I'm confident that this issue has been covered from every possible angle. Maybe one of you Triple lovers should put together some sort of form letter that we could all print off, sign our names and send to Ski-Doo. If we were to draw some attention to the amount of people wanting a new triple creation maybe we could make a difference. Maybe not but it seems like it could be worth it, the amount of energy that has gone into this post alone could have generated hundreds of letters heading towards the Doo big-wigs.
I would love to do that. Only problem is i dont know were to tell anyone were to send it and am not that great at writing letters. If anyone has some time and can draw one up Outlining what we discussed about the future of the tripple doo's I would sign my name on it in a heart beat. Or at least I need some help getting this done.
Hey what's with ripping on the twins? I have put a considerable amount of miles on a 96 F111 and yes in some instances you can come through corners better that's if you can keep the skis on the ground, all sleds are different that's the way they are designed, and I'm sorry but I'm sure all you ck3 guys can keep up with any ZX chassis but in the end who's ### and back are killin them? and also most of you guys must ride where their are alot of lakes or long strait stretches? around here the longest strait stretch is 500 yards and I don't care if you are riding a mach z or a thunder kitty you will not pull away from my mxz 800 or my wife's pretty yellow 670 H.O.
!just my opinion but I think we all should consider our riding style and our riding conditions before we start talking out of our #####.
RockZ: Exellent reply! Thats what I have been saying for years a lot of magazine hype has turned the snowmobile industry into a fickle market.First we had to have big iron(750 to 900cc) next it was the baby triples (600cc) then it was the light twins, than the 800cc now these idiots are talking about 900 twins. Can you picture trying to pull them over on a -25 degree morning ? Now I,ll go on to suspensions, when I started riding we had boggies with 2 or 3 inches of travel and the same in the front with the leafs on the skis, now we talk about 10 -12 inch suspensions as a required item. I think we have it somewhat backwards,twenty years ago the trails were narrow,rough and for the most part ungroomed, thats when we needed the long travel units, but we kept on riding and the sleds got light years better. The bottom line here is my old,heavy (530#) Mach Z is as fast as the newer ones on our great smooth trails we now can enjoy,and to me its no fun riding over a rough trail at break neck speeds, I'll let the pros doo that and save my back and money for Robaxacet. Just my views hope I didn,t bore to many forum users. Dino.
Ok, to make this easier and thus generate more response. If someone can whip up a Word document and email it to me I will forward it to anyone requesting it. They can then put it into a new message and email it to Ski-Doo.
If we can get this rolling I'll create a new post for people to give me their email address and I'll forward the letter.
hispd, sorry if I offended you, I'm not usually one to feel the need to rag on the twins (unless provoked!). I threw that twinkie twin comment in for a buddy of mine that won't shut up about how much faster and superior his 700 twin is because it handles better than my ill handling heavy Mach (I guess I should have clarified that but wanted him to read it first). Why is it that the majority of the people that are on the lightweight twin craze feel the need to constantly remind us triple guys that we are riding big heavy tanks that don't turn? Is our huffing and puffing at the rest stop that obvious or are they just feeling a little insecure because they know their sled is slower and therefore feel the need to point that out? If they were really that bad do you think we would still be on them? Could it be that that's the only thing they can come up with to knock them?
The trails, ditches and lakes we ride seldom see speeds under 50 mph and thats riding safely (my buddy has yet to prove his theory, something always happens like he didn't know we were racing or his belt is worn or he was down 300 rpm etc.). I do wonder why however that the standard response when you beat a lightweight twin is usually "that sled may be fast in a straight line but that's about all it's good for"? If the majority of people rode around in circles on a snowcross track or powder in the mountains then that would hold true but I think it's safe to say that this is not the case. Like you said it depends on where you ride. At the present the lightweight twins are the most popular sleds around here but I prefer among other things the high speed stability of a big triple. I look at it this way, I'd rather be buzzing along at 80+ mph in a Chevy Camaro rather than a Honda CRX, each to their own (not that there's anything wrong with a CRX).
