T
11-12' 800 Pro Reliability
- Thread starter B2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 800 pro ride
O
I'm currantly at the expo at West Yellowstone. Raining and crappy. We rode today just because we are here. I saw a new Cat being towed in by an older Doo. I have no idea what the problem is, but there are at least 5 to 1 more PRO's here on the snow than either Cats or Doos. If I see a PRO towed in I will let you know. As I have said, I'm not seeing the ratio of failures that some on here want you to believe.
C
No just the ...tick tick tick ...boom...lol couldn't help myself ..my concern is with the technology we have today why are we having as many problems..(all brands included) with that being said I think there will be a 13 in my stable!
A
Who wants to believe what? I ride a pro. It is the third Polaris I have had. Terribly unreliable. Just brought it in today actually, now I am blowing belts with a brand new engine installed. I will get it fixed on warranty, just like all my other sleds. I have come to the conclusion all sleds break. Just find a good dealer and hope for the best. Have fun in West. Looked like a standard Expo...
O
The Expo was WET! Home now where there is a LOT of fresh deep snow.
The point I'm trying to make about PRO failures is from my perspective only. I make my living working on all brands and I ride every week. I simply don't see PRO failures so far that have been serious engine issues. I talked with a lot of riders at the Expo, and this poll and this forum is not getting the real story out there.There are failures with every brand, but there are many guys on this site who want to lessen the success of the PRO by exaggerating engine failures. I guess when you are clearly the number one mountain sled you are going to have the largest target on your back and every issue will be put under a microscope.
Maybe my exposure is not as good as some others, but I see way more PRO’s on the snow than any other current mountain brand. I didn’t speak with one PRO rider at the Expo (and I talked with a lot of them in several bars) that has had an engine failure yet. I did over hear a debate with some Cat guys who were trying to convince this Yamaha guy not to buy a PRO because they were all blowing up. That’s the kind of crap I’m talking about, and it gets a little old.
Ride what ya got and have fun!
Well I don't think I would be considered an unhappy customer since I am snowchecking a 13 but I did have an engine failure, rings to be more specific. I tell people I love my sled.....not happy that the motor had to be rebuilt after 1100 miles but I love the sled. Run oil in your gas, turn up the pump and you should get atleast twice what I got out of the sled. I don't think everyone talking about failures wants a different sled or hates their sled. I know that I just want a sled that doesn't have to be rebuilt every 1000 miles. That's it for me.
Stock?
Just curious if your sled was modified at all besides a can? In fact, I am curious the percentage of engines with failures how many actually had engine mods such as heads, pipes, turbos, etc. I would guess that at least 50% or more.
Just curious if your sled was modified at all besides a can? In fact, I am curious the percentage of engines with failures how many actually had engine mods such as heads, pipes, turbos, etc. I would guess that at least 50% or more.
It amazes me how their 600s can run 5K+ and 5+ years and never have a sputter, yet their 800s can go down after one season and 1k miles. It also seems kinda fishy that their super reliable 700 engine got phased out even though it probably made up 1/3-1/2 of their sales hmmmm
conspiracy!
conspiracy!
A
I want the same thing. Seems like there is the mindset of the peeps who have had it all go wrong, and those who haven't. I remember thinking how great my sled was before it went bang. I still think it still is the best sled out there, but they are so close to being great. I only know what I have experienced, and what those who I ride with have experienced. Anything else to me is just hearsay and internet jibber jabber.
P
2011 PRO RMK 163
3300 MILES WITH SLP STAGE 4 KIT, ZERO PROBLEMS
3300 MILES WITH SLP STAGE 4 KIT, ZERO PROBLEMS
Did you put aftermarket pistons in? Did you turn your oil pump up or add oil to the gas tank?
