• We are no longer supporting TapaTalk as a mobile app for our sites. The TapaTalk App has many issues with speed on our server as well as security holes that leave us vulnerable to attacks and spammers.

Real World 1500 Mile Low Down of new Ski Doo XR-S 900 Turbo vs. SideWinder

XP123 said:
I've had over 30 brand new sleds over the years and they were all fun to ride. You don't need to have the most powerful highest hp sled to have fun. Every sled has a fun factor and it's up to the individual rider to pick a sled that they will enjoy riding.

I had lots of fun on my Winder and I had lots of fun on my 900t. Both sleds ride and handle awesome. The Winder had more power for sure and if I want that same power I could get it with a tune. Now if I had a tuned Winder there is no way I could get that type of power out of a 900t but then again the only thing that will get that power would be another Winder.

A friend of mine had a 50th Winder with a tune last year and he loved it. I rode it and the power was off the charts. This year he has a 900t on order and it will have a dealer installed Hurricane 195 hp tune in it. I'm looking forward to trying it out and if I like it I may get the same tune for mine.

There are so many great choices on the market today that there is no reason to ride something that isn't exciting or fun to ride. I wouldn't mind owning any of them just as long as it has a 4 stroke engine. I will never own another time bomb two stroke no matter how much fun guys claim they are to ride.
Click to expand...

XP123,
Do you have mirrors on your sleds?
 

Motorhead said:
Yep my 17 is a very exciting sled to ride. I use to call it’s stock power smoooth and deceptive, and those shocks are still doing it for me. Now with the mild Max Spool 16 tune, it is still smooth, but no more deceptive speed. Need to respect this power because it comes on quick and strong. I can just imagine what a bigger tune feels like???

Met up with a few guys last year with new 900T. I looked them over and liked the creature features that were pointed out to me. The first thing a 900T owner will ask a Winder owner, “Is it tuned”? Once the Yes is answered they ride on !!

I do the same when we stop and chat with other Winder owners, kind of funny, most are tuned, crazy Bastards !!!
Click to expand...
Not crazy,just Big kids .I have the TD 270 tune in my winder ,and the TD 210 tune in my 900t .
 
STAIN said:
I also have had well over 40 sleds in my life, they were NOT all fun to ride. Got rid of them and got something different.
While I agree power is not the end all/be all, it is a big factor, riding on the bar all day sucks.
2 points
1--- I think we are LUCKY to own a sled like the Sidewinder/T-cat---NOBODY makes anything like it,and never has. The sled is addicting for sure. Quirks? Yes, but the sled is so unique we put up with it. Kind of like Italian car ownership. I love riding this sled.
2---I dont understand why people who have had a Sidewinder and decided the sled is not for them feel the need to come on here and justify their new purchase and reason for jumping ship. You didnt like the Winder? Not every sled fits the needs for all people, I get it. Otherwise I dont care why you bought what you did. Be happy with your new purchase and ride on. No need to come here and bash the sled I have chosen to ride.
Click to expand...



I believe this thread is about the 900t XRS vs the Sidewinder. I have no idea who is bashing the Sidewinder? I didn't buy my 900t because I didn't like my Winder. My Winder was awesome and treated me great with no real issues. I very seldom buy the same sled twice. I like change and my next sled may be something totally different.
 
ClutchMaster said:
XP123,
Do you have mirrors on your sleds?
Click to expand...
Yes I do. They are required in Quebec and I mostly lead when we ride and it helps keeping tabs on sleds behind me. I had them on the hand guards on my Winder and now on the windshield of the 900t.
 
Motorhead said:
Crazy Big Kid! The added power of those tunes are fun!
Click to expand...
This past winter i did a 1162 mile 4 day trip from Jay Maine to Madawaska and back ,.What a great mid week trip it was .Like most of the Maine riding ,Great .The First day was over 250 miles and that was after i drove 7 hrs. to get to jay ,365 miles on day 2 .This was on my tuned 900t .
 
krm said:
This past winter i did a 1162 mile 4 day trip from Jay Maine to Madawaska and back ,.What a great mid week trip it was .Like most of the Maine riding ,Great .The First day was over 250 miles and that was after i drove 7 hrs. to get to jay ,365 miles on day 2 .This was on my tuned 900t .
Click to expand...

This past season was exceptional in Maine, and mid week riding especially towards the end of season is my favorite time. I have not been through Jay on snowmobiles in probably 20 years, but yeah their RR bed access with lots of parking in the old strip mall parking lot attracts some.

Rode the County a few times this past season and it did not disappoint. All mid week end of season rides which had us wondering if in fact they were grooming their trails for us only whereas there were few sleds on those perfectly groomed trails. Just amazing!!

