Snowmobile World banner

81 - 100 of 237 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
ETS, I too don't know where your coming from. I'm 5"11 and have a 98 Zed (bought it new and plan to keep it for several more years as it's been a great sled). I find there's plenty of room on it and I have never had a problem with my knees hitting the bars??? If I stretch right out to a comfortable position I'm still not at the back of the seat let alone on it (I too ride up on the tank when riding aggressive and it's never been a concern?). If you think space is limited on the CK-3 you should try an Indy wegde!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
ETS, if you like the f-body that well more power to you.  But like I said earlier, don't insult us and try to make us believe that it in any way compares to the CK-3.  I had a 97 Mach Z and know what its limitations were.  Sounds to me like you are trying to justify in your mind how good your sleds are so you don't have to go out and buy newer ones.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
ETS, the only bad thing i can think of on the MachZ is when your going WOT and hit a bump, a parachute could be handy,
may be i'll talk to "bombardier" about that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
I know in my mind the ck3 I had and my buddies were crap.  Hey, maybe the newer ones are better but not in my mind. I traded a 95' f111 with boivin c-7 ugrade for the 98' f1117 and was happy until I rode my old 95' that I sold to my buddy.  I was disgusted with it after that because it rode worse than boivin c-7 by far and I couldn't get rid of the ski lifting in hard corners and the overall tippy feeling.  Only had the sled one miserable season and then back tracked to a 97'mxz670 that I had trail ported, added the m-10 and blt.   Maybe a stock ck3 is better than a f-2000 but the m-10 and blt makes those sleds come alive.  For some reason the m-10 and blt didn't make the ck3 come alive.  It was great in the bumps but it just didn't want to corner and will not hold a line like the other chassis.  Very nervous with or without pcs strips.  Stock for stock it probably rides better than fchasssi  but at least my old 95' f111 would hold a decent line without to much effort.  I don't want a newer sled, I can ride the wifes mxz600 whenever I want but it doesn't compare to the old s-chassis with the m-10 and blt.  That's why the 809 is in my 97 mxz.  I like the triple but the ck3 isn't for me.  I can't believe you can honestly tell me in a rough trail system a stock suspended low riding ck3 mach is gonna out handle and run a f-chassis or s-chassis with the m-10 and blt.  Let me guess your idea of a mod sled is a checkered windshield and colored grips.  I'm in michigan and we can meet anywhere in the state for some friendly comparisons and hopefully some riding.  For the day or weekend, doesn't matter.  For sure there will be two 97' mxz809's done up and maybe the 97'machz with m-10, his wife's having a baby soon and he's on father detail this winter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
Sounds like we do need to compare. I too live in Michigan, most riding is done at my buddies place in the Houghton Lake-Grayling area and of course the UP.  As far as mods go, I do have the checkering kit for my windshield!  How did you know?  Seriously, besides that, ETS kit for the ride. Engine mods include; Thicker base gasket, shaved head, gutted air box with jetting to match and a PPP Superlite can.  In the drive line I use an HRP Black Ice helix.  Do you want to know the real reason I went to the CK-3?  I loved my 97 MachZ, but the headlite was horrible!  I did prefer the seating position on the 97, I felt more like I was on the sled where the CK-3 makes you feel like you're in it. It took some getting use to.  I do like it now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Iwas the one ETS is talking about that had the 98 machz. I love the looks of the sled but like he was saying it was a POS. Riding position was terrible and handling was poor. Riding that sled in my opinion was scary, i could never take both hands off the bars without feeling like i was going to kiss a tree (which i eventually did anyway, best thing that could have happened to the sled in my popinion) i am 6'2" 200 and this thing made me feel like i was riding a mini-z, i could never get up on the sled and feel in control, i have rode a 99 f3700 and i dont think it was any better, especially having the stock ski stance, always gfelt super tippy. I could never hang with his on his 97 mxz670 in the tight stuff, the ck3 would always feel nervous and never hold a good line. Iwould jump on his 97 mxz and feel way in control. I am also the one that bought his 95 f3 600 and sold it last year to buy the ck3 machz. I thought i was actually going forward when in fact i really wish i would have never sold the sled, I personally like the f-body more myself. I am also the other one building the 97 mxz809, our sleds mods include: m-10,blt front end, i have usi project x skis,completely case ported and shimmed cylinders,(our dealer is telling us we should be in the 175 horsepower+ range)v-force reeds,jaws pipes (custom built by greg balchin for this application) 1-1/4" paddle tracks with all open windows and extrovert drivers, and soon to be boss seat and twintec hood from specialty sleds. Neither of us are on here to bad mouth anyone, but mightymach if you would like to meet up somewhere when the snow flies we would love to, i personally would like to meet some people from this and the amsnow forum. we are located in battle creek michigan. Hopefully next week we will have some good pictures online of our machines. We will post them when we get them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,910 Posts
Discussion Starter #87
You guys are mistaken.  Either you never drove a Ck3.  Or you expect it to handle like somthing else.  

