Polaris RZR Forum - RZR Forums.net banner
661 - 680 of 720 Posts

·
Registered
2020 Polaris RZR Pro XP Premium
Joined
·
1,482 Posts
Looking at getting a 4 seater sometime between now and summer hopefully.

Want to stay around the $35k Range. Would you guys go with a Pro R sport or a Turbo R Ultimate(Just want the better suspension on that package).

Leaning Turbo R. Be a family cruiser mostly, mountain trails, and open desert stuff here in UT. Have access to a sand rail, so I don't think it'll see much sand/dunes. Any input?

Thanks.
Why not look at the Pro XP ultimate? You sound like you ride like we do. The Pro XP is MORE machine than you need. Why pay thousands more for a Turbo R for the upgraded suspension, when the Pro XP suspension will be fantastic for how you ride? You can come in under budget and have plenty of cash left for all those accessories you didn’t know you couldn’t live without.

Before the Pro R and Turbo R came along, the interwebs wasn’t exactly blowing up with complaints about the Pro XP suspension…other than the tender springs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
From Polaris the largest optional tire is 33” I wonder if those are actually 33” and not 35”. Yes I am aware it is possible that the dealer put on 35” tires.
Somebody had 35"s on one and said it looked like there was room for 37"s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
Looking at getting a 4 seater sometime between now and summer hopefully.

Want to stay around the $35k Range. Would you guys go with a Pro R sport or a Turbo R Ultimate(Just want the better suspension on that package).

Leaning Turbo R. Be a family cruiser mostly, mountain trails, and open desert stuff here in UT. Have access to a sand rail, so I don't think it'll see much sand/dunes. Any input?

Thanks.
If you want a SxS by summer you need to order ASAP. If you can find someone with a Turbo R allocation Polaris is says 2nd quarter delivery on them. I went with the Turbo R over the Pro R for several reasons. I didn't need the extra HP and didn't want to pay the extra 5k nor did I need the extra length. The only thing on the Pro R that I might of liked is the new front diff but until we see how they hold up I stuck with the Hillard diff.
I ride the mountains in CO, wooded trails in TX and OK and will go to Moab. I also love rock crawling.
I like the heavy suspension on the Turbo R over the Pro XP as well as the wider stance which makes it more stable.
I went with the Ultimate package for the adjustability of the shocks and EPS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
Yeah the Pro R loses so much power at elevation it practically won’t even start.

How is it we know that again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Why are most of your posts of the argumentative nature? If you have some relevant info put it out there. No use being an a$$ all of the time. Maybe you would fit better over on Facebook.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
If you want a SxS by summer you need to order ASAP. If you can find someone with a Turbo R allocation Polaris is says 2nd quarter delivery on them. I went with the Turbo R over the Pro R for several reasons. I didn't need the extra HP and didn't want to pay the extra 5k nor did I need the extra length. The only thing on the Pro R that I might of liked is the new front diff but until we see how they hold up I stuck with the Hillard diff.
I ride the mountains in CO, wooded trails in TX and OK and will go to Moab. I also love rock crawling.
I like the heavy suspension on the Turbo R over the Pro XP as well as the wider stance which makes it more stable.
I went with the Ultimate package for the adjustability of the shocks and EPS
Thanks for the replies guys.

Yeah, I've had a X3 Smart shock 4 seater on order since the '22s got announced. But leaning Turbo R or Pro R now, and honestly the Turbo R ultimate I think is what I'm going to call around and get one on order this week and cancel my X3 Pre-order. No big deal if I don't have it by summer, but I'll try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Thanks for the replies guys.

