Arctic Chat : Arctic Cat Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This summer I did the AGLT front end and changed from a 121" to 136" track on my 98' T-cat.

Over the last couple of years I would frequently compare how much gas I took at the pump to my riding buddies. I was usually happy to find that my machine used the same or less gas than others. My primary riding partner has an F7.

I have riden my machine twice this year after the mods(with my F7 buddy) for a total of about 250 miles. While I am very happy with the ride and handling, it seams to be using quite a bit more fuel. On average I used 20% - 30% more than the F7.

Here are some more details about the mods (before and after)

Track: Was 121" x .88" lug with 141 studs, Now 136" x 1.25 lug / no studs. Both tracks weigh exactly the same.

Skis: Was stock AC W/10" carbide, Now Powder Pros W/6" carbide.

Some of my thoughts are:
The AGLT front end is causing the skis to stay on the ground nearly 100% of the time, before the mod they were in the air a fair amount. I also thought about the dramatic change in camber angle over the range of travel due to the AGLT mod. The new skis make a larger footprint and have a more complex keel shape than the stock ones. Could this cause more friction?

The longer track may have more friction against the sliders and the taller lugs might have an affect on drag.

Solutions?
I'm going to align the skis using a 5/8" steel bar. I will remove the skis and intert the bar through the spindles to adjust the ride height and tow so the skis are flat and straight (maybe a slight tow out).

The 98' T-cat Owners manual that I have covers both the Std. and Mountain Cat. Since the 136" mod essetially made my machine into a mountain cat I thought the track adjustment specs may now apply. I was surprised to see that according to the manual, the long track is supposed to be tighter than the short one. I originally set it up this way (1.25" of distance between the track and rail at center with 20 lbs of force). I'm going to loosen the track a little (maybe 2" of distance?) since I have anti rachet drive sprockets. Hopefully this will allow the track to spin more freely.


Any other suggestions or discussion would be appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,198 Posts
Mileage suggestions...............

-take ski pressure till you don't have enough bite then add a tad back in
-as you already stated, run the track looser
-more idlers perhaps?
-how does your clutching feel with the long track? Perhaps a little more sluggish requiring extra throttle for the same cruise speeds? Maybe cut back on the helix a tad or two.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,413 Posts
Something, or a combination of things must be going on here... I did the front end mod before the motor got turned into a 1050. The 800 with stock track got the same mileage regardless of the front end.

On the stock MountainCat 1000 skid, is it a TSL skid?

If not, that might explain why it's spec'd tighter.

Since you're still using a TSL setup, even with lengthened rails, keep track tension to spec for the original 121" stock TSL skid.

Also, you have a longer lug track... The OEM was .85", going to a longer lug (.4") automatically decreases mileage by a bit.

So the front end handling & all-round front end performance (as compared to stock) gets your approval?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
What type of track? Is it one of those closed window, clipped every third Ripsaw tracks? If so that is the problem. I noticed the same thing. Those closed windows cause a lot of drag on the slides. I would cut them out and see if that improves your mileage.

Last year I tried a 121" Ripsaw for 1000 miles and noticed my mileage went down to 8 mpg. After putting the stock track back in it went back up to normal. I did a lot of searching on some different forums and over on Totally Yamaha and Snowest tons of guys had cut the windows out and not had a problem with durability. I also had a problem with track rubbing on the front heat exchanger so I ended up trading that track for a 1".

From now on only fully clipped, open window tracks for me.

Kevin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,198 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KevinS @ Dec 29 2006, 08:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
What type of track? Is it one of those closed window, clipped every third Ripsaw tracks? If so that is the problem. I noticed the same thing. Those closed windows cause a lot of drag on the slides. I would cut them out and see if that improves your mileage.

Last year I tried a 121" Ripsaw for 1000 miles and noticed my mileage went down to 8 mpg. After putting the stock track back in it went back up to normal. I did a lot of searching on some different forums and over on Totally Yamaha and Snowest tons of guys had cut the windows out and not had a problem with durability. I also had a problem with track rubbing on the front heat exchanger so I ended up trading that track for a 1".

From now on only fully clipped, open window tracks for me.

