EPA has released HP numbers

[willys4ever]

Why is skidoo #1 even here!! I came on this tread to see about 2019 Polaris HP #'s and all I see is a Pro Hater trying to act like a know it all. Any Engineering student can list off formulas and imply that he is smarter that every one else. but you are not. so please go away!!!! why is the moderator of this thread putting up with this s#@t. this is a Polaris user thread not a skidoo thread..

#'s don't get you to the top of the hill... your skill and a sled do.. just saying...…..

 

[Daag44]

skidoo #1 is actually a smart guy, at least from my point of view. I don't believe that he has anything bad to say about Polaris, but of course it is up to him to defend his views.

 

[summ8rmk]

Go Cat!....
Lol

[emoji12]

 

[Ski-doo#1]

Why is skidoo #1 even here!! I came on this tread to see about 2019 Polaris HP #'s and all I see is a Pro Hater trying to act like a know it all. Any Engineering student can list off formulas and imply that he is smarter that every one else. but you are not. so please go away!!!! why is the moderator of this thread putting up with this s#@t. this is a Polaris user thread not a skidoo thread..

#'s don't get you to the top of the hill... your skill and a sled do.. just saying...…..

No, comments like these are comments that moderators do not like. The numbers were wrong and/or the title column from the EPA was wrong, plain and simple. It is seeming like both of these happen to be true.

Me correcting the OP actually led to correcting the EPA. I was not correct as the OP may have turned out to be right. I know my name gets you Polaris guys going but that's what I like best. I have nothing bad to say about the brand, as of right now.

NoNonSense's information saying that the data is submitted to the EPA by the manufacturer's is good to know. EPA should still organize the data and know if Polaris is sending them power numbers or if Ski-doo is sending them torque numbers.

 

[Timbre]

I disagree... strongly but thats ok... back to fancy engineer math stuff.

I am not surprised. I can tell by your user name on here, that there is no way you would be biased on this

No matter what brand one rides or the HP a particular sled has, it's gonna be a GREAT winter!

 

[goridedoo]

LOL. Been on Poo since 2012, and have an 850 POO on the way. No bias here.

 

[10003514]

I’ll have an 850 G4 and 850 Axys this winter in my riding group, can’t wait to compare.

 

[tenacious84]

NoNonSense's information saying that the data is submitted to the EPA by the manufacturer's is good to know. EPA should still organize the data and know if Polaris is sending them power numbers or if Ski-doo is sending them torque numbers.

Based on the level of detail that NoNonSense provided, I think it is safe to assume he has first had experience with this (likely manufacturer employee).

Also, based on my experience with government entitles that require test information to be submitted and then later published, the amount of errors and lack of proof-reading is atrocious. You have individuals at the manufacturers who assume they can submit garbage information because it will later be checked by the government authority prior to publication. And then on the other side of the fence you have a government authority assuming what is being submitted is good because a manufacturer wouldn't dare submit something that could later come back on them.

 

[Oldtimer]

850 polaris

Lets just wait and see what she does on the snow hopefully pretty soon

 

[Ratchit]

It’s funny looking at every forum out there and all the doolaiders over explaining why the poo has this and the doo has that

 

[Daag44]

It’s funny looking at every forum out there and all the doolaiders over explaining why the poo has this and the doo has that

You probably didn't take a close enough look on DooTalk where the members were quite impressed with the level of power in stock form. I put a question mark on the lower part of the powerband, but most people are only concerned with the Peak Powerband which is nearly identical between the two. It is impressive for an 840cc.

 

[Ratchit]

You probably didn't take a close enough look on DooTalk where the members were quite impressed with the level of power in stock form. I put a question mark on the lower part of the powerband, but most people are only concerned with the Peak Powerband which is nearly identical between the two. It is impressive for an 840cc.

I don’t have a doo so I’m not on doo doo talk , but thanks for the heads up

 

[Ski-doo#1]

Based on the level of detail that NoNonSense provided, I think it is safe to assume he has first had experience with this (likely manufacturer employee).

Also, based on my experience with government entitles that require test information to be submitted and then later published, the amount of errors and lack of proof-reading is atrocious. You have individuals at the manufacturers who assume they can submit garbage information because it will later be checked by the government authority prior to publication. And then on the other side of the fence you have a government authority assuming what is being submitted is good because a manufacturer wouldn't dare submit something that could later come back on them.

I agree he does indeed seem to know his stuff regarding how it works. However, we had already arrived at the conclusion that Doo submitted torque values and Poo submitted power values. His knowledge was reassuring and he was thanked. Now we know more from other tests, the Poo puts out more power than the Doo.

It’s funny looking at every forum out there and all the doolaiders over explaining why the poo has this and the doo has that

I laugh too. Too bad they don't lock us out of here huh?

I do owe the OP an apology. I said he was incorrect in the beginning post but he really wasn't. So my apologies. I am still happy we determined not all numbers in that column are in-line with the heading of that column.