New Polaris Patriot 850!!!

[srt20]

srt20;You have jogged my memory somewhat. I do now remember something of a back and forth different CFI 600 injection systems. As I remember only on the 600??? Then Poo brought out a completely new 600, crank, lower cases, ect, with the present CFI system??? Still using this engine presently???

New? Maybe, I guess. But the design of the 600, 700, 800 engines are the same from 2007-2018. Small differences/bandaids here and there.


Maybe my idea of something new is different than others idea.
Just like doo 800 IMO is the same design from whenever the first P-tech came out, 08?, until the G4. Yeah, they added DI, but that didnt change the design of the engine, its still the same thing, with minor changes here and there, and they just redesigned the fuel system.
Cats design has been the same since when, 03? Until the last Suzuki 800, 16? Of course, I dont think too many will argue its design, unless you're an enviromentalist......

Yeah the 2+2 stuff was 600. The CFI 4 was in 600, 700, and 800's. The 700 went away before the CFI 2.

 

[old abe]

Abe they weren't just working on it OMC was putting it in OB motors under the guise of FICHT this is way back in the 90s this evolved into the Etec we is see'n today... This technology was all thanks to those darn enviromentals and their list for emmissions...

Right you are Yamadooed!!! A very good friend of mine, his family, are in the marine business for many years. And long time OMC, and Doo dealer. As I remember, OMC was working on 3, or 4 different DI systems, or some combinations of those. FICHT being the most complex, proficient, and applicable of them. Those are the reasons Bombardier/Rotax wanted it. It was versatile enough to be used in many different applications, including the cold climate, and multi fuels. The first production generation FICTH was on its way before Bombardier came in. The out board motors said FICHT on the hood. OMC held the cards when it came to the FICHT DI system rights that came about in a strange way. But OMC had a financial problem, and Bombardier could fix that, and did. Most back then had thought Mercury marine would end up with FICHT, but that didn't happen. The FICHT as you said, was the real beginning of what came to be Etech. Many purchases, licenses, and rights to what ever transactions, were involved in that time period. I for one am happy Bombardier was interested, no matter what brought it forth. Be it environment/emissions, or what ever. Far better than a horse and sleigh!!! Advances in the high tech world has a lot of interesting history for sure.

 

[bearrassler]

Right you are Yamadooed!!! A very good friend of mine, his family, are in the marine business for many years. And long time OMC, and Doo dealer. As I remember, OMC was working on 3, or 4 different DI systems, or some combinations of those. FICHT being the most complex, proficient, and applicable of them. Those are the reasons Bombardier/Rotax wanted it. It was versatile enough to be used in many different applications, including the cold climate, and multi fuels. The first production generation FICTH was on its way before Bombardier came in. The out board motors said FICHT on the hood. OMC held the cards when it came to the FICHT DI system rights that came about in a strange way. But OMC had a financial problem, and Bombardier could fix that, and did. Most back then had thought Mercury marine would end up with FICHT, but that didn't happen. The FICHT as you said, was the real beginning of what came to be Etech. Many purchases, licenses, and rights to what ever transactions, were involved in that time period. I for one am happy Bombardier was interested, no matter what brought it forth. Be it environment/emissions, or what ever. Far better than a horse and sleigh!!! Advances in the high tech world has a lot of interesting history for sure.

