Xcr800, Indy Storm [Archive] - Snowmobile World : Your #1 Snowmobile Forum

: Xcr800, Indy Storm


Pipe
01-14-2003, 09:34 PM
I'm looking for a second sled. Going to give this Indy 500 to my wife. I'm looking to spend around $3500 and have found many Indy Storms ranging from 1993 to 1997 in that price range. I did also find a 1998 XCR800 with 1500 miles for $4000 or b.o. Just a little too pricey for my budget. ;) Anyhow whats the deal with the Storm? I know nothing about them. Can someone give me some HP details, speed, handling? How do they compare to sleds like the XCR800? Could they beat a XCR700? How much of a difference between these sleds and the 97 Ultra SPX? Any info at all would be appreciated. :)

Beaucoup Traction
01-15-2003, 09:25 AM
www.polarisman.com is a great site for info on the older polaris'. i believe th xcr800 and storm are both 800 triple/triples. some of the older storms might be 780's or something. i'd be real carefull looking at older storms...people that buy those tend to ride them pretty hard.

Pipe
01-15-2003, 01:09 PM
Just don't want my buddy and his ZRT 800 to get away from me on the lake The fastest sled I've owned is an RXL 650. I've looked at spec. sheets for both of these sleds, and found there to be no real considerable wieght differences. Even noticed that the 97'Ultra SPX is only 5 lbs lighter than the 97 Storm. Most if not all of the Storms I've found for sale have pipes and clutch kits with 4000 or less miles in excellent condition for $2500. Did'nt see any specs for a 97' XCR800...was there one?

04ProX800
01-15-2003, 01:23 PM
I can't comment on the XCR 800 but I owned a 97 Storm ( and a 92 RXL 650 ). The Storm was a great running sled. I had problems when it started getting higher in the miles. I would consider them normal wear and tear items except for one thing, it ended up needing crank seals.
It would run with most sleds on the lakes. I believe the newer XCR's are faster than the Storm hands down. Mine was 100% stock. I sold it to my cousin and it is still running great.

Sled Dogg
01-15-2003, 01:44 PM
I sent you a pm or email to call me. Guess your not concered to much. but I own a Ultra SPX and it's the same as a storm basically. Storm has a bit mor eHP maybe. But they are both Aggressive chasis sleds. The Ultra SPX was renamed the xcr700 in 98. Storms eat cranks, especially if they were piped for more rpms. the xcr was a much better sled overall. But the best bang is a Ultra SPX or 98 XCR 700. It's the same aggressive chassis and the 680 is bad. It is around 128-135 HP depending on the dyno sheet, factory trip pipes, hotter timing, diff carb settings, heads, alot compared to a regular Ultra in the old chassis. Mine is currently stock and it runs hard. I also get great fuel mileag for the age anf power she makes. You should really try to find one, you won't be sorry. Oh and the best part is that they are WAY more reliable than a storm or XCR for some reason. They do eat oil but oil is cheap compared to a mtor failure.
Caleb

storm800
01-15-2003, 01:46 PM
I have a 1997 Storm, and it's a very nice sled. Dyno hp is around 135, someone is saying 140. But Tikka Racing in Sweden have a Dyno that says 135 hp at storm 800. XCR 800 have dyno between 148-152 hp. XCR 800 is a faster sled, no doubt about that. If you add V-force reeds to the Storm it works very nice, and will be much faster in 660 ft. Storm 800 use a Fuji engine, and XCR 800 have a Polaris/Fuji engine. A stock storm wouldn't have a chance against a stock XCR 800. My neighbour have a XCR 800, 00 mod, so I know what I'm talking about. First year with XCR 800 is 99, late 98. 99 mod XCR looks just like a 98 mod storm. and the 2000 mod looks like todays XCR.
But.....my wife have a Ultra Spx 97 mod, and stock Ultra SPX runs very fast. In 660 ft a stock Ultra Spx, will beet a stock Storm. The storm is a bit faster at top speed. I run the storm to 120 mph in speedo, and my wifes Ultra SPX I runs to 115 mph.