Most of the season allowed for local riding, that hasn’t happened in many winters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: krm
74Nitro said:
Please, stop this. You're being deliberately obtuse and pedantic.
This whole thread went off course when you made the erroneous claim that torque is what pulls your arms out.
Myself and others have proven over and over again that HP is king, and the link that Clutchmaster provided proves exactly what we have been saying all along.
In every example you just provided, torque would have been falling well before peak hp occurred. And again, for about the 1000th time, the definition of hp is the rate at which work is done. Therefore, in every example you just provided, anyone of those engines would be faster when calibrated for maximum hp(where there is less torque, but accomplished more often per minute), than maximum torque(where torque is higher, but accomplished less often per minute).
So, to conclude, anyone of those engines in a machine with everything else being equal would be faster when clutched to peak hp than peak torque, which, by definition means that the pull on your arms would be greater!
Click to expand...

Who said anything about peak torque? Again increase torque and hp increases as well, more torque more hp! Simple math! Sidewinder has increased torque at about the same RPM as Say a 850 Doo the sidewinder makes more torque so it makes more hp. Increase torque at any rpm and hp increases along with it. Torque is king HP is the result.
 
ClutchMaster said:
Dude you are in complete denial, won’t admit that your wrong so you go on these rants that nobody wants to hear. With all kinds of stupid speculation on your opinion just to try and save face.

It’s a fact that lower torque engines can be much faster than engines with higher torque numbers. Apex is a perfect example.

Nobody is buying your BS!
Click to expand...

What am I wrong about? You go on and on about lower torque engines being faster like say the Apex but the sidewinder is a high torque engine and unless I'm mistaken you claim it to be faster. more torque, times rpm = more hp. So who is in denial?
 
ClutchMaster said:
Your stupid analysis that torque is king and horsepower is the result just is not true.

You must have both torque and rpm, they are equals in the equation!
(HP= TORQUE x RPM/5252)
It’s simple 4th grade math!

Horsepower is the amount of work done, no matter how big or small any of the other variables are it doesn’t matter!!!!!!

Torque and rpm are variables........
Horsepower is king!
Click to expand...

It is indeed simple math, if you increase torque at any rpm you increase hp. Pick an rpm any rpm pick a torque number. calculate hp. now increase the torque number and hp increases. So you will counter increase rpm and hp increases and you would be right but we are limited by belt speed. So that Apex engine that turns 11,000 rpm needs gear reducer to slow belt speed. We can increase rpm to say 15,000rpm but then we need a greater reduction to drop to belt speed. Gear reducer increases torque at a lower rpm so hp stays the same and the CV unit can do its job. So in effect we have lowered the rpm and increased the torque to achieve the same hp, so while the Apex engine does make less torque at 11,000 rpm crank speed the engine has a pto (part of the engine) to which we attach the clutch which turn at a reduced rpm with increased torque. But even if you wish to argue the Apex makes lower torque, add a turbo or NO2 and torque is boosted along with hp while rpm stays relatively the same. Torque increases hp without adding rpm because rpm is limited to belt speed, if that was not true the Yamaha would have just hung the clutch on the end of the crank and turned it 11,000rpm.

Now you always want to go back to the torque is pull statement as you example but it was made over a different subject which was a motor without a CV transmission. A Harley will beat a bike with a high reving lower torque higher hp engine say like a 1000cc 4 cylinder off the line and will rip your arms out of the sockets doing it. So what I said was indeed accurate. You of course do not want to talk about that because it does not suit you agenda which is to belittle and discredit me.
 
ClutchMaster said:
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/power_and_torque.htm

Here’s a good article on torque and horsepower, scroll down to the examples and read about how a smaller engine with the same horsepower as a larger engine is faster because of the weight savings observed by the smaller engine.
I’m sure they are wrong tho, ask a squatch
Click to expand...

Great article! I don't know any squatch's so not sure how they would think about it. I will say though it changes nothing in what I have said, in fact it proves it. If you notice the graph with more torque at a higher rpm makes more hp. The higher and broader the torque band the more usable hp. So more torque = more hp. Now lets move on to your 400,000rpm 10ft/pd sled motor. the gear reducer needed to drive a clutch at would be insanely huge and have a very large amount of mass. Mass = slow to rev so getting around that would be interesting even if you could build a 400,000 rpm motor. Simpler would be a smaller motor with say a turbo to add torque to increase hp at max rpm. Broad torque curve like the sidewinder making peak torque at or very near to peak hp just like the article says is best. If you look at the Apex peak hp and peak torque you see the same broad torque band.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top