I was a marine dealer and also a Polaris dealer back in the 90's and from what I remember when the EPA came with emission standards for the outboards the manufacturers pursued both 4 stroke and 2 stroke technology. There were a couple of companies working on direct injection for 2 strokes, one was FICHT out of Germany and the other was Orbital out of Australia. OMC liked the FICHT tech and worked with them. Mercury worked with Orbital, and I think Yamaha also worked with Orbital some but then went their own way with the HPDI system. OMC eventually bought out FICHT and had hopes of selling the tech to many different companies including Auto companies. When it came to market there where lots of problems with both systems but the problems with the FICHT forced OMC into bankruptcy. Their assets where sold at auction and Bombardier purchased the Evinrude, Johnson, and OMC stern drive part of the business. Before that the PWC companies were partnering with the DFI companies and Bombardier actually was working with Orbital and Mercury and Polaris and Arctic Cat came out with the FICHT fuel injected models. I do know that there were lots of problems with the Polaris FICHT models as I sold them at the time. I also took a wait and see approach to the outboards and got lucky because my customers didn't have all of the problems because I was still selling them old carb technology. When Bombardier took over they made some changes to the FICHT and then it eventually evolved into the E-TEC motors. After 9-11 Bombardier was almost broke so they sold off the recreational business (Ski Doo, Sea Doo, and Johnson Evinrude) to what became BRP. The DI 2 strokes turned into excellent outboards in both the E-Tec and OptiMax motors but the only one that has been done in the snowmobile engines is the Rotax. I think that they are great engines but so are some of the other 2 strokes available today. A simple explanation on how DFI works is the fuel is injected into the top of the cylinder under pressure after the ports are closed. With the standard two strokes when the fuel comes in the exhaust port is still partially open and on some of the older technology up to 40% of the fuel went out of the exhaust port which was not environmentally friendly and didn't help your fuel economy at all. I think it would be great if he DI tech would be offered by more manufacturers.

 

[old abe]

I was a marine dealer and also a Polaris dealer back in the 90's and from what I remember when the EPA came with emission standards for the outboards the manufacturers pursued both 4 stroke and 2 stroke technology. There were a couple of companies working on direct injection for 2 strokes, one was FICHT out of Germany and the other was Orbital out of Australia. OMC liked the FICHT tech and worked with them. Mercury worked with Orbital, and I think Yamaha also worked with Orbital some but then went their own way with the HPDI system. OMC eventually bought out FICHT and had hopes of selling the tech to many different companies including Auto companies. When it came to market there where lots of problems with both systems but the problems with the FICHT forced OMC into bankruptcy. Their assets where sold at auction and Bombardier purchased the Evinrude, Johnson, and OMC stern drive part of the business. Before that the PWC companies were partnering with the DFI companies and Bombardier actually was working with Orbital and Mercury and Polaris and Arctic Cat came out with the FICHT fuel injected models. I do know that there were lots of problems with the Polaris FICHT models as I sold them at the time. I also took a wait and see approach to the outboards and got lucky because my customers didn't have all of the problems because I was still selling them old carb technology. When Bombardier took over they made some changes to the FICHT and then it eventually evolved into the E-TEC motors. After 9-11 Bombardier was almost broke so they sold off the recreational business (Ski Doo, Sea Doo, and Johnson Evinrude) to what became BRP. The DI 2 strokes turned into excellent outboards in both the E-Tec and OptiMax motors but the only one that has been done in the snowmobile engines is the Rotax. I think that they are great engines but so are some of the other 2 strokes available today. A simple explanation on how DFI works is the fuel is injected into the top of the cylinder under pressure after the ports are closed. With the standard two strokes when the fuel comes in the exhaust port is still partially open and on some of the older technology up to 40% of the fuel went out of the exhaust port which was not environmentally friendly and didn't help your fuel economy at all. I think it would be great if he DI tech would be offered by more manufacturers.

Very good write up, and right on bearrasseler!!! I have a question perhaps you can answer. Wasn't there a legal fight between 2 of the primary developers of the FICHT system. And OMC had been working with the one who eventually retained FICHT rights/owner??? OMC indeed had hopes of a large marketing of FICHT, as a product/licensing. I believe GM was one of them??? And wasn't there several variants of the Orbital DI system. As I remember, the draw back to the Orbital system was the air pump, and its function??? Thus it's applications were limited, such as cold climate??? I also thought that Yamaha had successfully developed their own DI, and many thought it would be used in snowmobiles???