Kevin[/b]
Must have been running your track way too tight? I've been running the closed every third 1.25 tracks for thousands of miles since '01 (25,000+++). In the group of 800/900 guys I ride with my sled is always either the one to beat or on par mileage wise with the best of em. Only went to an open every window this year because of getting a killer deal on it. Slider life on my sled has been stellar compared to pretty much everyone I ride with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zr sled head @ Dec 29 2006, 08:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Must have been running your track way too tight? I've been running the closed every third 1.25 tracks for thousands of miles since '01 (25,000+++). In the group of 800/900 guys I ride with my sled is always either the one to beat or on par mileage wise with the best of em. Only went to an open every window this year because of getting a killer deal on it. Slider life on my sled has been stellar compared to pretty much everyone I ride with.[/b]
No. The track wasn't too tight. I tried playing with the track tension but it made no difference. I left it at spec. 2" with a 20 lb weight. If you look at the sliders on a sled with the closed windows you can see black marks from the rubber. With the fully clipped tracks the steel rubbing on the sliders has a lot less friction then rubber on the sliders.

You are also not comparing apples to apples. Put a fully clipped .85" track on that 900 and I bet your mileage goes up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,198 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KevinS @ Dec 29 2006, 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zr sled head @ Dec 29 2006, 08:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Must have been running your track way too tight? I've been running the closed every third 1.25 tracks for thousands of miles since '01 (25,000+++). In the group of 800/900 guys I ride with my sled is always either the one to beat or on par mileage wise with the best of em. Only went to an open every window this year because of getting a killer deal on it. Slider life on my sled has been stellar compared to pretty much everyone I ride with.[/b]
No. The track wasn't too tight. I tried playing with the track tension but it made no difference. I left it at spec. 2" with a 20 lb weight. If you look at the sliders on a sled with the closed windows you can see black marks from the rubber. With the fully clipped tracks the steel rubbing on the sliders has a lot less friction then rubber on the sliders.

You are also not comparing apples to apples. Put a fully clipped .85" track on that 900 and I bet your mileage goes up.
[/b][/quote]

No sir it will not................got one in the group(zr800) running a shorty track, rest are running either 1" or 1.25. Driving for mileage my former 800 cce (factory 1.25 track) saw just shy of 16mpg, current 900 is capable of that and maybe then some.
Heard all the stories about closed every third tracks eating sliders when I purchased my first '02 800 cce and was tempted to take it off before even riding it, thankfully funds would not allow. Also heard the stories about the 1.25's eating front head exchangers under hard braking, I'm an absolute animal / hold it to the bar corner to corner rider and have yet to nick an exchanger (yes studded). I've also yet to replace sliders mid season in spite of having a couple of 7500+ mile years (did just wear through / nick the front retainer bolt during the last ride one season).
Also don't buy into the deep lug tracks won't last idea, only took an 8000-ish mile track off my first 800 as a matter of good maint, track looked a little worn on the lugs (as is should) but was still in good shape with zero rips / damaged lugs or tear outs.
Sorry for the off topic rant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (zr sled head @ Dec 29 2006, 09:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
No sir it will not................got one in the group(zr800) running a shorty track, rest are running either 1" or 1.25. Driving for mileage my former 800 cce (factory 1.25 track) saw just shy of 16mpg, current 900 is capable of that and maybe then some.
Heard all the stories about closed every third tracks eating sliders when I purchased my first '02 800 cce and was tempted to take it off before even riding it, thankfully funds would not allow. Also heard the stories about the 1.25's eating front head exchangers under hard braking, I'm an absolute animal / hold it to the bar corner to corner rider and have yet to nick an exchanger (yes studded). I've also yet to replace sliders mid season in spite of having a couple of 7500+ mile years (did just wear through / nick the front retainer bolt during the last ride one season).
Also don't buy into the deep lug tracks won't last idea, only took an 8000-ish mile track off my first 800 as a matter of good maint, track looked a little worn on the lugs (as is should) but was still in good shape with zero rips / damaged lugs or tear outs.
Sorry for the off topic rant.[/b]
I can't explain it then because your results were definately the complete opposite from mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,198 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rad8165 @ Dec 29 2006, 11:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I must say! you guys are beefing up and are crying about gas milage? Sorry had to be said![/b]
Not sure what you mean..................for folks that crank on big miles or ride in remote areas, fuel mileage / range is a very real issue. The $$ figure I spend during a 7 or 8000 mile season is not for the faint of heart, let's not forget fueling up the tow vehicle or other consumables like oil / belts etc.
No unlimited budget here, gotta save where I can / no way I'd consider riding less miles.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
230 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ank767 @ Dec 29 2006, 07:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
This summer I did the AGLT front end and changed from a 121" to 136" track on my 98' T-cat.

