Just how thirsty were the 670 summits???

[kootenayguy]

Hey guys- Ive heard a lot of great stuff recently in regards to the reliability factor of the 1998-2001 summit 670's. Only downside is that ive been told they like to drink the fuel-
Also looking at a couple of 700 summits of the same vintage.........Wondering what anyone's thoughts or opinions are in regards to both the fuel consumption of the 670s and the 700s as well as the reliability of the 700s.

Also if anyone can tell me what makes a 700 summit a "Highmark" edition, that would be apreciated too-

sincerely yours,

ignorant rookie

 

[summ8rmk]

The 670 is thirsty but not any worse than an 800. It all depends on what's been done to it and how u ride. One buddy averaged 4-6 mpg and another riding the same sled got 8-10 that's the difference between hillclimbing and trail riding. That was a stock 98 summit X. My uncle with his modded 97 670 with the 740 big bore would average 3-5 mpg but never saw better than 7 even when trail riding. The 670 is a strong durable engine. My 2000 summit 700 high mark ( high mark means 151 track) would average 6-8 mpg hill climbing and is a whole lot better sled than the s2000 chassis wich is what the 96-99 670 summits are in and the f2000 is the 94-95 chassis(way out dated and handles like a tank) the late 99-2001 is the zx chassis and 2002-2003 is the zx-x chassis. My 700 needed new crank bearings at 1756 miles. Then again at 2200 miles. I had it rebuilt by someone who new how to rebuild skidoos and use the $50 tube of grease on the bearing and turned up the oil injector the sled. Made it to 4100 miles and neede a new bearing again and now it has almost 5,000 miles I was told its the 2000 700 that has the bearing issue. My buddys 98 670 has over 4,000 miles and all he has done is put gas oil and lots of spark plugs. In 98 if u got the X model it had the first gen of the DPM instead of HAC. My 2000 700 would whoop my buddies 98 670 X but I had a 151 and his was a 136. I think if his had a 151 he'd would have been able to keep up till he ran out of gas. Lol he always had to pack extra gas. But he also never had to rebuild his motor. Ill stop now but I could keep on rambling. Lol

My avatar is my 2000 700 high mark. I luv that sled just wish It was an 800.

 

[Jeff C]

I have to disagree on teh fuel consumption thing. I still have my 99'X that I punched out to a 151" and changed the approach angle drammatically.

Over the years I have ridden with my buddies out west 8-10 of them, and I used to carry fuel. I found that I was just carrying fuel for others to use as thier sleds would run out far faster than my 670X

The 670X off trail gets as good as or better than the sleds my buddies ride.

Mine is for sale by the way on the $1,800 range (Wink, Wink)

 

[eddy]

670

Our 700 used 30% more fuel than a 670 same conditions.

 

[Mike from langley]

Been riding a bunch with my buddy on his 700 . It's a 2000 136 mine is a 2001 800 151 his is MUCH better on fuel

 

[Reeb]

Viton needles and seats help the fuel problem. Which basically is - the stock needle leaks fuel through and loads up the bottom end. Similar issue to parking downhill. Throw in some Vitons and the problem is gone. The 670 is a much better engine on fuel than most newer however when modded or jetted wrong - they can be aweful pigs on gas.

 

[Tmann]

I have a 96 670 Summit stock with can. I look for the pow but often have to ride 5 or more miles to get to it each way. On average I get about 6 mi per gal. I have put 2500 miles on over the last 2 seasons and have not done much other than the typical maintenance and repairs such as clutch cleaning,recoil ropes, oil, gas 1-2 sets of plugs a season ect. My sled now has 5500 miles and running strong.
I often ride with other guys on much newer sleds and at the end of the day the fuel gauges are close. I may try and throw a set of pistons and rings in this summer just to make her feel like a new girl again LOL.

I have heard but have not confirmed that the 96 HAC system is better than the ones used 97 and newer. Less failure on the 96.

guess i should also throw in that mine has been extended from 136-144 and the drivers and gearing have been changed to match. I'm sure this affects the MPG but it has been this way since I purchased it.