 

[srt20]

Why would the DI not work in a cold climate?
You've mentioned this several times.

 

[kip]

Sounds good DWZ, you're due!!!! LOL!

 

[old abe]

Why would the DI not work in a cold climate?
You've mentioned this several times.

Some of the early DI tech functioned in way of fuel delivery/pressure to inject that didn't work well in cold climate. The shock/wave coil system that the Etech DI uses is not effected as the other types were.

 

[tgun]

Kip-what's your take on the new Indy XC with the 129? I think it will be a nice seller and long ovedue. Do you see a lot of people moving away form the Rush over to the Indy? Thanks

 

[kip]

The people I've talked to that have driven the INDY XC said it's a beast and a blast to ride. I do believe they will abandon the Rush. It rides great and works right but I think a lot of people won't jump ship just based on the look of it. If you ride it, you forget about it but a lot of people simply won't ride it just based on the looks. That's just my opinion and what I've seen since selling the Polaris line. The 129 will be a very good seller. Hope this answers your questions tgun.

 

[yamadooed]

I was a marine dealer and also a Polaris dealer back in the 90's and from what I remember when the EPA came with emission standards for the outboards the manufacturers pursued both 4 stroke and 2 stroke technology. There were a couple of companies working on direct injection for 2 strokes, one was FICHT out of Germany and the other was Orbital out of Australia. OMC liked the FICHT tech and worked with them. Mercury worked with Orbital, and I think Yamaha also worked with Orbital some but then went their own way with the HPDI system. OMC eventually bought out FICHT and had hopes of selling the tech to many different companies including Auto companies. When it came to market there where lots of problems with both systems but the problems with the FICHT forced OMC into bankruptcy. Their assets where sold at auction and Bombardier purchased the Evinrude, Johnson, and OMC stern drive part of the business. Before that the PWC companies were partnering with the DFI companies and Bombardier actually was working with Orbital and Mercury and Polaris and Arctic Cat came out with the FICHT fuel injected models. I do know that there were lots of problems with the Polaris FICHT models as I sold them at the time. I also took a wait and see approach to the outboards and got lucky because my customers didn't have all of the problems because I was still selling them old carb technology. When Bombardier took over they made some changes to the FICHT and then it eventually evolved into the E-TEC motors. After 9-11 Bombardier was almost broke so they sold off the recreational business (Ski Doo, Sea Doo, and Johnson Evinrude) to what became BRP. The DI 2 strokes turned into excellent outboards in both the E-Tec and OptiMax motors but the only one that has been done in the snowmobile engines is the Rotax. I think that they are great engines but so are some of the other 2 strokes available today. A simple explanation on how DFI works is the fuel is injected into the top of the cylinder under pressure after the ports are closed. With the standard two strokes when the fuel comes in the exhaust port is still partially open and on some of the older technology up to 40% of the fuel went out of the exhaust port which was not environmentally friendly and didn't help your fuel economy at all. I think it would be great if he DI tech would be offered by more manufacturers.

I think the sad part is Yamaha HPDI is the better system of the 3 and will never make it to the sled world from lack of putting a light weight 2 stroke back in a sled which would clearly make emissions maybe even better than the 4 strokers.

 

[bearrassler]

Very good write up, and right on bearrasseler!!! I have a question perhaps you can answer. Wasn't there a legal fight between 2 of the primary developers of the FICHT system. And OMC had been working with the one who eventually retained FICHT rights/owner??? OMC indeed had hopes of a large marketing of FICHT, as a product/licensing. I believe GM was one of them??? And wasn't there several variants of the Orbital DI system. As I remember, the draw back to the Orbital system was the air pump, and its function??? Thus it's applications were limited, such as cold climate??? I also thought that Yamaha had successfully developed their own DI, and many thought it would be used in snowmobiles???