Over the last couple of years I would frequently compare how much gas I took at the pump to my riding buddies. I was usually happy to find that my machine used the same or less gas than others. My primary riding partner has an F7.

I have riden my machine twice this year after the mods(with my F7 buddy) for a total of about 250 miles. While I am very happy with the ride and handling, it seams to be using quite a bit more fuel. On average I used 20% - 30% more than the F7.

Here are some more details about the mods (before and after)

Track: Was 121" x .88" lug with 141 studs, Now 136" x 1.25 lug / no studs. Both tracks weigh exactly the same.

Skis: Was stock AC W/10" carbide, Now Powder Pros W/6" carbide.

Some of my thoughts are:
The AGLT front end is causing the skis to stay on the ground nearly 100% of the time, before the mod they were in the air a fair amount. I also thought about the dramatic change in camber angle over the range of travel due to the AGLT mod. The new skis make a larger footprint and have a more complex keel shape than the stock ones. Could this cause more friction?

The longer track may have more friction against the sliders and the taller lugs might have an affect on drag.

Solutions?
I'm going to align the skis using a 5/8" steel bar. I will remove the skis and intert the bar through the spindles to adjust the ride height and tow so the skis are flat and straight (maybe a slight tow out).

The 98' T-cat Owners manual that I have covers both the Std. and Mountain Cat. Since the 136" mod essetially made my machine into a mountain cat I thought the track adjustment specs may now apply. I was surprised to see that according to the manual, the long track is supposed to be tighter than the short one. I originally set it up this way (1.25" of distance between the track and rail at center with 20 lbs of force). I'm going to loosen the track a little (maybe 2" of distance?) since I have anti rachet drive sprockets. Hopefully this will allow the track to spin more freely.


Any other suggestions or discussion would be appreciated.[/b]
Another front end mod will not change your fuel economy whats-so-ever. I have had widened ski-stances on my sleds since 1999. A taller lug track will definitely without a doubt eat up more gas being more power needed to turn the track to compensate for the paddle acting as a big fan pulling air, snow and whatever else into the tunnel area. I took the 2" paddle off of my t-cat and found a very noticable change in my fuel economy for the better with the 1" track with 242 studs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Thanks for all of the replies and advice.

I did some work yesterday and did the following:

Checked ski alignment;
They were perfect. Just a little (1/16") tow out.
I did notice that with the AGLT mod, the shocks must be really loose to lower the front end enough to make the skis completely flat. The higher the ride height is the more negative camber angle you get.
I decided to keep it about where I had it. Roughly 2" higher than stock. It seems that the camber stays fairly consistent in the middle of the suspension travel and the angle is not too significant.

Loosened Track;
I loosened it quite a bit and it definitely freed up significantly. I am running the no-slip drive cogs and anti-stab roller kit so I'm told that I can run the track loose. But how loose it the big question. I currently have about 3" with 20 lbs. This seems excessive by normal standards but I have not been able to find anything stating what is acceptable.

Does anyone know what is "ok" track tension with this setup?

I don't know what you mean AG by "TSL" setup.
I have stock AC 136" rails, not a kit (well sort of). I bought them on Ebay and the Instruction sheet that I got says that they were parts 0704-372 & 0704-373 that were originally contained in a AC factory "Mountain Cat Conversion Kit" #0639-982 & 0639-983.

I noticed a couple of other things that seem like they may matter.
I have an AD Boivin rear suspension link installed.
The instructions tell you to loosen the limiter straps all the way (this is how I had them set).
I use a hook in my ceiling to raise the rear of the sled off the floor and noticed that the geometry of the skid frame had the front of the skid lower than the back.
This causes the anti-stab rollers to have a lot of pressure and doesn't look right.
I read in another post someone suggested dropping the rear of the skid frame to the lower bolt holes.

