Snowmobile World banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
the 1993 was the quickest, but the moter wouldnt hold up, the bearings on the crankshaft where to small. the 94 was set up poorly, had mechanical breaks,(cable operated) 95 was slightly better, had straight handle bars, hydralic breaks. 1996 this was the fastest, the best setup. this was the best machz ever built!  they all came with the c-7 rear skid. the 96 was the only one with small idler wheels on the rear axle. they all came with dsa front suspension. like i said the 96 had the best suspension, the best calibration. this is the best rotax triple!  the 780 is quicker and faster than the 809 series engines. i hope this helps!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
I don't mean to stir the pot, but the 1997 mach z was the fastest of all mach z's. (first year of the 809 motor.)
I't made the most horsepower of them all.
The newer 809's in the ck chassis were detuned somewhat for better trail manners; horsepower is down in exchange for a stronger midrange and longer motor life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
the 97 mach 1 has a better rear suspenion over the 95 mach z way better on the trails.  i like my 97 mach 1 a lot.  With a good clutch kit they move really good
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
OK, but i want something really fast so i think i will buy the machz, its not as expensive neither (the 95)

Are there big diffrence in 0-60mph(0-100kmh) between the mach1 97 and machz -93-96
are there big diffrence in the top speed?

//Swede ( I know, my english sucks=)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
Swedish Exciter: The 93-96 Mach Z is a lot faster than the Mach1, But they doo lack the SC10 rear skid, and your english is far better than my Swedish. Dino
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (robert gleason @ Mar. 06, 2002, 7:49pm)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't mean to stir the pot, but the 1997 mach z was the fastest of all mach z's. (first year of the 809 motor.)
I't made the most horsepower of them all.
The newer 809's in the ck chassis were detuned somewhat for better trail manners; horsepower is down in exchange for a stronger midrange and longer motor life.[/b][/quote]
After having owned each and every model year Mach Z, I'm going to tell you that the '97 was not the fastest Z.  the CK3s (except the '98) with the the narrower hood and better aeros will flat out spank the F-2000s, including the '97. Recent year dyno reports are showing 150+ HP. Pretty much on par with the XCR.

Just the facts man, just the facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
OK, I will search for a machz 95 or 96 next season, in Sweden the 95 costs about 33000 SKR, thats about 3300 US dollar, pretty expensive
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
Man your telling me that's a lot of $$$ .... 3300 us for a 96 Mach-z .... I'll sell you mine for 3500 Can , that's like 1700 us . You get lots of snow there to .... You don't want to get a Mach stuck !!!  Well good luck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
The snowmobiles in Sweden are alot more expensive then in America.

What is the difference between Mach Z and Formula III??
Wich year came Formula III

Micke From Malmberget
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
I have always driven Yamaha but i dont like the TSS frontsuspension som i am going to buy a Ski-Doo, i like the Rotax engine, F3 128hp, thats alot on a 600cc, but i think i will go for the MachZ with 148=)

/// Tippsta
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,316 Posts
Hey Swede....why not look into a Bombardier Lynx? Thos look pretty cool..
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top