Arctic Cat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I Started this thread to try and figure out why the 98 1000 T-Cat is so much faster then the 900s and I want to get is much performance related info on the 800s-1000s as I can get. Ok so here we go.

Me and my dad both have 900 Thundercats, mine is a 97 his is a 96, both are bone stock. I have read that a stock 900 T-Cat should do around 118-120mph stock, and I know the bone stock 98 1000s will do 129.8mph bone stock. So I did some searching and I find out that they all use the same gearing and clutching, the only differences in them are the primary weight part numbers between 96,97,and 98 are all different and the 98 uses a roller secondary instead of a button secondary, and the 98 uses an 020 belt instead of the 010 like the 96 and 97. none of these differences should really make the 1000 do 10mph more then the 900s, I know they have more power, but I cant imagine the 1000 revs higher then the 900 because i believe I have heard that the 900s don't take to over reving very well and the 1000 being the same as the 900 only bigger I just cant see tacking on more RPMs to it, but IDK maybe they do rev higher. I have looked up drive cog part numbers that drive the track and all are the same between all three of the sleds. My dads dream is to have a 98 1000 but he cant afford one, so he wants to make his 900 as close to the 1000 as possible speed wise and same goes for me on my 97.

So my question is what is going on on the 98 1000 that makes it so much faster then the 900s?. i do know that suspension changes will effect it to, but the suspension is mostly the same in the 98 as my 97, dads non ett 96 is obviously different but I wouldnt thing its 10mph different. So here are all the part numbers of everything that I have searched.

1996 T-Cat 900
SKU: 0602-451 SKU: 0646-150 Spring, Clutch - Silver
Sprocket, 39T SKU: 0746-500 Arm, Cam (inc. 8)
SKU: 0602-446 SKU: 0648-016 Bracket, Torque - 57-50
Sprocket, 24T SKU: 0148-227 Spring, Yellow
Button secondary SKU: 0728-029 Track Drive Assembly (inc. 2-5)
SKU: 0627-010
Belt, Drive



1997 T-Cat 900
SKU: 0602-451 SKU: 0646-150 Spring, Clutch - Silver
Sprocket, 39T SKU: 0746-559 Arm, Cam (inc. 8)
SKU: 0602-446 SKU: 0648-016 Bracket, Torque - 57-50
Sprocket, 24T SKU: 0148-227 Spring, Yellow
Button secondary SKU: 0728-029 Track Drive Assembly (inc. 2-4 and 44)
SKU: 0627-010
Belt, Drive



1998 T-Cat 1000

SKU: 0602-451 SKU: 0646-150 Spring, Clutch - Silver
Sprocket, 39T SKU: 0746-588 Arm, Cam (inc. 8)
SKU: 0602-446 SKU: 0648-016 Bracket, Torque 57/50
Sprocket, 24T SKU: 0148-227 Spring, Yellow
Roller secondary SKU: 0728-029 Track Drive Assembly (inc. 2-4 & 44)
SKU: 0627-020
Belt, Drive