Should the tail rollers be lower than the front of the skid? Would this make the machine float better on powder? What will it do to trail handling?

I also looked at my clutch and secondary.

Here's a tip for you all.... I bought a brand new AC drive belt from Total Power Sports (an AC dealer in Gaylord) and it was not to spec.
The belt my machine calls for #0627-020 should be 47-3/4" long and 1.34" - 1.40" wide. The one I bought was 1.33". I measured it after 50 miles or so. The old one I took off was 1.348".
I think I was running this junk belt when I noticed the poor fuel economy. I'm sure this had some affect.

Yesterday I bought a new belt and re-shimmed my secondary. I'm sure this will help.

Here's another one for you...
I thought I'd try the newer kevlar belt #0627-031. It has the exact same dimensions as the 0627-020. This is the belt used on a 2003 F7.

What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ank767 @ Dec 30 2006, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I noticed a couple of other things that seem like they may matter.
I have an AD Boivin rear suspension link installed.
The instructions tell you to loosen the limiter straps all the way (this is how I had them set).
I use a hook in my ceiling to raise the rear of the sled off the floor and noticed that the geometry of the skid frame had the front of the skid lower than the back.
This causes the anti-stab rollers to have a lot of pressure and doesn't look right.
I read in another post someone suggested dropping the rear of the skid frame to the lower bolt holes.

Should the tail rollers be lower than the front of the skid? Would this make the machine float better on powder? What will it do to trail handling?[/b]
The track and suspension rails should be parallel with the ground. When you lower the sled the front and rear of the track should be touching at the same time. When the suspension is coupled and the front of the skid is up higher than the rear your suspension will be very loose. I noticed this on my sled when I had the engine out. With that lack of weight up front the springs raised the front end high enough so that the front of the skid was off the ground. When it was light that the rear suspension felt very loose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
I am sorry, I didnt get my point across abit better!I had read somwhere in this site that the older sleds are still fast and thats is because of a lack of comfort! the newer sleds are better riding with better track and ski travel, but all this takes away from the horsepower! So the older sleds are still fast compared to the newbies,To me this tells me it is gonna eat more gas when you do these mods! I also think or look at it like this, I soup up a car make it faster, I am gonna eat more gas!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,413 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ank767 @ Dec 30 2006, 10:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
I decided to keep it about where I had it. Roughly 2" higher than stock.[/b]
2" higher than stock is just about perfect. Too much higher, the skid travel range will be lacking.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Does anyone know what is "ok" track tension with this setup? I have stock AC 136" rails, not a kit (well sort of). I bought them on Ebay and the Instruction sheet that I got says that they were parts 0704-372 & 0704-373 that were originally contained in a AC factory "Mountain Cat Conversion Kit" #0639-982 & 0639-983.[/b]
I believe it's the same tension as with a 121" skid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I don't know what you mean AG by "TSL" setup.[/b]
TSL refers to a specific skid style that has a Torque Sensing Link #23. Skids with the TSL come stock on sleds with ETT tunnels (Extra Travel Tunnel). A TSL style of skid will work in a straight tunnel no probs (non-ETT) :



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I have an AD Boivin rear suspension link installed. The instructions tell you to loosen the limiter straps all the way (this is how I had them set). I use a hook in my ceiling to raise the rear of the sled off the floor and noticed that the geometry of the skid frame had the front of the skid lower than the back. This causes the anti-stab rollers to have a lot of pressure and doesn't look right.
I read in another post someone suggested dropping the rear of the skid frame to the lower bolt holes.

Should the tail rollers be lower than the front of the skid? Would this make the machine float better on powder? What will it do to trail handling?[/b]
Use the stock bolt hole locations in the tunnel.

Kevin S. is right about the front & rear of rails touching the floor at the same time when lifting the rear of the sled. When you do this, the front ski springs must be dialed in though... So since you have about 2" higher than stock on the front, the current ski spring setting will work to setup strap length.

The thing is, when you lift the rear of the sled, it compresses the front ski springs, so they have to be pretty close to set strap length.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top