Yeah, I've had a X3 Smart shock 4 seater on order since the '22s got announced. But leaning Turbo R or Pro R now, and honestly the Turbo R ultimate I think is what I'm going to call around and get one on order this week and cancel my X3 Pre-order. No big deal if I don't have it by summer, but I'll try.
I'm in Sales over at Jack Rabbit Offroad, and let me tell you it's been hard to get these Rzr's to come in at a decent time. Both of your options are great, but you do lose a few features with the Pro R. There are a few other comparable models that I know we have in stock between our two locations. The XP 4 Turbo and Pro XP Ultimate have some pros and cons that are comparable to the Turbo R. The Pro XP Ultimate meets the 181 HP that you are looking for in the Turbo R Ultimate, both the Pro XP Ultimate and the XP 4 Turbo are going to have that smaller ground clearance with about 14", compared to the Turbo R Ultimate's 16" clearance. Both models are 64" wide, making them slimmer compared to the Turbo R Ultimate. The Turbo R Ultimate has not made a landing yet at our dealership, but we do have the other two if one of those might spark your interest! Reach out to me if I can help you with finding the perfect Rzr for you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Looking at getting a 4 seater sometime between now and summer hopefully.

Want to stay around the $35k Range. Would you guys go with a Pro R sport or a Turbo R Ultimate(Just want the better suspension on that package).

Leaning Turbo R. Be a family cruiser mostly, mountain trails, and open desert stuff here in UT. Have access to a sand rail, so I don't think it'll see much sand/dunes. Any input?

Thanks.
With Turbo R Ultimate you will get - Fox 3.0 Live valve shocks (versus Walker Evans), ride command and stereo (versus none), click 6 harness (versus 4), more carco capcity 1160 lbs. to 900 lbs., more fuel capcity 13 gal vs 12.3 and flexible rear seats (flip down base, removable backs) - you give up 1700w alternator vs 900w, 225 hp vs 181 hp, 133" wheelbase vs 125".

For the $1,000 premium for the Turbo R Ultimate you could add back ride command. Because the Turbo R is narrower and shorter, it will fit into a wider range of trailers.

Given your planned use - either will be great - so you just have to decide how much you value the "added" features of the Ultimate vs the Sport?

That being said - If you can swing $37K (Turbo R Ultimate) - can you swing $42K (from Pro R Ultimtae)? The live valve shocks are well worth the $5,000 delta alone - add ride command, click 6, 1700w alternator and you can see the value is there, but outside your budget.

GLWD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,614 Posts
Why are most of your posts of the argumentative nature? If you have some relevant info put it out there. No use being an a$$ all of the time. Maybe you would fit better over on Facebook.
Would you like me to post “I agree” every time someone says something I agree with?

That would make for a good forum full of information huh?

I post when I have something to say. And frequently that’s when I see someone saying something that I think is incorrect information.

I’m sorry if you find that argumentative. I guess I come from a generation or group of people with a little thicker skin.

I’ll try to be more mindful of your feelings in the future. But perhaps you miss the point of the forums in the first place….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
With Turbo R Ultimate you will get - Fox 3.0 Live valve shocks (versus Walker Evans), ride command and stereo (versus none), click 6 harness (versus 4), more carco capcity 1160 lbs. to 900 lbs., more fuel capcity 13 gal vs 12.3 and flexible rear seats (flip down base, removable backs) - you give up 1700w alternator vs 900w, 225 hp vs 181 hp, 133" wheelbase vs 125".

For the $1,000 premium for the Turbo R Ultimate you could add back ride command. Because the Turbo R is narrower and shorter, it will fit into a wider range of trailers.

Given your planned use - either will be great - so you just have to decide how much you value the "added" features of the Ultimate vs the Sport?

That being said - If you can swing $37K (Turbo R Ultimate) - can you swing $42K (from Pro R Ultimtae)? The live valve shocks are well worth the $5,000 delta alone - add ride command, click 6, 1700w alternator and you can see the value is there, but outside your budget.

GLWD
. Not exactly sure what machines you were comparing but the turbo R ultimate also has the fox live shocks. I think you were saying if you upgrade to the pro R you get those shocks for your extra five grand that's true if you upgrade from a turbo R sport
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
With Turbo R Ultimate you will get - Fox 3.0 Live valve shocks (versus Walker Evans), ride command and stereo (versus none), click 6 harness (versus 4), more carco capcity 1160 lbs. to 900 lbs., more fuel capcity 13 gal vs 12.3 and flexible rear seats (flip down base, removable backs) - you give up 1700w alternator vs 900w, 225 hp vs 181 hp, 133" wheelbase vs 125".

For the $1,000 premium for the Turbo R Ultimate you could add back ride command. Because the Turbo R is narrower and shorter, it will fit into a wider range of trailers.