And I apologize for getting huffy,like I said it's all about your(our) riding conditions, it's all good if people never disagreed what fun would all of this be, atleast we can all say we are the proud owners of the most advanced, reliable, fastest sleds on the market. (in my opinion)!!
Hey, Mighty Mach, you hit the nail right on the head about the looks of your 99 mach. Its even got an engine to back up its good looks. It sure is fun not to have a sled all these hyped up Magazine editors want you to drive. With one of these babies we have the option of who goes ahead or stays behind.(and that goes for Thunder Putty drivers also)
There is a segment of snowmobiling that requires the OEM to cater to their needs. The Mach Z appeals to a breed that needs serious power. The true test of power is drag racing. The Mach Z dominates every professional class that requires the use of stock cylinders.
As far as cost, even used a good one costs a wad greenbacks, or a sizable sack of Looney`s for our Canadian bretheren, but if ya gotta have big n fast it doesn`t get any better. I do hope it stays around. I have a feeling it will. There`s something about a big 3x3 rollin up to a group isn`t there? It almost doesn`t matter which brand in keeping with the spirit of this post. When twin riders see that sled pull up, there`s a lil bit "...oh man..." That keeps the buisness going. The Mach Z is a plateau. A high level of power that can handle trail conditions. Maybe it`s like a vette like an earlier post said. Personally, I consider it a Super Pro drag car for the snow.
I love my Mach Z. I`ll stay on one from now on. If Ski-Doo is reading any of these, my last statement is why you oughtta keep buildng them.
HIGHLANDER, your right about "The true test of power is drag racing". I look at everyday riding as a form of drag racing. Everytime you come out of a corner and let her rip it's a drag race! Simply put the fastest accelerating sled will be in front at the next corner because of it's ability to drag race (assuming it's safe to pass). It's also great when your riding midpack and get caught smelling the roses just when everyone decides to pick up the pace a notch. One or two straighaways later and you've reeled them back in again (depends how badly you were snoozing!). It's usually not a good idea to go flying into blind corners so in most cases a handling advantage isn't going to gain you any ground (unless of course your running on a closed track/course).
As for Ski-doo reading this board I wouldn't doubt if they did. They were the ones that pointed this site out to me last year when I e-mailed asking them about what I thought was excessive oil consumpion which in turn was causing may rave valves to carbon up evry 500 miles. We can only hope!
I'm sorry but theres no way a ck3 will out handle a s-chassis. I know they are both old sleds now but last season my 97'mxz670 with blt and m-10 will easily out rail a buds' 98' machz with blt and m-10. He never liked to admit it but all out driving in the twisties he would get left corner to corner. His was a decent machine but it pushed to bad in the corners and always went high. He had the flex skis with 9" of carbide and about everycorner it would want to take the high line nomatter where you put it. I had the old plastic/steel with 9" and I could cut wherever I needed to put the machine even in the middle of the corner. Eventually I would pull away because he would have to back off and play with the throttle to keep the sled lower into the corner. Eventually he ate a tree with it and collected insurance. This year he finally admits how much a POS it was but didn't want to give me the satisfaction of telling me how mine handled better. He will not buy another because he hated the sled and he was a bigger guy. 6'2 220 and it was a cramped machine for him. I'm only 5'10" and the ck3 felt like a cracker box, the handlebars would hit my knees unless I rocked them outside and the seat tank junction is so fat that it feels like a whale. I'm not complaining about the triple though. In fact were both building s-chassis 809 sleds as I write this. Pretty much the best components as far as suspension and skis, footboards, 1.25 tracks, full ball bearing steering with summit handlebars risers, slp trailing arms, cut weight wherever possible without affecting strength. In fact all my carb mount flanges and coil brackets are aluminum to cut down on ounces. It all adds up and next year I'm goin to a Boss seat, and light hood. I'm sure I will catch heck but the ck3 is a dead horse and remember the old saying "you can't polish a turd"!