The 2 stroke engines need OIL and GOOD GAS. Running 89 and 91 does not always cut it. I have seen more engine failures due to poor gas and lean oil due to epa. If you want high mile motor buy a yamaha if you want the fun factor buy a pro and turn the oil pump up and buy some 100 octane and mix with pump gas. Everyone wants a highperformance motor that will last forever not going to happen. How long did a 800 150hp motor last in 2000 that run on pump gas? I have went though my share of motors with ski-doo. It has stopped since I turned up oil pump and mix some oil in the gas. One gallon of 100 octane to eight of pump has worked for me. Its going to get harder to collect warranty lots of engines go down from poor gas over time eventually the manufactures will be able to point it to poor gas then we will be stuck with the bill then we will make sure that the gas goes in them will be good.
Last edited:
This has come up before in older threads but I haven't read it here yet:
Where's the balance point between performance and reliability?
Older sleds (pre-90) were definitely reliable because they were simple. And they produced far less HP. And they were heavy...but nobody cared because they were ridden on trails and lakes and pastures. Then guys out west began modifying sleds for mountain riding and the word got out and market followed them.
Eventually the manufacturers got on board, but these are big corporations with legal, and engineering departments, and competing design teams and all the internal political BS that goes with a big organization. And all of these things make them far less responsive to innovation.
Another factor is us. Meaning to say, I think all these "problems" are primarily centered in the mountain sled community. Unlike the bulk of sledders who cruise trails, or ditch bang farm roads, or chug along checking traps or tip-ups, our segment of the sport demands performance....MORE POWER!! LIGHTER!! MORE POWER!! LIGHTER!!
The brand loyalists aside, we are a very fickle target market and we tend to jump ship year-to-year to ride the next best thing. The Big 3 know this and there is tremendous pressure to get new designs on the snow (via your local dealer) so they can make some money. CEOs work for shareholders who don't give a wad of snot about the best built sleds, they care about the best selling sleds.
I think if we fairly analyze the most problematic sleds over the last 15 years, regardless of brand, it's the ones that were either rushed into production or not sufficiently R&D'd.
Something else I think we tend to forget is back in the day the "wiggle room" for the tinkerers and aftermarket to get more performance out of stock motors was a lot broader and we developed attitudes that became detrimental to performance as sled designs got better. Case in point: Gutting airboxes on 90's machines was great way to get more air, and therefore more fuel, into a motor strong enough to handle a 30% HP increase. By the mid 2000's carbed sleds had, for the most part, well designed intake systems and gutting an airbox was an invitation to tuning problems. Yes, the better wrenches could and did always will improve on stock but how many "average" guys gutted their airboxes only to be riddled with expensive tuning issues they couldn't figure out....all because they read about it right here. My point is how many of these reported failures are stock sleds? Not just the Pro but any maker, any model?
I'm not making excuses for poor designs dumped on the market for us to reengineer but sometimes I think we forget that on average we're getting incredible power out of motors a little bigger than milk crates...and when you push a given technology to the ragged edge, at some point, something has to give.
Final point: The internet tends to concentrate negative feedback.
Where's the balance point between performance and reliability?
Older sleds (pre-90) were definitely reliable because they were simple. And they produced far less HP. And they were heavy...but nobody cared because they were ridden on trails and lakes and pastures. Then guys out west began modifying sleds for mountain riding and the word got out and market followed them.
Eventually the manufacturers got on board, but these are big corporations with legal, and engineering departments, and competing design teams and all the internal political BS that goes with a big organization. And all of these things make them far less responsive to innovation.
Another factor is us. Meaning to say, I think all these "problems" are primarily centered in the mountain sled community. Unlike the bulk of sledders who cruise trails, or ditch bang farm roads, or chug along checking traps or tip-ups, our segment of the sport demands performance....MORE POWER!! LIGHTER!! MORE POWER!! LIGHTER!!
The brand loyalists aside, we are a very fickle target market and we tend to jump ship year-to-year to ride the next best thing. The Big 3 know this and there is tremendous pressure to get new designs on the snow (via your local dealer) so they can make some money. CEOs work for shareholders who don't give a wad of snot about the best built sleds, they care about the best selling sleds.
