I’ve been asking myself the exact same question.

 

Length,gearing come to mind.. for my riding a turbo r fits me better.. a simple tune will put the turbo r at the same HP.. I want lower gear and shorter wheelbase

 

I looked at both before I bought a Turbo R.

The Pro R to me seemed like it was geared a tad high for what I wanted right out of the box. I don't see myself doing a gear reduction or portals in the next year either. Ultimately it came down to the wheelbase and low-end torque. The NA engine just doesn't provide that (even though it's damn good). Suspension is practically identical. The Pro R gets a front "locker" but I've never had an issue with traction and the Hillard-style differential. For the most part, it's kinda the same driving machine in a lot of ways.

I think if you are in Texas (like I am) rock crawling the Turbo R makes sense. It's about the perfect wheelbase. Dunes, wide-open - either would be sweet but the Pro R is really going to shine (and if I rode dunes that's what I would have bought hands-down). The Turbo R might get neck and neck with the Pro R at elevation though, so something to keep in mind.

Out east on those trails the Pro R would be a tight beast to maneuver - if the trail even allowed it.

Of course like anything generally, one can thrown enough money at the Turbo R you can make it just like a Pro R, and vice-versa.

 

When I purchased my Turbo R, the Pro was at minimum $5k more, and more difficult to find- as in, no 4 seaters in stock locally at the time (one year ago).

Turbo R is shorter and lighter, and has plenty of power for my use, I would not want a car any bigger than my R. I do mostly desert riding, and already do lots of 3 point turns in areas that the shorter cars can whip around no problem.

My Turbo R is thirsty as it is, I would be forced to carry fuel for some of my rides with the Pro. I’m only getting 60ish miles of range in the dunes and a little over 100 in the desert running hard with a stock untuned drivetrain before the low fuel warning comes on.

The Pro is a good car, but it was never on my radar. If I were going to replace my car today, it would be with another Turbo R.

If I was shopping a 2 seater, or did mostly rocks or dunes, I might consider a Pro.

 

When I bought my turbo r, they wanted about $7k more for the pro r. I was really on the fence. If they were similarly priced, I may have went the other way. Last car was a xp1000 NA, so either one is a huge upgrade. So far I’m very happy with it. First trip to Glamis is about 7 weeks away. If I feel I need more I’ll put a tune on it

 

Id just tune it now, the difference is night and day, hands down bang for buck cant be beat, your Turbo R will feel like a kawasaki mule in the sand, i wished i had done all my mods sooner when i hit the dunes with my stock pro.

 

I bought my turbo R because it had fewer sparkplugs.

 

I had a Pro R Ultimate on order but there was no ETA for it and I got a line on a Turbo R Ultimate that was coming available. I picked it up in June of '22. For Colorado where all of our riding is in the 7-13K ft altitude range, the power to weight ratio difference on the Turbo R vs. NA Pro R wasn't much of a difference. I liked the lower price point and that the Turbo R would fit the Echo trailer I already had. I also liked that everything inside the suspension on the Turbo R was already vetted on the Pro XP. Some Pro XP kinks like the clutch, intake tube etc were worked out by Polaris already and a lot of aftermarket support was already out there for a large chunk of the Turbo R that is interchangeable with the Pro XP. I've gotten behind some Pro Rs on tight twisty trails and they cannot lose me.

 

It comes down to how your going to ride and also transport it(trailer or toy hauler). I have a pro r 4 and a turbo s 4 seater. The r 4 is longer, but I had a max 4 before it, so for me there was no difference in that aspect. The pro r motor is better, low end, mid range, every where over the turbo motor. Referring to stock. It goes up from there. A real alternator is a good bonus as well. Down side is its thirsty. I use all 4 seats every time pretty much so the extra length is nice when interior room is considered. There is a note-able difference in stability between the two wheel bases at speed, is what it is. Downside is turning radius. There both great machines but for me the turbo r wasn’t a real jump up from my turbo s, but the pro r was for sure as well as above the fully built max I had. We ride generally from 3k ft to over 12k ft of elevation. Rocks in Moab, desert in NM, and trails in southern CO. The one thing I would not have on either machine is the ultimate package and the dynamix. As for transporting. If a toyhauler is needed there aren’t many that will accommodate the length of a pro r or a max 4 seater for that matter. Referring to 72”+ machines.

 

Yeah im feeling like the width would really be the only noticeable difference between the turbo r and the pro xp4 i already have, my biggest factors in even considering another polaris are the power potential the pro r has and the idea that it basically has a car engine so my hopes are that you can actually get some decent engine life out of it.

 

It’s easy to spend some one else’s money. I will say I have no regrets on my machine. For me and what we do I can’t imagine the 64” track width. I don’t have any concerns with the pro r motor. I will say if you can drive someones pro r and turbo r. I know my pro r is on a whole other level then anything I’ve had before.

Yeah im feeling like the width would really be the only noticeable difference between the turbo r and the pro xp4 i already have, my biggest factors in even considering another polaris are the power potential the pro r has and the idea that it basically has a car engine so my hopes are that you can actually get some decent engine life out of it.