We’re excited to announce the first installment of our ongoing UTV Shootout that we’re going to refer to as the Fab 5. And, to begin our testing, we tested all 5 stock UTVs at the muddiest place on earth: Jacksonville, TX at the Highlifter Mud Nationals. There’s nothing like starting with the toughest terrain on a vehicle to springboard our testing, right? But before we jump into the details of the results, let’s talk a little about what we have in store for you in these upcoming articles. It’s our understanding that people buy UTVs for multiple reasons, from high-speed desert racing to low-speed rock crawling and everything in between. In our opinion, there have been a few tests here and there that try to encompass all types of terrains, but the fact is people ride these vehicles all across the country and the terrains vary widely from place to place. Of course, us Westerners are used to the dunes, rock crawling, and high-speed desert running, but we’re not so well versed in mudding and tight woods trail riding, and vice versa. Of course, we’d all like to have all types of terrain nearby to ride, but the reality is we usually have a few places or types of terrain we ride and that’s it. So, our goal at UTV Off-Road Magazine is to test these UTVs in every off-road terrain that exists for our readers so you can then easily decide which vehicle seems to fit your needs the best. So, we chose the following vehicles for our testing:
- The Arctic Cat Prowler XTX 700
- Kawasaki Teryx 750
- Polaris Ranger XP 700
- Polaris RZR 800
- Yamaha Rhino 700
If you’ve been around the sport for any length of time, you’ve probably heard of each of these vehicles, and have studied the specifications. But you may
not have had a chance to do is ride in them all. So, our goal is to give you an in-depth analysis of our likes, our dislikes, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Our intention isn’t to declare one overall winner at the end of this article or the end of the final article of this series, but rather give you the tools you need to pick the vehicle that best suits your needs. And if you’re wondering if our results are skewed by advertising dollars, think again. We have no motivation to lean one way or the other with our results. In fact, we believe that manufacturers know what’s good and bad with their vehicles, and we’re only here acting as a third party to validate that for the consumer. But, along these same lines, it’s very difficult providing accurate results from a test as extensive as this. We had 4 test riders, 2 from UTV Off-Road Magazine and 2 consumers. The goal was to have some expert opinions of the vehicles from folks that drive them on a regular basis, in addition to feedback from folks that don’t or haven’t spent a lot of time in them. Our two consumer test riders are avid 4wheeler riders, so they know how to ride, just not as fluent in the UTV industry as they are with ATVs. We didn’t want folks that had never been off-roading before, obviously, but we really didn’t want the racer equivalent, either. But, by having a mix of driver experience, we believe our results are going to appeal to all ranges of potential UTV owners, whether you own one now or not. We hope you agree! And, if mud is not your thing, stay tuned for separate upcoming tests that will include desert, dunes, and rock crawling with these same 5 vehicles.
We opted to test the vehicles the day everyone was arriving at the Mud Nationals, because we knew as more and more folks drove on the trails, the deeper and nastier the trails would get. And, given that our UTVs were all in stock form without snorkels and huge tires, this was our best day to do the testing without destroying them. We believe we drove them as they would be driven by a consumer. We didn’t drive them to destroy them, but rather hard enough to push each of their limits to provide adequate results. So, the day before, we needed to map out a course that presented enough of a challenge that not everyone would make it through, and yet not too hard that none of us would make it through, either. This proved to be somewhat challenging given the nature of the terrain down there. If you’ve never been, we’d recommend going with folks that know the area well, because in no time at all you can be in places you need a winch or more in no time at all. But, after spending the better half of the day 
before finding trails, we found a nice loop that was just less than 5 miles long. The route consisted of watery mud, soupy mud, and stuff you could barely walk through. Most of it ranged from 1-2’ deep with a few spots that were a little deeper at times. It ranged from sandy bottoms to down right nasty green algae infested stinky mud. If you ride in mud, I think we were introduced to all kinds down there, that’s for sure. In fact, I was wondering what was beginning to grow on Troy’s face after we were all done testing! Okay, just kidding, but let’s just say we were covered head to toe in mud after this testing was done.
So, now that we’ve covered the type of terrain on the course we picked out, let’s cover how we actually did the testing. Before we even got the vehicles muddy, we wanted to test some ground clearance measurements. We felt ground clearance is one of those areas that can be misleading due to the weight that may actually be in the unit. So, here’s where everyone stacked up with full tanks of gas and 7psi in the tires:
We wanted to mimic what most people head out on the trails with, including gear, coolers, etc, so we figured average rider weights of 230 lbs each and 200 lbs in the bed. It wasn’t designed to max out any of the vehicles, but instead just mimic what we see out on the trails when we’re out riding. We also know that most people don’t ride around with the pre-load on their shocks turned all the way up, but since we had stock machines, no snorkels, and stock height tires, we knew we were going to need as much ground clearance as possible.