You cant drive it like a ZX or S its got its own personality.  I own every sled chassie skidoo made going back to the 294 TNT.  When i go for wide tight turning trails that need to be apexed i go for the mach nothing throttles out of a corner like the smooth tripple.  When i Ice ride its the mach.  When i ride in feilds i use the MXZ ZX same for powder.  The S chassie is a great chassie.  It handles just like the Mach only just not as crisp.  It darts more then anything, Is very hard to set up,  Handleing changes big time as the snow does.  These are all signs of a poorly designed machine.  The S chassie is a very fun sled but the all around performance of the mach and what it can do with a very experienced driver is what i hope skidoo enhanses on.  Because i belive it can be a better machine suited for a bigger margin of people.

To compaire the S, ZX or CK3 to the F is imposible it doesnt matter how good you are a F chassie will never touch any of the newer ones. It is only good for racing now but it has inside ski lift like you wouldnt belive and thats why skidoo got rid of it.  I would almost say it was a bit dangerous that a machine with that kind of poor stability could go that fast.  

But to each his own.  Dont come and post here about Twins and S and ZX chassies if all your going to do is say there better.  We the Mach drivers know what we like and hope skidoo does somthing that will inspire more people to like it.  Do you think everyone that has a mach started out on a Mach.  I have drivin everything and if i had to sell my machines the last one to go would be the Z.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I'm trying to figure out how some one at 200 lb can compare a mach to a mini-z, i'm 6-00 180 lbs and i feel small.When i crack the throttle, i feel like a flag on a pole in a 100mph wind.
:0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Well once again I will state that a properly setup f-chassis with the m-10 and blt will walk away from a ck3 in the handling department as far as rough corners and general trail riding.  Stock for stock I can't remember becuase I'ts been a long time since I"ve ridden a stock f-chassis.  That's kinda funny your telling me a f-body with the c-7 is tippy?  Ever ridden one?  Those sleds are low and dont ski lift like a ck3, the c-7 tranfers alot of weight and will lift if you don't suck the strap way down.   You ever put a fresh set of 9" carbides on your ck3 and try to make a couple turns on a iced over road?  Mine would try to flip me right on my lid because it was so unstable.  Maybe because it was a f111 with the longer front shocks, but I thought Rotaxtriples machz was tippy also.  My #1 complaint with either f or s chassis is the narrow ski stance.  When I widened up my mxz670 to 44" center to center it would handle corners as good as my mxz600 which mine happens to be 42.5 center to center.  My mxz600 ski lifts more than my 97mxz with m-10 and 44" front.  The f-chassis with m-10 and 44" front handles as good as anything out there except maybe an old 94' zr lowrider.  Those things were slung low and handled good.  I'm not talking snow-x either, just the tight, rough trails in michigan.   I can say when my trailing arms are at 0 degree camber with the widened front that it won't dart anywhere.  It's not the chassis thats the problem it just the accesories that bolt around it.  One minute you say the s-chassis is nice and the next it's a poorly designed machine.  Well I'll bring my updated poorly designed machine and run it against any ck3 in the trails regardless of any mods.  I'll do it on the lake also, not because I think I have the fastest sled out there but just to race for fun.  I'm sure I'll get beat on lake but it's gonna take a real healthy one to do it.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
ets: well it is nice to see you finally admit what the poorly    designed machine is. Bring it up to the Bay of Quinte and show me what you claim in your post.
i have about 20 mile of bay to test it on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
ETS: I want you to know that I agree with 98 % of what your saying. I have a 93 F-chassis with a 43 inch wide front end and it handles with the best of them. Dino.
 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,910 Posts
Discussion Starter #93
ETS I dont just ride the F chassie I own one.  Not in a mach form but in a formula 583.  I am taking stock to stock not with m-10 and BLT.  I dont know what your talking about but the F chassie felt so bad i dont even think i put 100km on it last year.  The s chassie is very fun to drive and rides in the same style as the mach.  Only problem is me on the Ck3 can go faster through any trail on the CK3.  Maybe thats because i drive it more but thats just the way it is up here.  The ZX is a diffrent feel all together.  Personally i dont like the feel of it.  If feels like your sitting upright and close to all the gauges and makes me feel top heavy.  The CK3 suits me just fine and i have friends that drive ZX and S and F and CAT and POL and YAM and no one can pull on me when im on the CK3.  

