Some interesting sidexside numbers

Some weight to Horsepower figures for some of the SidexSides. These HP numbers are from the crank, not rear wheels. That is where the CVT system comes into play. It would be interesting to see which machines lose the least power through the driveline.


07 660 Rhino- 1049lbs....41 HP..........25.6lbs/HP

08 700 Rhino- 1124lbs....45HP...........25.0lbs/HP

08 750 Teryx- 1276lbs....50HP...........25.5lbs/HP

08 800 RZR- 945lbs......51HP...........18.5lbs/HP

09 800HO RZR S- 1000lbs..55HP........18.2lbs/HP

09 650 Prowler- 1216lbs....39HP.........31.2lbs/HP

09 1000 Prowler- 1243lbs...66HP.........18.8lbs/HP

intersting the biggest motor has one of the lower HP at the crank, and the known fast RZR is lower then the rhinos

the reason the two prowlers are different and probably the others too is gear ratio, my 650 has 4.o gears where the 700 and 1000 have 3.36

shawnley1222 wrote:

intersting the biggest motor has one of the lower HP at the crank, and the known fast RZR is lower then the rhinos

the largest the ac 1000 has 66hp, thats the highest not lowest, I think yank means those smaller numbers are pounds of Torque not HP. Torque ratings at rear wheel is affected by gear ratios thats why the fastest ones have the lowest numbers it takes higher geared rear ends to get faster speeds.

well if the lower numbers were LB og torque then it would make a difference in reading material

No, it is pounds of machine weight per Horsepower.

exactly yank....


its providing a figure as to how much weight each single hp has to push.

I guess but what does that tell you? Id rather see lbs of torque so you could tell which ones woulds have more low end pull.

im just confusing myself i guess o well ill catch up with the crowd later

Power to weight (specific power)

The inverse of power-to-weight, weight-to-power ratio (power loading) is a calculation commonly applied to aircraft, cars, and vehicles in general, to enable the comparison of one vehicle performance to another. Weight-to-Power ratio is a measurement of the acceleration capability (potential) of any land vehicle or climb performance of any aircraft or space vehicle.

what he said

perfect explanation.

Glad to note the 660's ratio is just a tick behind the 700.

Hey Yank....that article I posted in the Arctic Cat thread said that there is some where around 70+ horse power and 188 pounds of TQ @ the crank

Foxfire wrote:

Hey Yank....that article I posted in the Arctic Cat thread said that there is some where around 70+ horse power and 188 pounds of TQ @ the crank

I was using the CARB (California Air Regulation Board) test results from last years Thundercat 951cc motor. I was assuming they are the same motor. 65.9 HP is what it tested out at.

10-4....got ya !

Big-R wrote:

Big dogs need lovin too!

yep the cat 1000, which is more like 950 cc is advertised at 66 hp, the new polaris 850 has 70 hp.

Power to weight ratio is more important to look at then just HP alone.

misterp wrote:

Power to weight ratio is more important to look at then just HP alone.

I agree.