Numerous Changes Found on Cat’s ‘03 440 Sno Pro

THIEF RIVER FALLS, MINN. (Nov. 15, 2002) Standing still, the 2003 440 Sno Pro may suggest to some the game hasn’t changed. Out on the track however it will suggest something entirely different. For 2003, the sled has been given a snocross-only focus as engineers focused on three goals: Improving durability, improving cornering/handling, and getting more performance from the engine.

On the durability front, a third generation Cross-Link suspension is better than ever featuring a 2" dia. rear arm shock (1 5/8" dia. in 2002) for more consistent dampening characteristics and to eliminate fade concerns. Removed in 2003 is the adjuster canister.

New rail braces, new chain, revised steering arms and an aluminum throttle block have all been integrated for added durability required for landing 50 foot doubles all winter. And with more flex and durability, improved belly pan and side panel plastic address the demands of racing. Protecting against the elements, a front screen eliminates snow ingestion and improved water resistant intake screen material protect the carbs from water.

Changes to the sled’s handling begin with the rear suspension mounting position. The FasTrack rear suspension is lowered (2.5" at the rear arm, 0.75" at the front arm) which effectively tips the sled and rider forward, improving cornering and centralizing the rider’s weight.

A new rail profile and nine tooth drive sprockets (10 tooth in ‘02) improve the sled’s handling. Throwing snow is a new 1.5" lug track (optional 1.65" lug) with improved side-slip and better forward traction. Coming standard, are running board traction strips.

In the performance department, a higher compression head dramatically improves low-end and mid-range output. The 440 Sno Pro will strictly run on 110 octane pre-mix race fuel which also allowed engineers to remove the oil pump and reservoir, eliminating weight. Other areas of weight reduction include aluminum body ski shocks, elimination of the rear heat exchanger and choke cable.

Other changes include the relocation of electronics that can now be found up front on top of the airbox for better accessibility. Brake placement is now on the chaincase/driven shaft. Cooling them off is the addition of a new air-duct.

“The machine looks similar to last years sled, but the changes made make it handle and corner far better,” adds racer/engineer Kirk Hibbert. “We’ve improved durability, and the motor pulls harder. I think everyone is going to be positively surprised.”

Arctic Cat Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures and markets snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) under the Arctic Cat brand name, as well as related parts, garments and accessories.

High compression engine – 110 octane race fuel pre-mix
Better engine performance low-end and mid-range
No oil pump
No oil tank
Brake mounted up on chaincase/driven shaft
Air cooling duct to brake
No rear heat exchanger
Weight reduction
Improved X-Link suspension
2” dia. rear arm shock (1 5/8” dia. in 2002)
No adjuster canister vs 2002 shock
3rd generation X-link
Aluminum body ski shocks
Weight reduction
New rail profile
Better handling
New rail braces
Added strength
New 1.5” lug track
Improved side-slip
Improved forward traction
Optional 1.65” track
9 tooth drive sprockets vs. 10 in 2002
Improved handling
Rear suspension mounted lower in chassis
Improved handling for Snocross racing
Electronics mounted up front on airbox
Easier accessibility
Front end screen
Eliminates snow ingestion to clutches
Improved water resistant intake screen material
Eliminates water to carbs
Improved belly pan and side panel material
Better durability and less cracking
Choke control on carbs
Eliminates choke cable
Tunnel/running board traction strips
438.5 lbs dry weight

Now, I thought Cat said they had zero problems with getting water into the carbs from the front intake on the new sno-pro chassis??

Also check out the dry weight- they were claiming that or close to it for their f-7's and the f-5's. Then in a magazine I have the official weight of an f-7 is 470(If I remember correctly).

It just goes to show you cannot believe or trust anything ANY company claims anymore. :cussing:

Interestingly, this RACE sled at 438.5 lb. weighs slightly more than the original target weight of 435 lb. for the F7 consumer sled. Oops!