So, now to the fun part: testing! So, lock ‘em in 4wd and let’s go! But, before we took off, we had a pre-ride/test meeting to let all of us know how it was going to work once we got to the testing area. I explained that at the end of each course, we’d get together one-on-one away from each other to report our findings for that particular vehicle. I wanted to keep the responses of each driver away from the others, so nobody was influenced by anyone else’s responses. In addition, we wanted to get each driver’s opinions with and without the 200 lbs in the bed. Needless to say that with all these machines, we knew we were in for a long day of testing. Each comment is as it applies to driving in the mud. Future tests will be tailored around each specific terrain and should yield different results.
After our first run out with each vehicle, it was clear to me that compiling all these results was going to be quite challenging, maybe close to impossible. It became clear to me that I wanted to get each driver’s first impressions right after they drove them, then if they were at a loss of words, begin asking them specifics. At the end of the each run, instead of prettying up the results, we wanted to give you the raw comments from each of the testers, then provide a synopsis thereafter. While we know that this is totally different than any other test you’ve seen to date, we felt it important to include these comments from four different drivers with four different driving skills, likes and dislikes. Check out the driver comments on the following pages.
The reason we did this test the way we did is because we soon realized after only a couple of runs that each tester had drastically differing views on each machine. Our riders ranged from 6’4” tall to 5’10” tall, from 250 lbs, to sub-180 lbs; from size 10 boots to size 15 boots, so needless to say it was pretty easy to understand why this was the case. You can find our thoughts on each of the vehicle pages where there are a few things that really stood out on each of them that we pointed out.
Polaris Ranger XP 700 EFI
It’s easy to put stars to something and leave the interpretation up to you, our readers, but instead, let us explain why we chose these overall ratings. To begin with, steering and turning becomes very important in tight woods trails, such as what was available to us at the Mud Nationals. Add super slick mud to that equation and all of a sudden steering dynamics are changed dramatically.
So, for the Ranger with the automatic locking AWD system, just like on the RZR, these got the highest remarks for slow-speed turning, because they pushed the least with and without weight. Essentially, what happens is if the rear isn’t overrunning the front, the vehicle is driving in 2wd. But, as soon as the rear overruns (turns faster than) the front wheels, the front end kicks in fully locked just like pressing the diff locks on the other machines. At high speeds, the difference isn’t as noticeable, so mostly slow speeds makes the biggest difference.
For power response, in this category, the Ranger, if put head-to-head with any of the others, would be the slowest accelerating machine of the bunch, because of its brawny weight and lower gearing. But, in tight woods trail riding with lots of mud, the Ranger’s combination did excellent. We didn’t give it a 5 star, because it’s still a tad underpowered. But for this type of terrain, it does really well. An 800 in this Ranger would make it outstanding, though…hint, hint! When it came to suspension, the Ranger hands down had the most supple and compliant suspension of the bunch, giving it the highest ranking in this category.
In the ergonomics category, this was a tough one, because each of the drivers felt they got used to the bus-like seating arrangement, yet almost all of them would desire a tilt wheel to make it more comfortable. Overall, we had to agree that with a tilt wheel, the Ranger’s ergonomics, although different with the bench seat, would definitely be ranking higher. As far as braking goes, the Ranger’s disc brakes and electronic disable feature on the parking brake give it 5 stars in this area. As far as ground clearance goes, the Ranger sits up the highest of the bunch with either the highest recorded heights or close to it when we measured it. It rarely hit bottom in deep ruts, and if it did, it pulled right through with no problem.
Polaris RZR 800 EFI
The RZR, for us, at least, has been one of those machines that has an edge to it, in many respects. The steering and turning for the RZR was spot on just like the Ranger XP. I think, as is with the Ranger, the AWD system works very well to not inhibit the steering while driving slowly. Although the steering was precise and tight by most drivers’ remarks, it did cat walk more than the rest, which I think was due to more weight biased towards the rear. It wasn’t unmanageable by any means, and it actually made it fun, at times, but should be pointed out.
The power response, obviously, is the best of the bunch, hands down. And because of its sporty nature, the suspension with front and rear sway bars made for the stiffest ride of the group, as well. It tended to lift tires more frequently, but it sure didn’t seem to slow it down. In regards to ergonomics, most of our test drivers were rather tall and large framed guys, and, in general, felt the RZR was very comfortable. Everything was within easy reach, and the laid back seats made for sports car like driving position. The braking on the RZR was on par with the best of them, with great feel and little to no fading in a full day of riding in mud. The main area that seemed to be lacking the RZR for mud riding is ground clearance. But, even though it was the lowest of the bunch, when it bottomed out, the tires would still pull it through. Whether it was the overabundance of engine power or the lightness of the machine, it didn’t seem to matter if it bottomed out or not through the ruts.