The other thing I would like to mention is back in 1998 my dad bought a 98 Pantera 800 triple, he loved that sled, but till this day he swears that his 800 pantera was faster then his current 96 Thundercat 900, and if this is the case then there must be something with the big triples in 98. He has been told by several dealers that stock for stock the 98 800 pantera he had was faster then the new 99+ 1000 thundercats, seems like the 98 big triples have something going for them, I just want to find out what it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Well the only thing I can come up with so far is that the 0627-020 belt is slightly wider then the 0627-010 belt. Running an 020 belt would make it engage at a lower RPM then an 010 belt so that would explain why they have different primary weights as well as a different belt, if the belt width is all that is different in giving them 10mph top end that that is amazing, I will experiment with dads T-Cat and my ZRT 600, if this is in fact true I will be changing over to an 020 belt on all my sleds and change the primary weights to regain the lower end again.
***0627-010 47 3/4 ± 3/16 inch 1 3/8 inch
***0627-020 47 3/4 ± 3/16 inch 1 13/32 inch
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
People have wondered this time and time again...........maybe porting was different on the '98? who knows, but yes, they were wicked fast!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
dont know why, my 99 zrt 800 has put alot of the stock 900 on the trailer on long lake runs. just cant top a 1000. my freind has had 3 900's of diff years, none was as fast as my 99. my 800 dynoed 163 hp stock on the crank after some jet changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
I know the 900's have a longer stroke than the 1000's, so the 1000's may rev slightly faster producing a little more horsepower, but the 900's with the longer stroke would have more low end torque. I don't believe there is as much difference as you think between the 900's and 1000's. Some think the 900's actually run better. If you want to build a great running T-Cat motor, use the 1000 cylinders on the 900 bottom end. You need to use spacers under the cyls. (due to the longer stroke 900 crank) I think you can use Cat 700 wildcat pistons w this setup and it makes a 1004+ cc motor (depending on bore size) There are a few 1107 motors running around w this setup that run very well. The early 900's '93-'95 were very heavy, sacrificing acceleration, although some say these were the fastest of the big cats. The '96-'98 had the least restricted airboxes and better pipes. The '93 had a CDI with the most aggressive timing curve. In my opinion building one of the above mentioned motors installed in a '96-'98 chassis w the '93 CDI box would be a combination of the "best of the best" Brad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (dawnaaron67 @ Jan 27 2010, 04:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
People have wondered this time and time again...........maybe porting was different on the '98? who knows, but yes, they were wicked fast![/b]
We already know the 98 1000 has more power, but IMO power is not the biggest issue here. IMO I think its all within the gearing and RPMs, there is no way they can spool that 1000 higher RPM wise then the 900 if in fact the 900s could not handle over reving very well, the 1000 is the same motor as the 900 so if it were to rev higher then the 900 then the 900 should be able to atleast match its RPMs due to the pistons being slightly smaller meaning less moving weight. If the gearing and so on is the same and the clutching is the same and the RPMs on the 1000 are not any higher then the 900 there is no way it can be faster, so that only leaves one option, the wider belt is the only thing different in the set up along with the weights. So if the belt is the answer it will do one of two things, #1 puting an 020 belt on a 900 will bring it up to close to as fast as the 1000, or #2 puting an 020 belt on the 900 will be to much for it to handle and maybe it will lose top end due to not having quite enough power to reach its peak RPM, where as the 10 extra HP on the 1000 would pull that 020 belt to the correct peak RPM. that's the only thing I can think of it being.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ac900tc @ Jan 27 2010, 04:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I know the 900's have a longer stroke than the 1000's, so the 1000's may rev slightly faster producing a little more horsepower, but the 900's with the longer stroke would have more low end torque. I don't believe there is as much difference as you think between the 900's and 1000's. Some think the 900's actually run better. If you want to build a great running T-Cat motor, use the 1000 cylinders on the 900 bottom end. You need to use spacers under the cyls. (due to the longer stroke 900 crank) I think you can use Cat 700 wildcat pistons w this setup and it makes a 1004+ cc motor (depending on bore size) There are a few 1107 motors running around w this setup that run very well. The early 900's '93-'95 were very heavy, sacrificing acceleration, although some say these were the fastest of the big cats. The '96-'98 had the least restricted airboxes and better pipes. The '93 had a CDI with the most aggressive timing curve. In my opinion building one of the above mentioned motors installed in a '96-'98 chassis w the '93 CDI box would be a combination of the "best of the best" Brad[/b]
This makes a little more sense to me now. This is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. And if the stroke is different that would make total sense as to how the 1000 can produce slightly higher RPMs, and it would also explain why the 900s didn't like to be over reved. Thanks ill have to keep this in mind when thinking for the combo we are trying to get. Now that you mention the stroke differences I do recall hearing something about it a few years back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I worked at Cat back then and the prototype 1000's I was told had 220+ HP and would top out over 140 mph. They were more fun to ride than any tripple I had ridden before, it was not so much the power but they had torque EVERYWHERE. I don't like the weight of the tripples have on the front of the sled but I really liked the way the T-Cats rode. They had different crankcases and I am not sure what kind of porting they had as I never saw one apart but I know they were detuned during testing, I am sure the lawers were a little uneasy about the liability of selling a sled that fast. I know tracks did not hold up to such high speeds that well (like the 900's when they were being developed). I don't know how accurate the 173 hp figure was, it was most likely a little higher. I probably did not help answer you question but thought you would like to know "what could have been".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tanaman @ Jan 27 2010, 05:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I worked at Cat back then and the prototype 1000's I was told had 220+ HP and would top out over 140 mph. They were more fun to ride than any tripple I had ridden before, it was not so much the power but they had torque EVERYWHERE. I don't like the weight of the tripples have on the front of the sled but I really liked the way the T-Cats rode. They had different crankcases and I am not sure what kind of porting they had as I never saw one apart but I know they were detuned during testing, I am sure the lawers were a little uneasy about the liability of selling a sled that fast. I know tracks did not hold up to such high speeds that well (like the 900's when they were being developed). I don't know how accurate the 173 hp figure was, it was most likely a little higher. I probably did not help answer you question but thought you would like to know "what could have been".[/b]
THIS IS AWESOME!!! I started this thread to try and figure some of the differences between some of these sleds, but i alsostarted this thread to get as much info as i can on all of thest triples, i dont care if this thread wonders off topic a bit, i just want to learn as much as i can about these tripples.This is all great info thanks for posting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
The best time I had riding a 1000 was when we were in Canada and the Polaris guys were at the same lake. I was running along side a guy on a XCR 800 (but it could have been anything) and I was on a Pantera 1000. I only hit it enough to stay along side him so he would think I was struggling a bit. When we hit 110 I sat up and pinned it, the skis came up and I was gone. I saw him later at the hotel and he wanted to know what it had in it, I would not tell him but I said he could find one at the Cat dealer next year. He just shook his head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
I have owed a '93, 96, 98, 00 t-cat and a 99 800t (with all the performace updates for the "99 triples). None of them matched the '98. I still have the '98 that is modded (only 1300 miles) and it makes my z1 turbo look sick. I told the wife, until I get something faster, I'm keeping the '98. slomo

