Polaris Ranger… range

[SaltyBowman]

I’m considering buying a Polaris ranger to put tracks on and keep in Alaska. The current 570’s have a 9 gallon gas tank and the 1000’s have an 11.5. Obviously fuel consumption is different but I can find no reliable data on which machine will have better overall range. Does anyone have any experience how different the mpg is in general? Thanks

 

[TSAMP]

I am not certain on actual range but I am confident that whatever it is, it will go out the window when you put tracks on the machine. I've spent some time in a can am with and without tracks. It's basically red lined going 20 with tracks, and a pleasure to ride in on wheels..

 

[isItFallYet]

I have a 570 that I can get almost 200 miles a tank if in 2wd and not riding like I stole it!

 

[Elkdreamer]

Not much help here on exact topic but thought I would post so people could compare. I get right at 10 mpg in my RZR 1000 cruising around with the wife.

 

[Baddog]

I to have a 570 and can get close to 200 miles while cruising around. I wouldn’t think tracks on it would work very well. It doesn’t have much torque.

 

[tt_johnsclist]

I would go 1000 engine if you are considering tracks. Like others said, tracks are going to drastically cut your mileage and range.

 

[SaltyBowman]

Thanks for the info. I’ve run a ranger 900 crew with tracks and am aware the power and economy loss. I had a can am 1000 outlander 6x6 that was mighty hard on fuel. Just riding flat land cruising it could not run 75 miles without needing gas. My brother on a Honda foreman 500 does burn a Quarter tank riding that like. The smaller engine will be hit harder with bigger tires or trucks but I still don’t know in the long run which machine is better for the job.

 

[Billy Goat]

If range is that big of a factor, why not just carry extra fuel?

You can get flat stackable fuel containers that won't effect your carrying capacity much outside of the additional weight of the fuel.

Either is going to suck fuel with tracks.

 

[SaltyBowman]

I have always carried extra fuel I’m just looking for the most effective machine. My cabin is a long ways from the black top the less efficient a machine is means the less I can use it when I get out there. Fuel is a precious commodity in the bush.

 

[Billy Goat]

I have always carried extra fuel I’m just looking for the most effective machine. My cabin is a long ways from the black top the less efficient a machine is means the less I can use it when I get out there. Fuel is a precious commodity in the bush.

Right, I get that. Just you were asking range, not overall economy.


Are you going to be using this to haul materials? Or is it simply a mode of transportation. If only transportation, with very light loads, then maybe the 570, but otherwise you are going to want the 1000.

It's going to take x-amount of power to turn those tracks, the 1000 has more torque and it's going to roll them over easier, requiring less throttle input which will probably equal about the same amount of air/fuel. Basically it's going to take this much air and this much fuel to make this much power. It's going to take a similar amount of power to turn the tracks on both machines. Whereas with just tires it takes a lot less power to just run the machine around, and the lighter machine wins.



I wonder if a snowmobile and an atv would work better. Both kinda purpose built, rather than one that kinda sucks for both. Utv's are heavy, put a lot more weight on tires the same size as an atv, they are also quick to get high centered with the longer wheel base. A snowmobile is just that, a vehicle for getting around in the snow, and it's pretty good at it.

In the right conditions a utv is great, but I'm not sold on the tracks unless it's just a whole lotta swamp, and I think then you will just be getting stuck further away from everything.

Maybe you have already experimented with atv's and snowmobiles.

 

[Yellowknife]

I've owned a couple 570's and used several others for work. Both mid-sized and full-sized. Range is great on wheels. It's a good economical motor. I've never carried extra fuel even for multi day trips.

Tracks though... I don't think that's the machine for tracks. Those McPherson strut front ends are ok for stock'ish set ups, but I've rebuilt every part of them at one time or another. Most recently replaced a broken front spring on the current 570 Crew just this Sunday. I would NOT trust them to handle tracks for regular use. Wheel bearings and tie rod ends go fast even with 27" tires and I've sheared those light 3/8" wheel lugs too.

The bigger Rangers get you a heavier duty hub set, larger wheel lugs, and stronger A-arms. All pretty critical parts.

 

[SaltyBowman]

It sounds like the 570 just isn’t going to cut it. I will be using it to haul stuff in and out when things are wet in spring and summer. The snow machines are great for winter but in summer my options are tracks or float plane. Closest ridge I can set a bush plane down on is several miles from the cabin. I may have to read some about modern Argos. I’ve run an old carbureted headache and it wasn’t too enjoyable. Thanks everyone for chiming in.

 

[Ropin4gold]

All the argos I’ve ever been around were big pieces of shit.

 

[swampthing]

We use tracks at work in the winter on out UTVs. They use considerably more fuel due to the gear reduction built into the tracks. We lose about 60% of the range we have on tires. In easy conditions I can go about 200km or 120 miles on a ranger 1000. In the winter that range drops to about 45-55 miles. Actually maybe a bit less!