New Polaris Pro R

Big_Daddy_Jp said:
I thought the current law was 1000cc and below. Not that I wouldn’t wear one anyways, just figured they would have to change it.
Click to expand...
Polaris will likely go back to the same people they went to the first time and try to get them to back expanding the 1000 CC cut off point to now include this and anything else they might have in the works. Either way it might be the opportunity for the jackwads in Sacramento to save the world from themselves and will just amend the legislation that everybody gets to wear a helmet. So now the Rail guy's who had the option will no longer have the option.

There was one guy on line who was thinking that Polaris could make it so that it would be 50 state street legal, I doubt that would happen though. There would be way to much testing to allow that. Think years with the crash test dummies and that isn't happening.  I would think even the Slingshot identifies as a Motorcycle to avoid this and I don't think they will be able to sell A RzR as a bike to the Feds. 

 
tjZ06 said:
Chipped, or tuned?  How are you reading AFR to say it's too lean stock? 

-TJ
Click to expand...
Well I guess you would say 'tuned'.  I know everything in CA is lean to pass CARB (and they tend to run hot - another indicator of 'lean').  Adding a slip on/air filter/charge tube only exacerbates the lean condition.  I run AA tune (level 2) in the turbo S (which is essentially limiters removed and extra fuel).  IIRC the tuner can monitor AFR in the CA version (blue O2 sensor) but level 2 is fine for for me.  I have level 3 on there, but maybe iffy on CA 91 pump on a hot day?

 
1newbie said:
Well I guess you would say 'tuned'.  I know everything in CA is lean to pass CARB (and they tend to run hot - another indicator of 'lean').  Adding a slip on/air filter/charge tube only exacerbates the lean condition.  I run AA tune (level 2) in the turbo S (which is essentially limiters removed and extra fuel).  IIRC the tuner can monitor AFR in the CA version (blue O2 sensor) but level 2 is fine for for me.  I have level 3 on there, but maybe iffy on CA 91 pump on a hot day?
Click to expand...
I don't think I could go back to a non-turbo SXS.  A little octane booster and 91 on those hot days works.   I ran octane booster on my tuned X3 when in the dunes. 

 
Sand Shark said:
200hp n/a UTV is impressive.  Their current n/a car is 110hp.  The fact Polaris said f’ it and when to a 4 banger engine is pretty cool.  
 

If will likely be a heavy SXS.   
 

Who knows if they did anything to the engine.  That fuel is a UTV fuel and not 110octane.   No clue if those are aftermarket trailing arms or a-arms.  We have not see the production car to compare.

 I can appreciate what Polaris is doing just like what RG is trying to do with the Speed UTV.  
 

I want to see the full specs.   
Click to expand...
i think they are going to be considered something other than a UTV. speed has gotten patens and im sure all the other manufactures have patens on their stuff as well for a utv class. so my thinking if you come out with another class of vehicle you possibly can get around the paten infringements. so going to a 4 cylinder well over 1000 cc makes it no longer a UTV just saying 

 
NIKAL said:
Since we don’t know the different trims and possible engine displacements in the new Pro R. What’s everyone’s guess as to the base 2 seat & base 4 seat Pro R pricing? 
 

Im thinking if there is going to be different engine displacement options, I’m going to say the 2 seat is $28.999 & the 4 seat will start at 31,999. 
Click to expand...
Those prices would seem about right.  

 
Jersey_Jeff73 said:
i think they are going to be considered something other than a UTV. speed has gotten patens and im sure all the other manufactures have patens on their stuff as well for a utv class. so my thinking if you come out with another class of vehicle you possibly can get around the paten infringements. so going to a 4 cylinder well over 1000 cc makes it no longer a UTV just saying 
Click to expand...
Rumor is Polaris is calling it a buggy.  We shall see on 11/9

 
NIKAL said:
Since we don’t know the different trims and possible engine displacements in the new Pro R. What’s everyone’s guess as to the base 2 seat & base 4 seat Pro R pricing? 
 

Im thinking if there is going to be different engine displacement options, I’m going to say the 2 seat is $28.999 & the 4 seat will start at 31,999. 
Click to expand...
Nick from Chupacabra guessed $37k and $40k.

I'm going to guess $33k and $35k, just because prices always go up on the new models, right?