Pipe
01-15-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Sled Dogg@Jan 15 2003, 12:44 PM
I sent you a pm or email to call me.
I did'nt want to bother you at work, figured I'd wait till later tonight and call, but you and Storm800 just helped me enormously in deciding which sleds to look for. I've also seen several 97' Ultra SPX's for around $2500. Thanks for the great info guys :)

dpaige
01-15-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Pipe@Jan 14 2003, 07:34 PM
I'm looking for a second sled. Going to give this Indy 500 to my wife. I'm looking to spend around $3500 and have found many Indy Storms ranging from 1993 to 1997 in that price range. I did also find a 1998 XCR800 with 1500 miles for $4000 or b.o. Just a little too pricey for my budget. ;) Anyhow whats the deal with the Storm? I know nothing about them. Can someone give me some HP details, speed, handling? How do they compare to sleds like the XCR800? Could they beat a XCR700? How much of a difference between these sleds and the 97 Ultra SPX? Any info at all would be appreciated. :)
The 93,94 and 96 Storms all had crank problems.

The 95 and the 97 Storms hold together a bit better, the 97 would be the better option, it has the Xtra-10 suspension instead of the
xc-100 that come on the 95, it's a much nicer ride.

I had a 95 that I added the Xtra-10 to and it was like riding a different sled.

They make pretty good hp, just don't go looking for races against any MachZ's

storm800
01-15-2003, 03:49 PM
I'm not agree with you in racing against machz, with v-force delta 2 and right clutching and jetting at mine 97 mod Storm the machz 01 mod, isn't any faster not at 660 ft, and not at top speed. I've tried, so I know.

dpaige
01-15-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by storm800@Jan 15 2003, 01:49 PM
I'm not agree with you in racing against machz, with v-force delta 2 and right clutching and jetting at mine 97 mod Storm the machz 01 mod, isn't any faster not at 660 ft, and not at top speed. I've tried, so I know.
Agreed, but you have done a significant amount of modification to your sled.

I know the big polaris Triple responds very well to mods, it's just slightly under-powered in factory trim.

If you run a stock 97 Storm against a stock 97 Mach Z, the Mach will win.

You are comparing apple to oranges.

I had a 98 honda civic blow the doors off my 99 Corvette in a street race but
there is no chance of doing that with a stock civic.

DP

Pipe
01-15-2003, 04:08 PM
I thought the crank problems were limited to the 95-97 XCR600's, and XLT models???

Sled Dogg
01-15-2003, 04:28 PM
Oh no Pipe, that is what i was going to tell you. All of them eat cranks bad. Older ones alot more though. I paid 2400 for mu Ultra SPX off ebay and it was absolutly mint. Most I've seen have sold for 3k or more in clean stock condition. Some clutching really wakes them up. I also have a stock track not studded so i get no traction. I'm going to a 136 x 1"" or bigger lug track to hook up and eat up the stutter bumps. I know a place to get the shocks rebuilt for 25 each plus seals. They said the fox shocks usually on;ly need one 6 buck seal.
Caleb

Sled Dogg
01-15-2003, 04:35 PM
here is what it looked like, wait for a really clean stock one, well worth it. Best mod I did was a 2" bar riser and bar ends.

storm800
01-15-2003, 04:42 PM
The modifications I've did to my storm is that I've added V-force reeds, and that is needed if the sled should work nice. The machz was also clutched for optimal race, and I agree If you run a stock 97 Storm against a stock 97 Mach Z, the Mach will win.

Indyultra
01-16-2003, 03:04 AM
I'll have to disagree on the comment of Storms eating cranks. I have had a 94, 95, 96, and a buddy has a 97. I ran a Pro stock 800 with nothing done to the crank for 3 years. Turning 9600 rpm and making 207hp. Currently running a Storm lower end in a Pro-stock 1000 making 257hp. Granted that crank has been stroked and welded, but still stock bearing. The XCR crank are smaller and you get more vibration out of them but still are a good crank, but not as good as a storm. Motor for Motor the XCR does make more HP in stock mood. I also have a 97 SPX so I'm not biased toward the storms. By the way my buddy's 97 is for sale and he's asking 2700.00 I think. He's in Mi.

