PRC Polaris Ranger Club banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Can't find any detailed listing of the major changes that have occurred with the advancing model years. Closest thing I ran across as far as comprehensive info is this eHOW page: About Polaris Rangers | eHow But it paints with quite a broad brush. Looking for more specifics, like, going from the 2002 to the 2003 for instance, the significant changes were: "blah, blah, blah"

For instance, comparing pictures from the rear of older and newer 6x6s, it looks like the rear shocks were, at some time, relocated outward from the frame rails to the rear axle. If true, the wider spacing on the newer units should provide more stability when the box is loaded. How would I find the year when such a change occurred.

Thanks,
crossing_patoka
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,346 Posts
Man, that's a tough one. I don't think that you're gonna find that info' through Polaris. Hopefully one of our members can offer some insight. I'm not an authority on the 6x6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Man, that's a tough one. I don't think that you're gonna find that info' through Polaris. Hopefully one of our members can offer some insight. I'm not an authority on the 6x6.
Stumbled onto the Planet-Powersports site thru 2009, then to the utvguide.
They provide some specs for each model year, for instance:
2004 499 cc carb; grnd clearance 7.2"; wheelbase 90"; wt 1410 lbs: Polaris 2004 Ranger 6x6
2005 499 cc carb; grnd clearance 7.2"; wheelbase 90"; wt 1410 lbs: Polaris 2005 Ranger 6 x 6
2006 683 cc EFI ; grnd clearance 7.2"; wheelbase 90"; wt 1410 lbs: Polaris 2006 Ranger 6x6 EFI
(went from a 499 cc to a 683 cc EFI without a change in wt. seems unlikely)
2007 683 cc EFI ; grnd clearance 7.2"; wheelbase 90"; wt 1410 lbs: Polaris 2007 Ranger 6x6 EFI
2008 683 cc EFI ; grnd clearance 7.2"; wheelbase 90"; wt 1410 lbs: Polaris 2008 Ranger 6x6
??2008 683 cc EFI ; grnd clearance 7.2"; wheelbase 76"; wt 1185 lbs: 2008 Polaris Ranger XP 700 4x4 EFI Specifications and Price - Motorcycle USA
2009 683 cc EFI ; grnd clearance 7.2"; wheelbase 90"; wt 1410 lbs: Polaris 2009 Ranger™ 6x6
??2009 683 cc EFI ; grnd clearance ???"; wheelbase 76"; wt 1237 lbs: 2009 Polaris Ranger XP Review | UTV Guide
2010 760 cc EFI ; grnd clearance 12"; wheelbase 105"; wt 1551 lbs: 2010 Polaris Ranger 800 6x6 | UTV Guide

so, this gets pretty tedious after awhile and unfortunately i don't have a photographic memory to keep all this straight in my head.
then, i am skeptical about the 76" wheelbase and wt of 1185 lbs in 2008 from motorcycle-usa. could that be just 'wrong' data?
was hoping polaris had a chart showing these distinctions across the years, but it looks like a lot of jumping around across different sites is required.

looks like the ground clearance went from 7.2" to 12" in 2010, at the same time the engine went from 683 to 760.

if an enthusiast has compiled these comparisons or if they exist in some sort of industry publication, that would be great. :glee:

if not, then plugging away the old fashion way seems to be the order of the day.

all the best,
crossing_patoka
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,346 Posts
The variance in wheelbase is baffling. I can only assume that the 76" measurement is referring to teh mid axle and the 105" measurement is referring to the rear axle.

Exactly which piece of info' are you looking for a definitive answer on.....the shock location change?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The shock location is of interest as I am setting up to collect maple sap which is of course heavy and can slosh a bit. Wider shock mount locations indicate a beefier and more stable setup.
I am looking in the used marketplace for a 6x6 and when a particular year comes up, with a condition and price, then I am trying to come up with an informed basis for a comparison to another year/condition/price.
I am not the only one out here making these comparisons, and just thought someone may have charted these utv 6x6s in a way that is more helpful than finding the appropriate and best web site spec page for that year.

so far, regarding engine changes, it looks like:
499 cc carb to 683 cc EFI happened in 2006, and
683 cc EFI to 760 EFI happened in 2010, along with a ground clearance change to 12".

would i be correct if gleaning the major changes occurred in 2005 to 2006 and again 2009 to 2010?

thanks,
crossing_patoka
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,873 Posts
major changes occurred on the standard Ranger in 09 with the 6x the next year where the body was changed. As for the shocks, and will have to look on our fire depts. 09 but it may have the duel mounting points where you can move the top of the shock out about 2in. 6x's are a whole different animal in that they want to keep driving straight in corners just wondering when or if they went to turf mode, something worth looking at as it would save tires, I also have an 09 Ranger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,346 Posts
......would i be correct if gleaning the major changes occurred in 2005 to 2006 and again 2009 to 2010?
That's correct. If it were the 4x4, I could chart you a pretty accurate timeline on changes.....but the 6x6 are a slightly different animal and some of the changes didn't occur at the same time as they did on the 4x4.

For example (this is 4x4 info').......
In 2004 and older machines, only the 500 carb' engine was offered and all models were solid rear axle. Some of the older models (I think the "TM") had a different 335 cc Robbins engine.
In 2005, the XP (700 engine....referred to above as the 683cc) was introduced. All 700's are EFI. Both models (500 and 700) were updated to IRS (independent rear suspension)......a significant improvement. I "could" be wrong, but I think that the 6x6 didn't receive IRS until 2006.
In 2006, the 500 had the option of EFI.....carb' was still the standard.
In 2007, EFI was standard on the 500 (carb's were gone), and the electrical system received an upgrade. There was a mid year rear diff' change/upgrade. The Crew (6 seater) was introduced.
In 2008, not much changed but the tranny did get an internal change from straight to helical cut gears, which quietened things a little.
In 2009, the body was completely revamped and the 4x4 got IFS (independent front suspension). The Crew and 6x6 still retained the old bodystyle and strut front suspension.
In 2010, the 800 EFI engine was added and the 700 was dropped. This change also incorporated the tranny and rear diff into one unit. The Crew received the same updates.
I get a little fuzzy from 2011 and on, as they started introducing several new configurations. Somewhere around that time, they introduced the "mid-size"......narrower and basically 2 seats wide instead of 3 wide. Then came the 400 engine, 800 midsize, 570....both mid and full size. I just lost track from there.......:confused:

If I were looking for a good used 6x6, I'd want the last year that they offered the 700 engine......so probably a 2009 model. The 700's had less issues than the 800, and it would have IRS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thanks Jerry,

Was not aware the 500 cc engine was ever offered with EFI. Those types of changes are what helps when considering a specific older machine. I am a detail guy. Best to know about the distinctions for a given model year before buying one.

All the Best,
crossing_patoka
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
i have a series 11 500 6x6 if your looking for stability with weight ive ridden in newer ones loaded down while they have more power due to efi and bigger engines i think mine is more stable due to my rear axle versus IRS. My ony regret i want more power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,346 Posts
......My ony regret i want more power.
They may not be super powerful, but the 500 engines were bullet proof. Overall, they were actually more reliable than the 700 and 800.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
If you want to haul weight the older solid axle 6x are a far superior weight hauler....they dont ride nearly as nicely as the newer ones with a-arms in the rear axle but handle weight much better...




They dont do nearly as well in the mud though :)



 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top