[kyle]

I've had some down time to look around at the suspension options for the wife's Teryx and I see everyone has settled on +6 it seems.

With the relationship being similar yet so different between the UTV's, how did that come to be? The Teryx is wider than the Rhino so why doesn't the Rhino have +8 arms (or maybe I've missed them since I've mostly looked at Teryx items)?

On the quads, 50" is the max for MX and I'd kinda hate to go back to the stock width but there is the limit so the mfg's only go the the +2 wider give or take a little. The overall width is the same from mfg to mfg. That doesn't appear to be the case for the UTV's or do I just need to "get out more"?

I don't keep up with any racing so I don't know if there is a max width for them like for ATV's?

Is the +6 a compromise, better geometry, what is the reason?

Just curious.

[dieselpowered]

I can tell you that the cost between the 3" 4" and 6" is pretty close to the same.

You do bring up a good question though, why 6" is there a reason behind it?

As far a geometry, some builders consider that, others do not. For example, our FST kit relocated the upper and lower shock mounts to keep the geometry correct. Some other kits just relocate the bottom shock mount, thus throwing off the geometry.

[Thunderhawk]

CORR rules specify 72" maximum width and also state that "all a-arm mounting points must remain in the stock location and position as delivered from the manufacturer; however they may be reinforced for strength".

With the stock Teryx width listed at 58.3", the +6 kits come in just under the rules limit.

[dieselpowered]

Hmmm I am going to have to ask about that and get some specifics. I do not know them, therefore, will need to talk to the builder.

[jtgroover]

Many of the Teryx kits are also +5 which is what I know FabTech is offering.

[dieselpowered]

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

CORR rules specify 72" maximum width and also state that "all a-arm mounting points must remain in the stock location and position as delivered from the manufacturer; however they may be reinforced for strength".

With the stock Teryx width listed at 58.3", the +6 kits come in just under the rules limit.

Correct, however, they can change shock mounting locations in order to keep the geometry correct

[Thunderhawk]

Correct, however, they can change shock mounting locations in order to keep the geometry correct

Yes, only the a-arm mounting points are specified as remining in the stock locations.

Whenever a long-travel kit is designed, the shock mounts should be moved or the spring rates must be drastically altered.

[dieselpowered]

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

Yes, only the a-arm mounting points are specified as remining in the stock locations.

Whenever a long-travel kit is designed, the shock mounts should be moved or the spring rates must be drastically altered.

Yes sir, that is correct. I know FST and Funco do that, from my understanding though, Funco only does that on their race kit, not their play kit. The FST kit is the same kit they run on the race car.

[kyle]

So let me ask this guys. Generally up until 2009, sport 450's were generally 46" wide so everyone makes +2 so things generally are pretty simple until you get in the +3 arms with different offset wheels......

Now, so the max race width is 72", got that. That means the Teryx gets +6 arms. I forget exactly what the Rhino is but I think it would take +8 to get there. Take the RZR and a guy could have +10 or 11 arms. Are companies making arms that wide? Seems awfully long and there's got to be so much thought to how those would work without lots of changes.

I don't keep up with the racing part, it's interesting but I just don't have time so are guys out there giving up those extra inches and running narrower than others ie RZR with +6 arms.


Thanks, Kyle

[SSV Works]

I actually don't know of any Teryx kits that are +6.
CST's is +3
Funco is +4
custom creations +4 ( i think)
Long travel industries +5
I think XMF is a +5 (i think)

Trevor