Yamaha YXZ Forums banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It's curious that Yamaha hasn't announced anything about a 2016 Viking or Viking VI. I really doubt they'd scrap the Viking after only a couple years in existence.

Who thinks they are purposely holding off on releasing info on the Viking(s) because they're gonna have a de-tuned version of the YXZ engine and they couldn't announce that until after Sept 1?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
677 Posts
The Viking isn't going anywhere its a big seller for Yamaha... They just had to do a lot of advertising for the yxz because its a new model in a big n growing bigger class. And I am sure that the yxz isn't the only thing coming out or any other changes be made to the other sxs's. I believe that they have other surprises up their sleeve. I cant wait till Sept 1. N since A/c dealer show tomorrow will be a flop, n a joke! Its up to Yamaha to be the next huge contender n I believe they will be a force to deal with. 8+ days n counting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,473 Posts
Who thinks they are purposely holding off on releasing info on the Viking(s) because they're gonna have a de-tuned version of the YXZ engine and they couldn't announce that until after Sept 1?
This YXZ will be detuned, so there wont be another detuned model. IMO. That would be crossing class' of the vehicles. The whole reason they have different classes is for different purposes. each one will stay in their lane. I do believe at some point they will offer a turbo YXZ tho
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
Yamaha has CARB certified the Viking for 2016 with the 686 motor. I expect that it will get the 708 motor after all the 686's are gone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I'm not saying I don't agree..but if that was the case, why wouldn't they have said that before now? The 2016 Viking doesn't exist on their website.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
If they were going to put a three cylinder in a different vehicle don't you think it would be the Wolverine since it is the sportier one? They are converting everything with the 686 over to the 708 and the Viking is the only thing left.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
Would have to be a total chassis redesign to put a triple in a Viking or Wolverine. They have completely different drive line setups than what looks like the Banshee has. Wolverine is a perfect and reliable trail machine. Great suspension, nimble through the woods, great at rock crawling and climbing and plenty of torque in the motor. Dunes I can see where it would be lacking. You just need a lot of power to ride on top of the sand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Would have to be a total chassis redesign to put a triple in a Viking or Wolverine. They have completely different drive line setups than what looks like the Banshee has. Wolverine is a perfect and reliable trail machine. Great suspension, nimble through the woods, great at rock crawling and climbing and plenty of torque in the motor. Dunes I can see where it would be lacking. You just need a lot of power to ride on top of the sand.
Well thanks for destroying my hopes of a 112 HP Viking VI! :D

I suppose I'll have to settle for whatever they put in the Viking next year because I have to seat 6 when everybody goes. Is there much power difference between the 686 and 708? The Viking VI's current motor isn't enough for six passengers and all their gear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,473 Posts
Well thanks for destroying my hopes of a 112 HP Viking VI! :D

I suppose I'll have to settle for whatever they put in the Viking next year because I have to seat 6 when everybody goes. Is there much power difference between the 686 and 708? The Viking VI's current motor isn't enough for six passengers and all their gear.
You can always get a Ranger crew
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
753 Posts
The Viking isn't going anywhere its a big seller for Yamaha... They just had to do a lot of advertising for the yxz because its a new model in a big n growing bigger class. And I am sure that the yxz isn't the only thing coming out or any other changes be made to the other sxs's. I believe that they have other surprises up their sleeve. I cant wait till Sept 1. N since A/c dealer show tomorrow will be a flop, n a joke! Its up to Yamaha to be the next huge contender n I believe they will be a force to deal with. 8+ days n counting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is Yamaha targeting competition. It's not going to compete with the 2 turbo's yet on this 1st year sport yamaha release.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
Could this be a new version of Yamaha's YXZ engine?

2016 Yamaha releases the all new TR-1 High Output Engine.

Highlights:

All-new three-cylinder engine representing the pinnacle of innovation for Yamaha WaveRunner® personal watercraft and Yamaha Engine Technology.
Yamaha’s Goal: Create a smaller, lighter, yet more powerful engine than the MR-1 engine that has powered Yamaha’s VX WaveRunner personal watercraft to the top of the sales charts for more than a decade.
Introducing the TR-1 High Output engine that is 40% smaller, 20% lighter weight, but it is 13% more powerful.
The benefit for riders: quicker acceleration, higher top-end speeds, better fuel efficiency and a more fun ride.
Yamaha is world-renowned for manufacturing the highest performance, most reliable engines in the marine industry. For 2016, Yamaha is introducing an all-new marine motor to be featured in its V1 Series and VX WaveRunner personal watercraft (excluding VX Cruiser HO).
The new Yamaha TR-1 marine engine is the pinnacle of engine innovation. Yamaha set out to build a more powerful engine than its predecessor, while also making it smaller, and lighter.