The 99 had over 16,000 miles and the 00 had over 23,000 miles when I sold them - no engine work ever done on either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,043 Posts
the stroke of the 1000 is shorter.. they run around 9000rpms- ish.. the wrist pin is 22mm not the 20mm.. the cases are different with the crank bearings.. and the 1000 have a counter balancer. the 900s do not.. as stated above.. the 1000 was definatly detuned from what it was designed for thus it was built very well.. kinda like the thundercat atv..

i bet if you throw some nice big carbs and a set up pipes and silencer i bet that machine will wake up. i had a chance to buy a 1998 Tcat that had a D&D prepped trail engine in it.. case ported, carbs bored, D&D pipes, but stock silencer.. it ran 212hp at the crank... what a sweet trail sled.. i saw it run 0.1 mph less than a turbo rx-1.. this was 3 years ago.. it had 1800miles and it sold for 3500 bucks.. i still know where its at and who has it.. i knock on the guys door every year but he wont sell it yet..

i think every true arctic cay guy wants a 98 T-Cat!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,824 Posts
All 800.s, 900's and 1000 triples came stock with counter balance shafts and they all had max HP rpm of 8300 t0 8500.

Auggie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,043 Posts
hes correct on the counter balancer shafts..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
hey these replies are great, and yes every 800-1000 trple all had balance shafts, the 600 zrt did not and i know for a fact the 1000 will not turn 9000rpm, the high revving 600 zrt doesnt even do that.Again i really dont think its as much a matter of power when comparing the 900 to the 1000 top speed as it is a matter of gearing and clutching, if the peak rpms are all indeed the same, then i think you should be able to tweak and fine tune the gearing and clutching on a 900 so it runs close to the same mph as the 98 1000, but in not 100% sure, has anyone tried running the stock 1000 primary weihts, roller secondary and 020 belt on a 96 or 97 900 to see what it does, im thinking the wider belt should help top end, does the roller secondary open up any further to allow a taller overdrive?
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top