Given your planned use - either will be great - so you just have to decide how much you value the "added" features of the Ultimate vs the Sport?

That being said - If you can swing $37K (Turbo R Ultimate) - can you swing $42K (from Pro R Ultimtae)? The live valve shocks are well worth the $5,000 delta alone - add ride command, click 6, 1700w alternator and you can see the value is there, but outside your budget.

GLWD
Thanks for the reply.

Could swing the Pro R Ultimate. But $40k is a mental barrier for me... until someone brings a turbo 4 cylinder with a DCT to market it's going to be hard for me to cross over it.

Think I'll be calling around for a Turbo R this week and cancel my X3 order.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
. Not exactly sure what machines you were comparing but the turbo R ultimate also has the fox live shocks. I think you were saying if you upgrade to the pro R you get those shocks for your extra five grand that's true if you upgrade from a turbo R sport
My first comparison is Turbo R Ulitmate to Pro R Sport - last part was saying if he upgraded to Pro R Ultimate - paid the $42K - he got all the "Ultimate" features, including the shocks, for the $5k more - so you are getting value for the $5k delta - but that is beyond his stated target budget.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
Would you like me to post “I agree” every time someone says something I agree with?

That would make for a good forum full of information huh?

I post when I have something to say. And frequently that’s when I see someone saying something that I think is incorrect information.

I’m sorry if you find that argumentative. I guess I come from a generation or group of people with a little thicker skin.

I’ll try to be more mindful of your feelings in the future. But perhaps you miss the point of the forums in the first place….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I don’t personally mind your tone.

However, it is a well-known and widely established fact that engines make less power at higher elevations. It has been equally well-established that forced induction helps to offset power losses with elevation gain.

The stated figure of 3% power loss per 1000’ is correct for naturally aspirated engines. A turbocharged engine will lose ~0.05% per 1000’.

At 7000’, the 225hp pro R is down to 178hp, while the turbo R is still making close to its rated 181hp (180.3).

Unless I’ve totally misread your comment, what exactly is it you disagree within here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,614 Posts
I don’t personally mind your tone.

However, it is a well-known and widely established fact that engines make less power at higher elevations. It has been equally well-established that forced induction helps to offset power losses with elevation gain.

The stated figure of 3% power loss per 1000’ is correct for naturally aspirated engines. A turbocharged engine will lose ~0.05% per 1000’.

At 7000’, the 225hp pro R is down to 178hp, while the turbo R is still making close to its rated 181hp (180.3).

Unless I’ve totally misread your comment, what exactly is it you disagree within here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, I’ve explained this before but I will do so again since you asked so nicely.

While I understand, and generally agree with the statement that a NA engine loses roughly 3% of it power per 1000’ of elevation. I don’t necessarily agree that the Pro R, or all NA engines follow this rule of thumb.

For example:

If I was tune an engine to its peak power (let’s say 225 HP) at 10,000’ of elevation, I could easily program the ECM to adjust parameters based on barometric pressure so the engine made the same exact horsepower at sea level.

The parameters you would change would be timing, and throttle opening. Heck you do it with throttle opening alone really. So everything would be theoretically maxed out at 10K feet, but maybe only running at 70% of its potential at sea level.

These are just some rough theoretical numbers but I hope you see what I’m trying to say.

No one knows yet how Polaris tuned this engine. Or if it will actually lose 3% per 1000’ feet because we don’t know if it’s maxed out at sea level or not. Polaris has a history of doing this even. The 900 “S” engine is a great example of this. They close the throttle down severely to limit that engines power. It only makes 75 HP from the factory. But can easily make much more with nothing more then a tuning change.

Everyone is making some pretty broad assumptions and I don’t like assumptions. That’s why I argue with them.

Also, this is going down a totally different path, (but relevant to the topic of power loss at elevation) but I’ve seen it mentioned that the stock turbo on the 925 turbo engines is being pushed to its limit. Meaning it may not be as capable of maintaining its 181 horsepower as elevation increases as some try to claim.

