I have a 2007 IQ 600 CFI that has the 1.25" Ripsaw track (Snow-Check Option) instead of the 1.0" Hacksaw.
The sled has never run well at the top end. I can only get about 94 mph, and the engines runs at 7700- 7900 rpm.
Does the taller lug on the ripsaw track affect clutching? Any suggestions on what to change if the track is affecting the clutching. My dealer service manager says the track will not have any impact on clutching, but will rob 2-3 mph on the top end.
I also only get about 10 mpg, whether running hard or moderately. Dealer has not been able to help.
I read about quite a few 600 CFI's that claim to be able to hit 102-104 mph, and are getting 12 -14 mpg.
I would be happy to get one of the two, preferably the 100 mph.
Full Version: Does Ripsaw Track affect Clutching
QUOTE(steve b @ Feb 5 2008, 01:23 PM) 
I have a 2007 IQ 600 CFI that has the 1.25" Ripsaw track (Snow-Check Option) instead of the 1.0" Hacksaw.
The sled has never run well at the top end. I can only get about 94 mph, and the engines runs at 7700- 7900 rpm.
Does the taller lug on the ripsaw track affect clutching? Any suggestions on what to change if the track is affecting the clutching. My dealer service manager says the track will not have any impact on clutching, but will rob 2-3 mph on the top end.
I also only get about 10 mpg, whether running hard or moderately. Dealer has not been able to help.
I read about quite a few 600 CFI's that claim to be able to hit 102-104 mph, and are getting 12 -14 mpg.
I would be happy to get one of the two, preferably the 100 mph.
The sled has never run well at the top end. I can only get about 94 mph, and the engines runs at 7700- 7900 rpm.
Does the taller lug on the ripsaw track affect clutching? Any suggestions on what to change if the track is affecting the clutching. My dealer service manager says the track will not have any impact on clutching, but will rob 2-3 mph on the top end.
I also only get about 10 mpg, whether running hard or moderately. Dealer has not been able to help.
I read about quite a few 600 CFI's that claim to be able to hit 102-104 mph, and are getting 12 -14 mpg.
I would be happy to get one of the two, preferably the 100 mph.
First thing, make sure the track isn't too tight, as loose as possible without ratcheting is always best. A taller lug track definately robs mph on the top end, but shouldn't affect mileage that much. When AC put 1.375" tracks on some of them fire chickens, the top end suffered quite a bit.
Same results here.
I also have a 1.25 Ripsaw with 96 studs. Last season it would spin 8,300 RPM with the same track no studs but never MPH over 92 on hard pack. I've tried 64g primary weights but it didn't do much other than hurt responsiveness. I am now looking to make a secondary helix final angle change to get it to shift out on the top end.
I also have a 1.25 Ripsaw with 96 studs. Last season it would spin 8,300 RPM with the same track no studs but never MPH over 92 on hard pack. I've tried 64g primary weights but it didn't do much other than hurt responsiveness. I am now looking to make a secondary helix final angle change to get it to shift out on the top end.
Traction or lack there of always effects clutching...
Same results here.
I also have a 1.25 Ripsaw with 96 studs. Last season it would spin 8,300 RPM with the same track no studs but never MPH over 92 on hard pack. I've tried 64g primary weights but it didn't do much other than hurt responsiveness. I am now looking to make a secondary helix final angle change to get it to shift out on the top end.
Same results here.
I also have a 1.25 Ripsaw with 96 studs. Last season it would spin 8,300 RPM with the same track no studs but never MPH over 92 on hard pack. I've tried 64g primary weights but it didn't do much other than hurt responsiveness. I am now looking to make a secondary helix final angle change to get it to shift out on the top end.
This could be alot of different things causing poor performance, the TPS setting is a usual suspect.
After verifying the engine is running correctly with all of it's sensors reporting back to the ECM properly and in the correct parameters, Mark your clutches with a black permanent marker to see what is happening for full shift-out.
What do the plugs look like on a WFO run?
QUOTE(steve b @ Feb 5 2008, 01:23 PM)
I have a 2007 IQ 600 CFI that has the 1.25" Ripsaw track (Snow-Check Option) instead of the 1.0" Hacksaw.
The sled has never run well at the top end. I can only get about 94 mph, and the engines runs at 7700- 7900 rpm.
Does the taller lug on the ripsaw track affect clutching? Any suggestions on what to change if the track is affecting the clutching. My dealer service manager says the track will not have any impact on clutching, but will rob 2-3 mph on the top end.
I also only get about 10 mpg, whether running hard or moderately. Dealer has not been able to help.
I read about quite a few 600 CFI's that claim to be able to hit 102-104 mph, and are getting 12 -14 mpg.
I would be happy to get one of the two, preferably the 100 mph.
The sled has never run well at the top end. I can only get about 94 mph, and the engines runs at 7700- 7900 rpm.
Does the taller lug on the ripsaw track affect clutching? Any suggestions on what to change if the track is affecting the clutching. My dealer service manager says the track will not have any impact on clutching, but will rob 2-3 mph on the top end.
I also only get about 10 mpg, whether running hard or moderately. Dealer has not been able to help.
I read about quite a few 600 CFI's that claim to be able to hit 102-104 mph, and are getting 12 -14 mpg.
I would be happy to get one of the two, preferably the 100 mph.
I put a 1.5 inch intense track on my 600 cfi last year and it would run to the 100 mph mark without too much trouble. The most I ever saw on the speedo was 106 mph on hard pack. That wasn't track spin either...I watched it climb from 95 all the way to 106. The rpm would be in the 8200-8350 range, however it peaked at 8600 occasionally. Just took the 1.5 off and replaced it with the ripsaw 1.25..144 studs. Haven't had a chance to run it since.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.