 
Yup.. I think it's a bad move to change so much stuff... if the belt is only change-able under the seat.. it's garbage.. 

To make a Turbo S.. a decent ride.. you're $40k+.. .believe me.. I know.

abc

 
ANGRYBUTTCRACK said:
Yup.. I think it's a bad move to change so much stuff... if the belt is only change-able under the seat.. it's garbage.. 

To make a Turbo S.. a decent ride.. you're $40k+.. .believe me.. I know.

abc
Click to expand...
Yep I hated my 09 built Teryx for this very reason, PITA multi hour job to change the belt, partially why I ended up in a yxz.

 
NIKAL said:
In Polaris defense, CVT’s have got way better since the RZR 800 days. You don’t see or hear about blowing belts like we used too. 
 

Next issue is packaging for the new Pro R. I don’t see how they could mount the CVT any other way with the size of the engine & crankshaft direction on the engine. As it is the rear is using a separate rear independent differential vs a transaxle configuration. 
 

Id be more concerned about the 6-7 u-joints & 2-3 carrier bearings they looked to be using. Polaris has had many issues with u-joints & carrier bearings over the years with several models. 
Click to expand...
HUH????

My buddies son blows at least 1 belt a trip.

He spent a chunk of change on 3 belts from the mullet.  LOL

 
Some law info...

This is the group they built after the Rhino lawsuits https://rohva.org/
Their draft law for states to enact https://rohva.org/model-law/

CA LAWs
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=&article=
ROV 
 “Recreational off-highway vehicle” means a motor vehicle meeting all of the following criteria:

(a) Designed by the manufacturer for operation primarily off of the highway.

(b) Has a steering wheel for steering control.

(c) Has nonstraddle seating provided by the manufacturer for the operator and all passengers.

(d) (1) Has a maximum speed capability of greater than 30 miles per hour.

(2) A vehicle designed by the manufacturer with a maximum speed capability of 30 miles per hour or less but is modified so that it has a maximum speed capability of greater than 30 miles per hour satisfies the criteria set forth in this subdivision.

(e) Has an engine displacement equal to or less than 1,000cc (61 ci).

(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 165, Sec. 1. (AB 1595) Effective January 1, 2013.)

UTV

“Utility-terrain vehicle” means a motor vehicle subject to subdivision (a) of Section 38010 that is all of the following:

(a) Designed for operation off of the highway.

(b) Suspended on four tires.

(c) Has a steering wheel for steering control.

(d) Has one seat to accommodate a driver and one passenger sitting side by side.

(Added by Stats. 2012, Ch. 168, Sec. 1. (AB 2111) Effective January 1, 2013.)

SPCN  

A “specially constructed vehicle” is a vehicle which is built for private use, not for resale, and is not constructed by a licensed manufacturer or remanufacturer. A specially constructed vehicle may be built from (1) a kit; (2) new or used, or a combination of new and used, parts; or (3) a vehicle reported for dismantling, as required by Section 5500 or 11520, which, when reconstructed, does not resemble the original make of the vehicle dismantled. A specially constructed vehicle is not a vehicle which has been repaired or restored to its original design by replacing parts.

(Amended by Stats. 1983, Ch. 1286, Sec. 13.)

OHV Laws
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=VEH&division=16.5.&title=&part=&chapter=&article=&nodetreepath=30

38012.

(a) As used in this division, “off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification” means a motor vehicle subject to subdivision (a) of Section 38010.

(b) As used in this division, “off-highway motor vehicle” includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) A motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, except for any motorcycle that is eligible for a special transportation identification device issued pursuant to Section 38088.

(2) A snowmobile or other vehicle designed to travel over snow or ice, as defined in Section 557.

(3) A motor vehicle commonly referred to as a sand buggy, dune buggy, or all-terrain vehicle.

(4) A motor vehicle commonly referred to as a jeep.

(5) A recreational off-highway vehicle as defined in Section 500.

(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 165, Sec. 2. (AB 1595) Effective January 1, 2013.)

ROHV https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=16.5.&title=&part=&chapter=8.&article=
 

If they don't call it a ROV, I see they could just call it an OHV or Buggy and it does not fall into the other limiting rules.

 
Thanks for posting that great information.

I wonder exactly what they would change to make it fall into the OHV Buggy Category?

