Hardcore Sledder banner
1 - 20 of 127 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Anything you wanna talk about the xc 600... post it here... well I was looking at the 03 xcsp 600 but thats out of my price range so now I am looking at the 1998 XC 600. This sled is more in my realistic price range. So post up any info you have about this sled. The more info I have the more knowledge I have when I own one(hopefully) Also you can post some of your clutching tips ect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
I've had my 98, XC600 for a couple of winters now. I don't have a lot to compare it too, since I use to ride a 88, 340 Sport (the kids sled now). But I do know this thing goes like a raped ape. It is more sled than I need for the mostly trail riding that I do. In ideal conditions, I can get 110 mph on the dreamometer. I'm sure it is more like low 100's in reality, but that is plenty fast for me.

They are not the best on gas. I get about 10 mpg with mine, which is about average from what people have posted. But, performance comes at a price. As far as a reasonable priced fast 600 sled that will give most new 600's a run for their money, you can't go wrong with this sled. They also seem to be a well built sled. Even with the stock exhaust system, they have a nice deep rumble to them. The extra 10 suspension is decent for trail riding, but I'm sure the newer sleds have a much nicer ride to them.

For an older sled, I don't think you will be disappointed. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I think the old wedge chassis is a sharp looking sled.

Good luck with your search. You should be able to find something around $1,500, give or take a couple hundred.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
I just purchased a '98 xc600. I haven't owned a sled in about 10 years and all I can say is that this is one helluva sled to get back into the scene with. I bought it from a good friend of mine that really knew this machine and rigged it well with some clutching and engine mod's. From what I've been told (and I believe every word), this sled has been upside down in the woods more than a few times and at the bottom of a lake and this thing still runs like a top. Now sure I've had to battle with those Keihin carbs a bit this year (since it hadn't been run much the past couple of years), but after I shined em up and replaced the float valves it's been running very strong. This machine isn't in "showroom" condition and I kind of like it that way. Now, like I said, my knowledge of newer sleds (yes, '98 is NEW to me!) is limited, but I'm learning more about it everyday......now.....a quick story:

I wanted my wife to "give it a run" so she jumped on the wheeler and followed me out to the lake. So I get the Pearl (oh....and this sled has been appropriately named the "Black Pearl" by the prev owner) warmed up and tell her to get it up to about 15 mph and goose it. So she takes off, gets it moving a bit and attempts to tag the throttle. I saw a burst of snow shoot about 20 feet and then the brake light followed by an immediate U-turn. She proceeded to bring it to a stop at my feet....dismounted and commented... "that thing is just dangerous!". Looks like we won't be arguing about who's going to drive the Pearl!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
what the others said is true. Great sled. Takes a while to warm up, no thermastat. Likes the choke when its cold. Update the carb pins..floats..needles etc... No real gain from jetting down from 185 mains on this motor. Maybe go to 180s depending on alt and temps. Thats it though. One of the only sleds that actually benefitted from a boost bottle and a good set of reeds. I'd do that first. Stock primary weights were 10-58s. Compression test that motor, if you have 120+ psi on each cylinder you should be able to pull 10-60s fine. Make sure they are matched weights. Almond gold primary works well for a stocker with the 10-60s. Get the powerpack carb inserts too. If you have the money, get a good aftermarket head set for it. Pipe it too. Mine when twin piped showed 122 horse on the dyno, which was a great increase given the other bolt on mods, and stock motor 105-108ish. Sold that sled a month ago, cried a bit. If the sleds in good condition, Offer the seller $1,400 and be firm. He'll let it go for that.