ETS, you are talking about a 98 CK-3. This was its first year and many changes were made for 99. The front end was the biggest change going from the DSA over to the ADSA. The steering colume was moved forward a couple inchs and made a big difference. I ride with a couple guys with 98's and I can tell you that there is a noticable difference between their 98's and my 99. Most people think the only changes were with the pipes.
Please explain the difference in the front ends. They both have unequal lenght radius rods so what's the difference? As far as the 99' I've ridden a 99' f111 700 and didn't notice any difference as far as cramped footboards and bars in your lap. Besides the BLT kit on a 98' is way better than any differences in a so called adsa. It was a low riding front end bottoming pig before the blt. I know the 99's were also low riders in the front. That stock 41' stance on the 98' was the tippiest thing going. I don't care how much you suck down the limiter strap or tighten the acm nut it was a very unprecise ski-lifter. I'd take a f-body before a ck3 anyday.
An F-body over a CK-3? What are you on? I've owned both, there is no comparison! As far as the s-2000 goes, I have both, a 99 mxz670 H.O. and a 99 Mach Z and for me, the CK-3 fits me better. The only thing I like better about the mxz is from a hot dogging point of view. I can litterally throw it all over the place. On the same token, it doesn't absorb the punishment the CK-3 does. Every rut in the trail is transfered thru the s-2000 chassis to my rearend! As far as the front ends go, the geometry has been changed on the 99 Mach from 98. How or what was done, I'm not really sure. All I can say is that I can go thru the twisties much quicker on my sled over my buddies. Then when we switch sleds, he out runs me on my sled. Don't insult some of us and try to compare the F-body to the CK-3.
ETS: you say your 5'-10 and you bang your knees on the handle bars? The top of the gas tank is not a foot rest, not sure if you knew that?
I am 6'-00 and ride a 2000 MachZ. I have never ever banged my knee on anything let alone the bars.
And what do you wear for boots?Size 20?
There is all kinds of foot room
I'm 5'10" at 180#'s and I had to move my knees out of the
way on sharp turns on my CK3 until I rolled the bars forward
a little bit. The CK3 wears me out after 2-3 days of hard
riding. Sore arms and shoulders so then I get on my S-2000
and proceed to throw it around till my back hurts then I
take a rest for a week a repeat!!!
We tried to move the handlbars forward but then our fingers would hit the windshield at extreme turning. As far as durability, I've owned a 98'f111 700 and he owned this98' mach and both of them had the steering rod supports break where they are welded to the frame. Nothing like losing steering and then pulling the pipes and crawling down in there trying to Tig weld it. Maybe it's just the 98', 99's that don't fit me good but they were so crappy I wouldn't care to ride a 00. As far as the f-2000 chassis, it's all updates. Your mach is probably 4years newer than a buddies 97' machz with a m-10 and widened front end but I'd take it anyday over the ck3. I don't know about stock machines, I try not to ride them or do I like them. Once you get used to the good parts everything else is rough. I'm not shooting my mouth off but I can seriously believe and say that I or anyone else riding it can take that 97' mach (with the good stuff) and out trail a ck3 very easily. It just handles better and doesn't have any ski-lift with the m-10 and widened front really helps stability. I'm not saying I"m a good rider even, the machine does the work and most of the guys we let ride our stuff usually don't want to get back on their sleds. About the footwells what I mean is theres plenty of room inside of them but the 98' is at such an angle that it felt like my knees were in my chest, the only way to stretch them out to a comfortable spot was to ride on the back of the seat. My style is to sit up by the tank like a mx bike and the ck3 doesn't allow me to do it. It is a good looking sled though and I'm not on here to #### people off, just some of my opinions to stir the pot.
A forum community dedicated to snowmobile owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, troubleshooting, trails, maintenance, riding tips, modifications, classifieds, accessories, and more!