How were the Predator X18's listed? Green Sticker OHV, right? But they were not ROV/UTV Class.

 
lincster said:
HUH????

My buddies son blows at least 1 belt a trip.

He spent a chunk of change on 3 belts from the mullet.  LOL
Click to expand...
There is something wrong with either the clutch/clutch setup, or the nut behind the wheel.  I run our '18 XPT from time to time, when the rail is down or just for shits 'n giggles.  I know I've posted these pics on this forum multiple times, but this wa a hot day (90+) late in the season when the dunes were empty and we were jamming.  I did have to slow-up for ECTs (not dangerous, but when I get to 217-219 I check up) after a looooong session following these guys (well, following 2, I passed the Tatum) but I had NO belt issues on this run:

RZR Rail 1.jpg

RZR Rail 2.jpg

The Funco is a Gen6 with a E85 TT LS3.  The AlumiCraft is a ~415cui 4.0L Whipple LS3 (pump gas, I think) and the Tatum was also a 4.0L Whipple LS3 (I believe also ~415, and it might have been on good fuel).  All the drivers spend a LOT of time in the dunes and know what they're doing.  Now, I want to be clear - I'm not saying they were trying to shake me, or going 10/10.  I'm not saying I could hang with any of them 1:1.  But my point is, it was a pretty fast ride with 3 of the best cars in the industry, all with 5x the HP I had in the XPT, and I hung with NO belt problems. 

A common thing I see is a guy will go ~1k miles without blowing a belt.  Then they'll blow their first belt, and after that they shred them non-stop.  For some reason that never seems to strike anybody as strange, or wrong.  Almost always the clutches were damaged in some way when that first belt went, and that is causing the accelerated subsequent belt failures.  I used to have a long thread w/ pics/instructions on clutch removal, disassembly, maintenance and cleaning but I think it got lost in the sever failure. 

Oh, that brings up another point: belt covers.  There are those that refuse to run without them, but IMHO for duning you simply CANNOT run a belt cover on a turbo machine.  I only have lost one belt in my stock-motor RZRs and that was in my '16 XPT when I still ran the cover.  After that I tried no cover, and saw 100+ belt temp reductions (using an infrared belt temp sensor pointed at the belt itself, so TRUE belt time).  Once I stopped running the cover, I never had another failure (*knock on wood*).  Of course, my 40psi of boost, 2300+lbs Z1 machine was a different story and ate belts, but it had all sorts of issues and was just too much power (300+ to the tires at 40psi) for such a heavy machine (and Yuge paddles). 

People will argue that the sand getting in the clutches accelerates wear, but I've been running our '18 XPT this way in G the whole time, and I disassemble the clutches often.  So far I replaced 3 sliders in the secondary at $15/ea and they weren't even shot, just showing some wear.   IMHO you see far more damage (and far more expensive damage) to the clutches when belts break.  Also, on RZRs (might be same for X3s) when you shred a belt and pieces wrap up around the crank or trans input haft behind the clutch, you can kill those seals which are way more $/work to replace.  Finally, if you've ever taken a belt cover off a SxS that runs in G a lot what do you always find?  Sand.  So, I figure open up at least the clutches can chuck the sand out, stay cool, and not get damaged by belt failures. 

-TJ

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NIKAL said:
Don’t know your friends son, but I’m guessing he’s just a mash & go type of driver. Maybe he’s a candidate for a belt temp sensor? Maybe he does not know how to drive with a CVT. Just like some can’t drive with a clutch or sequential. I myself have learned how to drive with a CVT and do not have belt issues. I personally don’t know anyone who has regular belt failures. 
 

I did help a guy on a trail once who had a flat and broken belt. We gave him my spare tire to get back to camp on, and another guy in our group gave him a used belt to get back on. When we got him back to his camp and to get our tire & belt back, all he complained about is what a pile of junk his RZR was. He talked about blowing belts, breaking axles etc.. He’s a guy who could break an Albins with a VW engine. 
Click to expand...
He does do well keeping up with all of us in buggies.  And we ain't slow.  LOL

And I get it...  everyone thinks "their group is the fastest".  LOL

I will agree with the nut behind the wheel theory.

I knew me posting that would get quotes.....  and I don't even own a SXS.  🙂

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top