Pipe
01-16-2003, 01:05 PM
Indy Ultra,

What was the best year Storm that you owned, how did you improve it for the trails???

Indyultra
01-16-2003, 04:27 PM
Pipe, I would say the 96, the 95 got the updated cylinders which were the 96 cylinders, bigger exhaust area.The 97 is in the aggessive chassis which I never can get used to rideing. As for mod's, PSI made some good pipes, but crank shop was the best for full out mod.

FreezerBurnt
01-17-2003, 12:24 AM
The 98 is a Storm

The 99 XCR 800 is a diferent animal looks the same but have an Ultra based engine with VES added

The 97 Storm dynoed in at 146.2 hp 8000rpm at the AMS shootout

The 94 Storm 800 was dynoed at 138.8hp at 8000rpm SnowGoer Canada shootout

Due to the size of crank case the Storm could not have the CRC in the Agressive chassis

The 93 Storm was a 750 with about 132hp

Mighty RX-1
01-17-2003, 12:07 PM
XCR hands down! I never, repeat never had a problem loosing to storms on my Machs. XCR 800's were a different story. However, I still beat most of them :D

BGTRK19472
01-17-2003, 01:34 PM
If it were me i would look for a 99 xc700sp, you should be able to get one for the money you want to spend.

Pipe
01-17-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by BGTRK19472@Jan 17 2003, 12:34 PM
If it were me i would look for a 99 xc700sp, you should be able to get one for the money you want to spend.
Yeah , I was just thinking of the XC's last night. The fastest trail sled I've owned was a 95 Wildcat 700 EFI. I veered away from Polaris purchasing that Arctic Cat and was disappointed. How does an XC 700 compare to one of those 95' Wildcats? Just curious....anyone?

Mighty RX-1
01-17-2003, 02:30 PM
The only comparison is the fact that they are both snowmobiles. The XC will blow that cat away in every catagory, Speed, ride, handling.

BarrieMachZ
01-17-2003, 10:38 PM
I am forced to reply here........

STAY AWAY FROM A 96-97 STORM WITH A FUJI ENGINE.........

I owned a 96 Storm I bought new and nothing but piston then ring problems.
I loved the ride and my buddy up until last year owned a 99 XCR 800 which was a good sled until the cheep little plastic water pump crap went and melted down the motor..... Still a little slow against my 2000 MachZ and now he has a 2001 XCR 800....... Nice sled.... crappy handling compaired to the 96-2000 Agressive Chassis even with the air shock.. it is faster and with the V Force 2 added were pretty close in the race dept.

The Ultra BTW is a good sled but a real slug......

michahicks
01-19-2003, 12:59 AM
Um, aren't the Ultra and Storm crank/bottom ends the same? Maybe not, but that's what I was thinking.

I think some careful shopping could produce a 99 XCR in this price range. Just sold mine for 3200 last month, was in very good condition with 2700 miles. Some people consider it the fastest XCR. If you're a pretty good sized guy, like over 200 or so, the aggressive chassis can be thrown around on the trails like a much lighter sled. I'm not sure if they deserve the bad rap they've received. My biggest problem with the aggressive chassis is the very tight clearance available between the track and front heat exchanger. If you are looking at a studded machine, make sure you check it out. It's probably shredded. If you plan on running studs, plan on running the track on the tight side, and suggest you don't go over 1.075" studs. For night riding, the aggressive chassis has a real headlight, the older (wedge) chassis has a "wannabee" headlight.

The stock Storms are dogs compared to other machines in the same class/year range. I 've had a 97 and 98. Both were left stock, and neither ever had a problem.

If the triple thing isn't that big of a deal to you (read that "if you've never had one"), I like the XC idea also. In either case, I've been spoiled. I wouldn't buy a triple without the VES...Yes, there is that much difference, that's why the 99 XCR is worth so much more than a Storm. By the way, that 99 XCR motor, is the same as the
'00-'03....

AL