Bottom line, the people claiming they chose the turbo machine because it will make 181 horsepower at high elevation, and that the Pro R won’t make near the 225 horsepower number at high elevation don’t know what they are talking about. They are simply making a whole bunch of ASSumptions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
Well, I’ve explained this before but I will do so again since you asked so nicely.

While I understand, and generally agree with the statement that a NA engine loses roughly 3% of it power per 1000’ of elevation. I don’t necessarily agree that the Pro R, or all NA engines follow this rule of thumb.

For example:

If I was tune an engine to its peak power (let’s say 225 HP) at 10,000’ of elevation, I could easily program the ECM to adjust parameters based on barometric pressure so the engine made the same exact horsepower at sea level.

The parameters you would change would be timing, and throttle opening. Heck you do it with throttle opening alone really. So everything would be theoretically maxed out at 10K feet, but maybe only running at 70% of its potential at sea level.

These are just some rough theoretical numbers but I hope you see what I’m trying to say.

No one knows yet how Polaris tuned this engine. Or if it will actually lose 3% per 1000’ feet because we don’t know if it’s maxed out at sea level or not. Polaris has a history of doing this even. The 900 “S” engine is a great example of this. They close the throttle down severely to limit that engines power. It only makes 75 HP from the factory. But can easily make much more with nothing more then a tuning change.

Everyone is making some pretty broad assumptions and I don’t like assumptions. That’s why I argue with them.

Also, this is going down a totally different path, (but relevant to the topic of power loss at elevation) but I’ve seen it mentioned that the stock turbo on the 925 turbo engines is being pushed to its limit. Meaning it may not be as capable of maintaining its 181 horsepower as elevation increases as some try to claim.

Bottom line, the people claiming they chose the turbo machine because it will make 181 horsepower at high elevation, and that the Pro R won’t make near the 225 horsepower number at high elevation don’t know what they are talking about. They are simply making a whole bunch of ASSumptions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Okay, I see where you’re coming from. However, thinking a bit more about it, it seems unlikely the 2.0 in the pro-R is electronically limiting throttle. The 1000 makes about exactly 1/2 the HP as the 2000, and it’s certainly not throttle limited. The 900 is a special case. They are limiting it because realistically being only 10% smaller than a 1000, it should make only about 10% less power, making it close enough to a 1000 and cannibalizing sales of the more $$ unit.

Knowing how my 1000 was affected by altitude at 10000’, I’m making an educated guess that the 2000 will perform in a similar fashion.

The only variable I think we agree on is the ability of the turbo on the pro R to perform well at altitude. I haven’t dug into the specs of that turbo, but I do remember reading the XP turbo was able to perform well up past 5000’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Just my opinion but I think they both will have plenty of power at 10,000‘. I have run Colorado trails up to 12,500 ish feet. You don’t want to be balls to the wall on the throttle up there. I drove them with a turbo motor and that turbo lag is huge. You go from a weak motor ( turbo motor no boost ) so your in the throttle until it finally makes boost at that reduced pressure altitude. Then it comes alive and you better dial it back real quick so you don’t over shoot or spin out. But not too quick if you just completely let off especially with a dump valve you start over with having to build usable boost. I haven’t driven a NA motor at 10,000 feet but I would think the 165.9 hp the Pro R would be making would be much more linear and controllable.

Please notice I said just my opinion and that I have only driven the turbo motor at that altitude so this is 50% speculative. My point being that I have not read here where anyone is taking turbo lag into account. Much less the fact that unless your name is Evil Knievel you don’t need or want a whole lot of power. What you want is very controllable or predictable power. That turbo lag is also exponentially much more significant with every 1000‘. At 14,156 feet top of pikes peak you can literally floor it and count the seconds it takes to build enough power to start moving. I’ve done it In a Jeep JL 2.0 turbo. Highest I’ve driven a none turbo motor is 7,500’ ish while it is down on power it is no where near as noticeable with respect to response or controllability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts
I’ll give you that, when I was up in Silverton for a week, we rode all those high passes. Engineer, California, etc. plenty of time over 12,000ft and a little at 13k. ‘14xp1000

Wayyyy down on power, but I wasn’t trying to be speed racer up there either. Wouldn’t be prudent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
661 - 680 of 720 Posts
Top