Kawasaki Teryx 750
Ah, the newest of the UTVs to enter the mix, and what a great performance it had. The Teryx to most people is a hopped-up, slightly larger Rhino. So, let’s jump into the results. In the steering category, this was a hard one to judge. As mentioned earlier, the Teryx and Rhino seemed to push more than the others in slow-speed turning. The Teryx tended to do it a little more than the Rhino, and the other main reason for the 3 stars is the steering is slower to respond than the others. I’m not 100% sure, but it seems that the gearing in the steering rack could be sped up to react quicker and even have a better turning radius, as well.
The power response was great. It had plenty of low end grunt and no trouble turning the tires in the stickiest of mud. The suspension on the Teryx is another area where it really shines. Other than the Ranger XP, the Teryx had the best riding suspension for this slower speed, rutted out muddy riding we were doing. It never seemed to buck in the rear, which may be due to some of the additional weight in the rear. As far as ergonomics go, the Teryx ranks very highly with the rest of them with really the only frustrating thing being your foot wants to slide off to the right of the gas pedal. Since the center hump isn’t close to the pedal, it’s hard to rest your ankle. The other thing we’d like to see is gauges, which we know comes on the upgraded edition. Outside of that, the Teryx was very comfortable to drive, and everything else seemed to be in the perfect place. When it came to braking, one of the things we’ve always liked about Kawasaki is the sealed rear brake. It’s a great design that keeps dirt and grime out of it to make for one long lasting rear brake. As far as ground clearance goes, the Teryx, although as tested seemed nearly as high as the rest, it hung up a few more times than the rest, for whatever reason. Overall, it did great, but we noticed as the day wore on that it had to be pulled out a few more times, which could merely have to do with driver or tires in some cases.
Yamaha Rhino 700 EFI
The Rhino has been the benchmark sport utility machine that every manufacturer has built around. It’s morphed into what we now refer to as the ultimate jack of all trades, excelling at no particular one area, yet not missing anything in another area, either. When we began this test, we were hoping for much larger differences between the vehicles to make our analysis easier, but the reality is all these machines have come a long way in perfecting the things consumers have disliked in the past. And, luckily for us, this year these machines have all risen to new levels, including the Rhino. For the steering department on the Rhino, it tended to push a little more in slow-speed turning, with or without the diff lock engaged. With the 200 lbs in the bed, it tended to do it a little bit more, as well, but the nice thing is the Rhino seemed to have a tight turning radius, as well. We gave it 4 stars, since it did it more than the 5-star Polaris vehicles, but keep in mind this wasn’t a dramatic difference. In the power response category, we like the low end throttle response that the new 700EFI provided, and the only reason it didn’t get 5 stars in the comparison is because the RZR and Teryx seemed to edge it out a tad. In the suspension category, Yamaha has come a long way with this year’s model in regards to overall ride quality. It rode very comparable to the Teryx, but a little stiffer in the rear with a little more rebound kick. This has been something ailing the Rhino since the beginning, but this year the rear end bounce is nearly gone, which was great to see. As far as ergonomics go, the Rhino has been touted to have some of the best in the business, and we’d have to agree. It’s very comfortable to ride in all day, the steering wheel angle is nice and neutral, and everything is within easy reach of the driver’s seat. As far as braking goes, Yamaha made another huge improvement by going with disc brakes all the way around. If this was last year, they’d get 4 stars, but this year definitely a 5. In the ground clearance category, it ranked right up near the top for keeping us from getting high centered and stuck, giving it a 5-star rating for ground clearance, as well.
Summary
So, there you have it. Oh, wait a minute, you’re probably wondering why the Prowler wasn’t in the mix of the testing. Well, one of the difficult things in lining up a test like this is getting all the vehicles in on time, and needless to say we didn’t give Arctic Cat quite enough time to fulfill our demanding needs. With the huge demand for the new Prowler XTX’s, we were finally able to get our test vehicle the day before the event was over. As we got to the beginning of the test area after a day of rain, the course had changed, which was apparent from the 9 vehicles we saw stuck in the mud at the beginning of our course. Since this was the easy part of the course, we knew that our testing could not take place because the course had obviously changed. There was no way any stock machine was going to ride the same trails we did days before. Testing in a different location would yield totally different results, and we did not feel it would be fair to Arctic Cat or to our readers. We did feel, however, it was important to put in at least the ground clearance specs for you to compare.
These results only apply to driving in the mud. In our future tests, the results will obviously differ because the terrain will be significantly different than mud. As far as vehicle specifications are concerned, they will be in the final segment of the tests. If you have been wondering how each of these vehicles performs in the mud, this test should enlighten you and help you make a decision on which vehicle to choose. If you do a lot of mud riding and you are on the fence about what vehicle best suits your needs, we hope this will help give you that nudge you needed. If you don’t drive in the mud, stay tuned as our next test takes place in Moab for some serious rock crawling. We will also be hitting the dunes and the desert for more performance evaluation on each of these vehicles.
Review By: UTV Off-Road Magazine
