttle bodies are hard to over come on The new motor.
And the CFI has made tuning the turbos & most other mods very easy for the sled owners.
Last edited:
Just a couple of comments-
First the ECU for the 08 & 09 Dragons is the same-just the map is different. At least the PN hasn't changed 4011518. So the 08's can accept the 09 map?
Second the SB has been under test for some time now so longevity isn't a question for me. There have been 100's of T6's running some for 3-4 years & a few pushing 10000 miles. A fair number of T7's & T8's too. Carl's success (reliability) with the 688's played a large part in Poo's decision to rush the D7 to market (now starting it's 3rd season). 840's have completed a second season & 860's a full season. These sleds are being ridden by hard core sledders that ride the pee out of them. Will the SB cranks live is a moot point as far as I'm concerned.
Finally, anyone that thinks Poo isn't concerned about engine quality is dead wrong. I know better but concern doesn't always translate into results. It cost them dearly to stop production of the 07 900-done just as spring sales were in bloom. They field test more than any other mfct. They held shipping last year while they took a load of early run production sleds (D8's) to WY for a 500+ mile endurance run. They may never attain quality like the Yammies but Poo doesn't deserve all the bashing of late either. The 800 engine is smooth as silk-IMO. And by the way I like the new crank stub with the sleeve:
PS-Dan you might want to get more into the Doo 800R...they make the BB Poo look good & should be a good source of business for years to come.
First the ECU for the 08 & 09 Dragons is the same-just the map is different. At least the PN hasn't changed 4011518. So the 08's can accept the 09 map?
Second the SB has been under test for some time now so longevity isn't a question for me. There have been 100's of T6's running some for 3-4 years & a few pushing 10000 miles. A fair number of T7's & T8's too. Carl's success (reliability) with the 688's played a large part in Poo's decision to rush the D7 to market (now starting it's 3rd season). 840's have completed a second season & 860's a full season. These sleds are being ridden by hard core sledders that ride the pee out of them. Will the SB cranks live is a moot point as far as I'm concerned.
Finally, anyone that thinks Poo isn't concerned about engine quality is dead wrong. I know better but concern doesn't always translate into results. It cost them dearly to stop production of the 07 900-done just as spring sales were in bloom. They field test more than any other mfct. They held shipping last year while they took a load of early run production sleds (D8's) to WY for a 500+ mile endurance run. They may never attain quality like the Yammies but Poo doesn't deserve all the bashing of late either. The 800 engine is smooth as silk-IMO. And by the way I like the new crank stub with the sleeve:
PS-Dan you might want to get more into the Doo 800R...they make the BB Poo look good & should be a good source of business for years to come.
Last edited:
A
Tranfer area is really important and that is one reason that they went to the mono block. They have the transfer passages larger with the same c to c distance with a mono block than they could have if it was two seperate cylinders. It is pretty close to the same area as the old big block. I have a 08 800 cylinder around here. If I get a chance I will measure it.
But how does Carl’s keep the transfer port adequate sized on the 800-to-860 big bore kits that now ditch the monoblock and go with Crankshop seperate cast cyls in thier BB kits???
Last edited:
Similar threads