I think if we fairly analyze the most problematic sleds over the last 15 years, regardless of brand, it's the ones that were either rushed into production or not sufficiently R&D'd.
Something else I think we tend to forget is back in the day the "wiggle room" for the tinkerers and aftermarket to get more performance out of stock motors was a lot broader and we developed attitudes that became detrimental to performance as sled designs got better. Case in point: Gutting airboxes on 90's machines was great way to get more air, and therefore more fuel, into a motor strong enough to handle a 30% HP increase. By the mid 2000's carbed sleds had, for the most part, well designed intake systems and gutting an airbox was an invitation to tuning problems. Yes, the better wrenches could and did always will improve on stock but how many "average" guys gutted their airboxes only to be riddled with expensive tuning issues they couldn't figure out....all because they read about it right here. My point is how many of these reported failures are stock sleds? Not just the Pro but any maker, any model?
I'm not making excuses for poor designs dumped on the market for us to reengineer but sometimes I think we forget that on average we're getting incredible power out of motors a little bigger than milk crates...and when you push a given technology to the ragged edge, at some point, something has to give.
Final point: The internet tends to concentrate negative feedback.
So i was one that voted a couple of weeks ago that I had over 2000 miles no major problems well lost a cylinder skirt last weekend and blew a hole in the crank case!!!
A
How do you feel now? I wonder if "Mother Polaris" (I love that term) will re-engineer the 14 powerplant? I wasn't being a smart-azz, just wondering what your thoughts are. The thing I don't get is how some peeps have this issue and others are going 2500 plus with no problems. I was thinking the other day how people that are putting SLP kits on their sleds are going to be SOL when something goes wrong, then I see a post from some guy that is claiming 3300 miles with zero problems on a stage 4 kit? Is it all just luck?
A theory...
I read once many years ago that since you can trace a VIN to the exact day a vehicle was built you should never buy one built on a Monday or a Friday.
I wonder if the guys who have had engine failures had their sleds assembled on Hangover Mondays or Leavin' Early Fridays. Or if the motors are built separately and dropped in during assembly, if there's not some traceable common cause related in the engine assembly process?
I read once many years ago that since you can trace a VIN to the exact day a vehicle was built you should never buy one built on a Monday or a Friday.
I wonder if the guys who have had engine failures had their sleds assembled on Hangover Mondays or Leavin' Early Fridays. Or if the motors are built separately and dropped in during assembly, if there's not some traceable common cause related in the engine assembly process?
O
4th, I suspect there is an element of luck with all things mechanical and manufactured. I also think that the failures can also be attributed to how guys ride, how they maintain their sleds as well.
I know some riders who always have problems no matter what brand they ride. Are they just unlucky? I don’t think so. I’m older than many on this site and I suspect that my throttle isn’t pinned to the bar as often as some younger dudes. I don’t often have engine problems... never have, but I am meticulous with my maintenance and I don’t see my rev limiter very often.
is there a correlation... I suspect so. If my PRO takes a dump I will be just as unhappy as any other rider, but I ride at least a thousand mountain miles each year and have never lost a clutch or had an engine failure. I guess it’s not so bad to be getting older, or I’m just lucky!
I know some riders who always have problems no matter what brand they ride. Are they just unlucky? I don’t think so. I’m older than many on this site and I suspect that my throttle isn’t pinned to the bar as often as some younger dudes. I don’t often have engine problems... never have, but I am meticulous with my maintenance and I don’t see my rev limiter very often.
is there a correlation... I suspect so. If my PRO takes a dump I will be just as unhappy as any other rider, but I ride at least a thousand mountain miles each year and have never lost a clutch or had an engine failure. I guess it’s not so bad to be getting older, or I’m just lucky!
OS:
Getting older and being lucky. Ain't nothing wrong with that combo. Well said.
Getting older and being lucky. Ain't nothing wrong with that combo. Well said.
O
Thanks Z, I think us older dudes make our own luck.
Very true IMHO