Im not calling you a liar.  Maybe you just feel better on the F and thats good.  But for me the CK3 is just fine and i like the feel.  So lets all just go and have fun this year like everyother year and drive the #### out of our Doo's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
Precisely why there are so many different styles of sleds.  Everyone has a different preference, even within the Doo ranks.  I agree with Machzzz1, I don't like the feel of the ZX platform.  To be honest with you, I remember my first time out on my 99 mach, boy did those ski's seem like they were way, way out in front of me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Dino, there isn't a heck of alot different between the two chassis except lighter bodywork on the s-chassis.  I had each chassis down to the bare bulkhead this summer sitting side by side and can tell you they are the same thing with the addition of a different sway bar.  The f was a 94' and the s was a 97' so it had the adjustable sway bar.  Minor footboard differences but shock geometry and radius rod locations are identical between the two.  That is why they handle similiar with the good stuff.  The f has more poundage from extra brackets and  a hood that weighs more than a buick electra.  All along I've been saying my claims with the good parts added and you guys have been disagreeing with me, did you have a change of heart after realizing your sled comes with crap suspension?  I'll admit my zx comes with crap suspension, but it stays that way because the wife doesn't complain unless I let her ride mine.  The front is better on the zx than the past chassis but once you own a m-10 theres no comparison.  We'll be at tip up town at houghton lake for anyone wanting to hook up and ride with my old crap. LOL.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
963 Posts
then, why do they handle completly different. ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Handling difference supposedly differs on the f-chassis.  In 95' or 96' they changed the trailing arms on the f so the ski-spindle sits more verticle.  This was supposed to make it turn a little lighter and more aggressive on the later version of f-chassis.    There is alot more weight over the front of a fchassis triple due to the factory triple pipes and anyone ever lifted a set of those knows what I'm talking about.  If I remember correct and I'm not exact but should be close a 96' mach1 twin in the f-chassis weighed around 525 and the 96' mxz670 weighed in at 505.  An extra 25lbs on the nose will affect handling and this is just between the two twins.   I also am not sure how much difference the sc-10 high performanc and sc-10 cross country affect the handling of these sleds.  Most f chassis with sc-10 had the high performance while s chassis mxz's had the cross country version.  I don't know the differences in calibration but maybe one will allow ski-lift more than the other?  Sway bar differences between a fchassis and schassis mxz might make a difference also.  I'm not sure of the diameters between the two.  The two f-chassis I had were c-7's and they cornered flat because they were low riders.  I think part of the handling differences is in the ergonomics between the two.  The f does feel fat between your legs and your sitting lower so it rides you a bit more than you riding it.  The handlebars are also really low on the f-chassis.  The mxz's you sit more upright and the bars are higher with a skinnier gas tank.  This feeling helps with a sense of control.  Any motocrossers out there from the 80's to 90's know what I'm talking about.  Once the bikes started slimming down you felt like you could do more on them.  Heres some more of my opinions so let them rip, I enjoy it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
ETS: Right on, the chassis are almost the same, the main difference is the hood and belly pan. The foot rest angle was reduced and in I think 99 they got short arm, long arm to reduce ski lift on hard turns. I got the same effect by going to a 43 inch stance and skis from a 97 Mach Z that were mounted 25 mm back to in effect make a longer wheel base. I think a wider,lower stance was and still is the answer for better fast trail riding. The CK3 in 98 had a front end travel of 8 inches and in 99 went down to where the 93 started at 6.5 inches because of ski lift lower is still better as you can,t fight physics and centre of gravity. Dino.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
You're right on the weight of the Mach1 but if my manual is correct, the mxz670 is 475, this is weired cause the mxz 583 1996 is 502 pounds. This would make a big difference. I know that my sled (96 mxz 670) tends to flip in corners easily because the centre of gravity is so high and the ski stance is 40" but it's great in bumps.
 
81 - 100 of 237 Posts
Top