Rzr S or 900?

[ngoodey]

I'm looking at a few RZRs. What's the difference in the RZR s and the 900 besides the S is an 800 and the other is 900? Which does everyone prefer?

[fishlips]

go 900. it's way worth the extra money it will cost. I also have a 4 seater and I think it drives much beter than the 2 seater, unless you put 4 adults in it and it wont turn.

[ngoodey]

I thought about going with the 4 seater but didn't think it would be as versatile. I ride in the mountains alot and there are some smaller trails. Would it do ok up there?

[fishlips]

the 4 will go anywhere a 2 will go. Just invest in a skid as the longer wheel base will scrape more. other than that there is no other downside that I have found with mine. all the Baja guys are racing 4's for a reason.

[Just Mike]

The 900 hands down.

[mineurbiz]

900 fo sho

[ngoodey]

Ok. That's what I was reading but thought I'd get "expert" opinions

[raspadoo]

900 unless the trails you ride have width restrictions, our local mountains have some with barricades set up to limit width, the 900 is way too wide to fit through.

[Sandpirates2]

I agree with the 900 being restricted on trails..

Edited February 7, 2014 by Sandpirates2

[Sandpirates2]

That was the biggest decision break for us about 2 seated vs 4 was although we spend time in the sand the tight trails like up at Piaute or Duck Creek and even Marysville in Utah the restriction on most of the trails is 50" width. The 2 seat depending on RZR or Can-am is 54" and just squeaks through whereas the 4 seat ver are mostly 60" or more and we've seen a lot of them turned back for access not to mention both the Forest Service and BLM are now popping tickets for oversized. The last thing is 147" vs. 118" in length. Again although on the bigger trails its not a big challenge it is big time on the smaller tight trails where the switch backs are really tight....so for the powerside we went with the Can-Am 1000 X.

SP2

Mike