2015 Motor Speculation

[nuggetau]

I inserted the colors by manufacturer and the Rick! column (Hp) with his multiplier.

Thanks VB!

The numbers are lower than I would have expected, yet they do represent the order in which I thought had the strongest to weakest motor.

1. Doo - 145.37
2. AC - 140.81
3. Poo - 132.36

 

[geo]

I agree 100% Nug. Math makes the world simple lol. Now you have to factor in the "sink-depth factor" on the snow too lol.

There in lies the difference in snowmobilers.
What is YOUR priority in riding the mountains? Is it "flickability" lol or pokability.

I stated my preference. It would be nice to have both (which is why we mod lol).

A 120 hp sled will get almost any where a 250 hp sled will get. You just have to take a different line.
Be it around the mountain twice or straight up. What ever tickles your fancy.

 

[rmscustom]

Notice the poo motor had 20hrs on it while the other 2 had 4hrs and 5hrs...

 

[nuggetau]

I wonder why they tested 3 different models for the 600 POO? The Poo ranged from 108-112HP. Maybe different emissions standards? Surprisingly the Poo 600 was the HP king over Doo(104) by 4-8HP.

 

[geo]

Another thing to factor into the HP numbers on a sled (which may explain why the poor low powered Poo outperforms others, oops lol) is to compare percentage difference.

If you only get 50% HP to the track (to use round numbers) the difference becomes smaller ( 72ish HP compared to 66ish HP) HP difference but the same percent difference (about 10 %).
Lets say one brand (you know who that could be if you went from Cat to Poo lol) is 10% (just to keep the number simple) more effective at transferring the power to the snow. Now that low HP motor is putting 79ish HP to the track. That`s a 20% swing!

What if the new Poo had a frictionless skid with roller drivers. No need for more HP. Just tell the others to get out of your way or you`ll use them for traction lol.

 

[nuggetau]

I find it interesting that the Poo 600 is making more HP per cc than any of the others.


Poo800 - 132.36HP/794cc = 6cc Per HP
AC800 - 140.81HP /794 cc = 5.64cc per HP
Doo800 - 145.37HP/799.5cc = 5.5cc Per HP

Doo600 - 104.47HP/597cc = 5.71 Per HP
Poo600 - 108.22-112.65HP/600cc = 5.54 - 5.33cc Per HP

 

[nuggetau]

Another thing to factor into the HP numbers on a sled (which may explain why the poor low powered Poo outperforms others, oops lol) is to compare percentage difference.

If you only get 50% HP to the track (to use round numbers) the difference becomes smaller ( 72ish HP compared to 66ish HP) HP difference but the same percent difference (about 10 %).
Lets say one brand (you know who that could be if you went from Cat to Poo lol) is 10% (just to keep the number simple) more effective at transferring the power to the snow. Now that low HP motor is putting 79ish HP to the track. That`s a 20% swing!

What if the new Poo had a frictionless skid with roller drivers. No need for more HP. Just tell the others to get out of your way or you`ll use them for traction lol.

Very good point, we really don't have any reliable data (that I have seen) that shows how much energy is actually delivered to the rolling track.

 

[nuggetau]

I agree 100% Nug. Math makes the world simple lol. Now you have to factor in the "sink-depth factor" on the snow too lol.

There in lies the difference in snowmobilers.
What is YOUR priority in riding the mountains? Is it "flickability" lol or pokability.

I stated my preference. It would be nice to have both (which is why we mod lol).

A 120 hp sled will get almost any where a 250 hp sled will get. You just have to take a different line.
Be it around the mountain twice or straight up. What ever tickles your fancy.

I don't disagree with you, less weight makes for a more maneuverable machine, but when there is only one line out the mess you got yourself into is to turn uphill, then HP will get you there when less weight likely won't be the answer you are looking for.

 

[RMK-King]

I think it's kind of ironic how everyone talks about 140 to 165 hp sleds. At 10K feet, you essentially have a 600 at sea level. Unless you're running boost, you lose 3% for every thousand feet. I've had all brands and have even owned a turbo. Sure, the HP is nice, but it's more realistic to compare power to weight on stock sleds. I currently own two Pro 163's and had I not known it was "only" 140hp, I would have never known the difference.

Its true that the 140hp poo feels the same as a heavier 160hp sled, but since the technology is obviously out there to make a reliable 160hp 800cc motor "suzuki" think how much further ahead the Pro would be with 160hp! Would put it well ahead of the others in power/weight ratio.