Great sled and I miss it dearly, and i don't want to discourage my own thoughts on the topic, but if you could get your hands on the 98 700 with either the 220 or 824 cylinders, you'd be even more happy. Different powerband on the 700, pulls alot harder all the way through. Either would be a great buy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
I just wanna say my brother bought an 1998 xc 600 brand new and still has it i showroom shape. I tell ya what that sled is no joke. the only problem is the he was beating alot of other 98 xc 600's and my brother didnt touch the sled then well come to find we heard Polaris detuned the newer 98 xc 600s and the 99 xc 600. if ya find one make sure it's one of the first few hundred made in 98' not to mention that sled was beating the xc 700's and would run just about side by side with the 800's but the triple's would adventually smoke him on the other end of the lake..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
I have one too, and for the price, these sleds really go. I have a studded tracks and a reverse kit on the one I picked up. The Keihin carbs are notoriously fussy, but other than that they're a really solid sled. The 600 big block was a really reliable motor too, as sleds go, my buddy got 6500 miles of really hard use on his, some of that with pipes, before it spun a bearing. As you will read in other threads, there were several updates for the carbs on these, most important is to get smaller pilots, 38's I think, the original ones were too damn big. That and a bit of tuning the idle mixture will help in making the motor more responsive on the lower end. On the ice, mine will do over 100 pretty easily..
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
I just wanna say my brother bought an 1998 xc 600 brand new and still has it i showroom shape. I tell ya what that sled is no joke. the only problem is the he was beating alot of other 98 xc 600's and my brother didnt touch the sled then well come to find we heard Polaris detuned the newer 98 xc 600s and the 99 xc 600. if ya find one make sure it's one of the first few hundred made in 98' not to mention that sled was beating the xc 700's and would run just about side by side with the 800's but the triple's would adventually smoke him on the other end of the lake..[/b]
you're thinking of the 98 700, not the 98 600. The 97.5 or 98 xc 700 with 220 cylinders had a little more grunt out of the hole, which is what you are referring to. Some/most had a purple water cover plate. The 98 600s were all the same, mill wise. They ran though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,384 Posts
Remembering my 98 xc600 for the season i owned it. Sled was reliable but thirsty and noisy. Suspension wasn't great...kind of choppy ride. Power was ok..way more that the older 600 monoblock triples...but not nearly like the newer smallblock powered xc600's that came later. I'd be really carefull of buying a 10 year old sled unless i knew well who owned it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
bought the same sled this year. Only spent a grand on it w/ 4200 miles. I do trail/field/lake riding, and its great except for the gas milage. Ive got some clutchwork on it with a boost bottle, and i can get the speedo to read 120+ on flat & packed surfaces, but it prolly does 105-110 id say tops. Not sure if my carbs are updated to the 38 pilot and 1371g needle, but will be checking soon. Id say its pretty good power for the weight. I've herd you can put 700 cylinders on the lowend of these pigs too with just some adjustments to the cdi. All-in-all, id say its one of the best polaris twin made in the wedge chassis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
bought the same sled this year. Only spent a grand on it w/ 4200 miles. I do trail/field/lake riding, and its great except for the gas milage. Ive got some clutchwork on it with a boost bottle, and i can get the speedo to read 120+ on flat & packed surfaces, but it prolly does 105-110 id say tops. Not sure if my carbs are updated to the 38 pilot and 1371g needle, but will be checking soon. Id say its pretty good power for the weight. I've herd you can put 700 cylinders on the lowend of these pigs too with just some adjustments to the cdi. All-in-all, id say its one of the best polaris twin made in the wedge chassis.[/b]
OMG $1,000! if there was one around here for that I would have found a way to get it! got any pics? Keep the information coming guys so far so good, I have learned a couple things already.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
OMG $1,000! if there was one around here for that I would have found a way to get it! got any pics? Keep the information coming guys so far so good, I have learned a couple things already.[/b]
Stock 98 600 does not have the gearing to show 120 on the speedo, itd blow up. Still fast though, might show 112 on the speedo in perfect conditions.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
Is the 98 xc 600 on the wedge chassis a fuji or liberty engine?[/b]
The 1998 xc 600 in the wedge chassis was the big block liberty twin 600, the first year for the 600 twin. It did not have exhaust valves. Stock 105 horse, round about. Same year xcr 440 had exhaust valves, about 100 horse out of that sled stock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
The 1998 xc 600 in the wedge chassis was the big block liberty twin 600, the first year for the 600 twin. It did not have exhaust valves. Stock 105 horse, round about. Same year xcr 440 had exhaust valves, about 100 horse out of that sled stock.[/b]
What was the horsepower with the 700 jugs installed on the 600 block?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,384 Posts
What was the horsepower with the 700 jugs installed on the 600 block?[/b]
Had a buddy that snowchecked a 98 700 xcsp...had the 220 jugs on the motor and dynoed 125 hp on another buddies land and sea dyno....sled was never beaten by any 700 that year. Many of the later 98-00 700 xcsp motors had a different top end...only made 117-118 hp.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
Had a buddy that snowchecked a 98 700 xcsp...had the 220 jugs on the motor and dynoed 125 hp on another buddies land and sea dyno....sled was never beaten by any 700 that year. Many of the later 98-00 700 xcsp motors had a different top end...only made 117-118 hp.[/b]
Almost correct spankleberry. The early production 98 700s with the 220 cylinders made less HP than did the 98 700s with the 824 cylinders that going forward in 99+ 700s used. The 220 98 700 motor made MORE torque, and was noticeably quicker out of the hole shot. Had different exhaust intake porting, and is the desired motor to the day. 220 motor was more proned to ring snag issues, but mine has not yet. The 99 700 did not make the HP that the 98 824 motor did for some reason, and it got worse as years went on for the non ves 700. Not a huge night and day difference between the 98 220 vs. the 98 220, maybe a couple MPH top end and the 220 likes to be loaded down a bit more than the 824. 10-64s vs. 10-62s. I have known a few 99 700s that were strong lake runners, but they needed some TLC to get going. I believe the actual numbers were:

1998 700 220 motor/ 118-122 HP
1998 700 824 motor/ 122-124
1999 700 824 motor /A real pooch

When set up properly, a 98 700 will give a good run to alot of newer sleds of 700, or 800 class. I have a single on my 220, with heads and all the goodies, and it is knocking on the 135 HP door, saw 136 on the dyno once. I have not been beat by a stock 700, even a stock 2003 F7 since the mods last season. A 2002 xc sp 700 comes close, but after 70 its bye bye to the edges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,240 Posts
I sold mine at the 6,000 mile mark. I would have kept it, but I got a good deal on a new Pro-X.

Make sure you check the water-pump belt. (It's an easy procedure on the big block 600.)

Mine hit 104 mph on radar with stock jetting and gearing, but the speedo was showing 110 (as other people have pointed out). Still, that's a lot better than some of the speedometers that are off by 15 or 20 mph on some other brands' current snowmobiles.

I averaged 12 mpg if the trails were good.
 
G

·
I love mine 3600 miles and lots of mods, slp twins, boost bottle, v force reeds, 3 riser block, comet ride on racing shocks on the front, fox racing on the rear, 136 tracks usa rail ext, with 108 angle double backers studs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
104 Posts
Almost correct spankleberry. The early production 98 700s with the 220 cylinders made less HP than did the 98 700s with the 824 cylinders that going forward in 99+ 700s used. The 220 98 700 motor made MORE torque, and was noticeably quicker out of the hole shot. Had different exhaust intake porting, and is the desired motor to the day. 220 motor was more proned to ring snag issues, but mine has not yet. The 99 700 did not make the HP that the 98 824 motor did for some reason, and it got worse as years went on for the non ves 700. Not a huge night and day difference between the 98 220 vs. the 98 220, maybe a couple MPH top end and the 220 likes to be loaded down a bit more than the 824. 10-64s vs. 10-62s. I have known a few 99 700s that were strong lake runners, but they needed some TLC to get going. I believe the actual numbers were:

1998 700 220 motor/ 118-122 HP
1998 700 824 motor/ 122-124
1999 700 824 motor /A real pooch

When set up properly, a 98 700 will give a good run to alot of newer sleds of 700, or 800 class. I have a single on my 220, with heads and all the goodies, and it is knocking on the 135 HP door, saw 136 on the dyno once. I have not been beat by a stock 700, even a stock 2003 F7 since the mods last season. A 2002 xc sp 700 comes close, but after 70 its bye bye to the edges.[/b]
So how would a 98 xc 600 with 700 jugs on it do against my mostly stock Formula SS 670 (it has a can, some studs, and maybe some clutching)? Would it even be close? It HAS to be lighter than my sled for sure!
 
1 - 20 of 127 Posts
Top