Originally posted by MUSKOKA800@Nov 21 2002, 07:13 PM
Interestingly, this RACE sled at 438.5 lb. weighs slightly more than the original target weight of 435 lb. for the F7 consumer sled. Oops!
Since it is to run SnoX :)

ie: 30foot jumps and bumping other sleds

I guess they went for durabilty ;) which I think is a good move

The 02 Sno Pro had terrible durability so my guess & by the looks of the spec sheet thats were most of the changes are targeted at.Still dont think it has a chance against the Pro-X or Rev 440.

You must really not like your 02 Sno-Pro since you cut it down alot I find that very funny, may I ask why you bought it or why you still have it

MUSKOKA800

could it be that they knew all along the f's would never weigh 235? ;)

Of course they knew it wouldnt wiegh in at 235lbs silly. The F7 did wiegh in at 435 but the heat exchanger had to be improved for us regular guys............good move on cats part because I like my reliability :D

Last time I checked I dont cut down my sled all the time Farmboy.I am just stating a fact that last years Sno Pros have a few teathing problems in Snow-X comps.The only problem that upsets me is the cracking tunnel but that has been taken care of.As far as what I planned on using it for its great.Makes a awsome freestyle sled & trail usage.Wouldnt trade it for anything else at this time.

Sorry, but the F-7 NEVER weighed in at 435. Not any production machine-Not even close.

F7 = 460lbs dry
REV 800 = 454lbs dry

440 snopro = 438.5lbs dry
REV 440x = 438lbs dry

I have a picture somewhere of an F-7 hooked up to a digital measuring device and it read 470 pounds dry.

The biggest thing that I cannot understand is that they are still claiming the lower weight and claiming they had a production sled at haydays that ran a 5.2 in 500 feet (if my mind serves me right). Fact was they didn't have a production sled ready for haydays. That/those sleds were not stock or production thats for sure.

). Fact was they didn't have a production sled ready for haydays. That/those sleds were not stock or production thats for sure.


WRONG -

They were production spec sleds. The reason they were not "production" sleds at Haydays is the rules state that a sled has to have had 500 manufactured by the maker by the time of the race. AC hadn't produced 500 Firecats in time for Haydays, so the sled wasn't technically "in production" yet.

Production sled my a$$. The one I seen had a build date of December 2001. Fact is they had not even started production on the F7's at Haydays. By the way if you check out CSRA's website they have the results of this weekends race. Sure were a whole lot of Doo's in the top 10.

I don't know what the races looked like, but I can only imagine that there weren't too many other brands competing. There's no way the new REV 440 is that dominant... or if it is, Polaris and AC have some catch-up to play.

It looks like AC and Poo were severely outnumbered at the CSRA race (I wasn't there though). If you look at history, its tough to beat the numbers. Take for instance the "Indy years" - everyone was on an Indy. Then the ZR years, now it looks like Doo's turn.
Like it or not, you have to give Doo credit for putting together a good race team last year that promoted (and obviously sold) this year's product.

I did see a few Cats were #1 though...

F-7's were not massed produced at all till the Friday after Hayday's. Those were proto ringer, max-spec'd, -hand massaged, lighter than anyone can buy, sled's for a fact.

Atomicat-Your wrong. You can try and deny the FACTS, but we all know better.

The facts of weight that A/C has claimed all along have been wrong and how convienent that the production F sleds werent done in time for Haydays. Could you say "they didnt want to hurt sales" because they might have gotten their clocks cleaned. Maybe, maybe not, but apparently they wanted everyone to believe whatever they say. Nice try, but I'm not buying it-neither are alot of others.

I'd be willing to bet that the "Production" sleds wont run as good. First off, they will be heavier, and second, they probably will be LESS on h.p. and the clutching wont be as spot on as was the case for the proto F sleds that they ran there.

Tell ya what-A/C can make their claims next year with a production unit sled or sleds. Untill then they shouldnt be claiming anything. Where I come from thats an out and out lie-the evidence has been presented.

I'm now and have been Cat faithful, but I wont accept B.S. from them despite my like for the brand-I guess it's just common sense and the search for the real truth.

I can handle the real truth...