I don't remember the legal fight old abe but on new technology it seems like there is always legal fights, it may have been between FICHT and Orbital, GM was interested along with quite a few other auto companies. The main difference between the two systems was the pressure at which the fuel was injected into the cylinder, and the FICHT was a less complex system with less parts. I don't remember anything about the cold weather operation as about the coldest anyone ran outboards in our area was about 20 degrees, Yamaha did come out with the HPDI system which was also similar but wasn't quite as efficient at all RPM ranges.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the sad part is Yamaha HPDI is the better system of the 3 and will never make it to the sled world from lack of putting a light weight 2 stroke back in a sled which would clearly make emissions maybe even better than the 4 strokers.

It is just personal preference but I sold all three brands and liked the OptiMax first, the E-Tec second, and the HPDI system third.

 

[1fujifilm]

Kip-what's your take on the new Indy XC with the 129? I think it will be a nice seller and long ovedue. Do you see a lot of people moving away form the Rush over to the Indy? Thanks

The 129 brings good discussion points.
-I liked the idea of the Rush beavertail as it used a coil over shock rather than torsion springs in the rear of the skid, at some point torsion springs need to be replaced by better technology in all manufacturers.
-Are the track options 15 inch wide?
-When I bought my 850 Rene recently, I poured over reviews etc. of the 129 and 137 and bought the Rene over the MXZ as it came down to a piddly $100. $100 plays no role in a decision of a $9,000 toy to me. Face it, if you ride north of Highway 2 you need track baby!

Bear

 

[sweeperguy]

The 129 brings good discussion points.
-I liked the idea of the Rush beavertail as it used a coil over shock rather than torsion springs in the rear of the skid, at some point torsion springs need to be replaced by better technology in all manufacturers.
-Are the track options 15 inch wide?
-When I bought my 850 Rene recently, I poured over reviews etc. of the 129 and 137 and bought the Rene over the MXZ as it came down to a piddly $100. $100 plays no role in a decision of a $9,000 toy to me. Face it, if you ride north of Highway 2 you need track baby!

Bear

The coil spring was A MAJOR reason I finally went to the PRO-XC suspension. Took me several years to accept the looks of it. Only on the switchback am I OK with the look. On the Rush it is still just to short for me to like it. Looks like a dinosaur bit off the back half of the sled.
The only thing I like about torsion springs is the ease of adjustability. Nice if riders of large weight differences riding same sled.

 

[old abe]

Adding the High Gear spools into the coils on the torsion springs makes for a real good setup!!! Adds a little capacity to the springs, and a much better ride.

 

[tgun]

Sure does Kip, thanks. Your opinion is spot on as I have hear it as well in conversations with other riders at the watering holes. They can't get pass the look of the rear. I have 16 PRO S 8 and love it but wished it was a 129. I also think the new 129 will appeal the riders who just want to hop on and ride and not tweak the suspension as they do on the Pro S. Thanks again.

 

[xcr440]

I'm in the camp of liking the Pro-S Switchback with the 137 - I do most of my riding in MN, and see a lot of them. Guess anyone I've talked to who has one, really likes it. The tweaking only takes a few rides to figure out, and once you get it set for your weight and riding style, it is really nice.

 

[POLARISDAN]

I'm in the camp of liking the Pro-S Switchback with the 137 - I do most of my riding in MN, and see a lot of them. Guess anyone I've talked to who has one, really likes it. The tweaking only takes a few rides to figure out, and once you get it set for your weight and riding style, it is really nice.

for trail its the cats azz..i got 2 of them and its the real deal..sux in the pow tho

 

[dwz]

Thanks Kip for all your help with the 850 XC, can't wait till next Dec. to give her!! Big Z

 

[xcr440]

for trail its the cats azz..i got 2 of them and its the real deal..sux in the pow tho

Agreed - although it does ok, just not nearly as good as true pow sled. And when its stuck, its REALLY stuck! Almost all of my riding is trail, thus my liking.

 

[mmalott]

Congrats on the new sled DWZ!!!!