The TR-1 motor achieves just that, in a package with one less cylinder that is 13 percent more powerful than the YAMAHA MR-1 engine that it is replacing, while being 40 percent smaller in size and 20 percent lighter in weight.

Yamaha achieved this by eliminating a reduction gear, integrating the oil tank, attaching the ECU/Air filter to the EG, and eliminating the need for certain parts.
The result is quicker acceleration, higher top-end speeds, with better fuel economy and more fun for the rider.

Yamaha TR-1 Marine Engine Specifications:
Engine: Three cylinder, 4 stroke, 1049cc Yamaha Marine Engine Lubrication: Wet sump
Fuel: Regular unleaded
Weight: 160 pounds
Dimensions: L: 30”, W: 21”, H: 19”

The jet skis with this engine make 125 hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
The 2016 Viking will be introduced along with the new sport sxs, the Viking will stay the same including the old motor but will have the sound kit installed from the factory no other changes will be made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
The 2016 Viking will be introduced along with the new sport sxs, the Viking will stay the same including the old motor but will have the sound kit installed from the factory no other changes will be made.
If that were the case, why wouldn't they have announced that already? None of the dealers have any idea what the 2016 Viking is and the Yamaha website doesn't even mention them.

I have to respectfully disagree. Something major...or at least a noteworthy change.. will be changed on the Viking. Will it be the 998cc...unfortunately, unlikely. But something other than a sound kit is coming in it just based on the lack of information by Yamaha.

...jmho
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
If that were the case, why wouldn't they have announced that already? None of the dealers have any idea what the 2016 Viking is and the Yamaha website doesn't even mention them.

I have to respectfully disagree. Something major...or at least a noteworthy change.. will be changed on the Viking. Will it be the 998cc...unfortunately, unlikely. But something other than a sound kit is coming in it just based on the lack of information by Yamaha.

...jmho
Something might change but the 2016 Viking was CARB certified with the 686 motor on July 1.

I also don't understand why they didn't go ahead and release the info on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
You guys also must remember we are comparing apples to oranges in the HP game when it comes to the YXZ's competition since the YXZ is putting that power to the ground in a vastly different manner. You would see far less power loss through its system. The only way to compare it to the competition now would be through Dyno runs. Which should be how they should all be compared in the first place. You can tell me that RZR Turbo makes 160HP but that doesn't mean shit to me what kind of power does it actually put to the wheels!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
The Rzr turbo was putting 103 to the wheels on Alba's dyno. 112 through a manual should be close to 100whp. Then again we don't know for sure until it actually gets on a dyno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
I have mixed emotions about the CVT vs DCT/new Yamaha trans. The CVT has served me very well and is one reason why I was able to go 9th overall at Pikes Peak with a car a built in my garage. I also like how it's not as hard on other driveline components and how the belt can take the shock out of the system. The belt might not last very long, but it sure is a lot easier to replace than transmissions or rear diffs. I still run a stock 2009 RZR transmission in my 400 hp race car and it has never given me any problems. Try doubling the horsepower on a DCT or automatic transmission and lets see how long it holds up - that will be the true test. It could handle it fine, it can seriously limit our peak horsepower goals or it could be a fortune to upgrade, but I think it will definitely be the weak point for the guys wanting to make serious power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
112 through a manual should be close to 100whp.
I don't know where you come up with 12%. A two wheel drive economy car with a transaxle isn't even that efficient.

The basic difference in these two drive systems is the multi plate clutch vs the cvt. They both have a transmission and differentials and cv joints and u-joints and they both turn the front drive and push the front axles all the time they are moving.

In actuality there is only about a possible 8% difference in efficiency which is a good boost but I don't think that will make it king of the pack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Why can't the manufactures just post there HP at the rear wheels instead of the crank? Same with cars and trucks. Crank numbers don't mean nothing to me.
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top