Can-Am Maverick Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Anyone here think that adding 6" to the rear of the frame for a smoother ride would be worth it?Looking at the stock frame and being a fabricator it would not be hard to do.Your thoughts on this as owners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
If you are just trying to get a smoother ride then just have your shocks revalved with a spring change. I messed with my valve adjustments and made it much better than stock.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,276 Posts
hmmm. i have had that planned for this summer, but i think i am going with a longteravel kit instead. I am concerened with weight distribution if i dont push the front forward at the same time. I would love to see a Maverick on scales to see the bias front to rear.

you are right about the ease of the fabrication, just extend the drive line and brake lines and you can use everything else.

my main reason for not cutting the frame is resale value, i plan on getting a new sxs when a new big power long travel unit comes out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
614 Posts
Have a pro revalve your shocks, it makes a world of difference. Alex at CT Racing or Don at Thuren Facrication. Give them a call. I had Don at Thuren rework mine and you will be driving a new vehicle.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,882 Posts
Hay Pep not here to bum you out but engineers design things with very specific specs in mind, you know slide rule and all. I'd start on something other than your Mav to go cutting up and for sure look in to a revalve job first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
After looking at the 4 seaters and hearing how much better they handle the whoops I was just thinking.Shock work is a must as well as more structural fabrication.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,536 Posts
there has been 3 mavericks so far to stretch the rear end out 6''

one is the murrey's car I think both are stretched and one guy on here has done it to , almost done
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Id like to hear some feedback on how they work.I don't have a slide rule,but have been building bikes and buggies all my life and it would seem to be an advantage where I live in Arizona.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,536 Posts
I don't think ur gonna hear anything bad about it other then it might steer a lil further out
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
6,219 Posts
I'll be stretching mine very soon. I'm going to build different arms off the stock mounts and then move the diff back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
hmmm. i have had that planned for this summer, but i think i am going with a longteravel kit instead. I am concerened with weight distribution if i dont push the front forward at the same time. I would love to see a Maverick on scales to see the bias front to rear.

you are right about the ease of the fabrication, just extend the drive line and brake lines and you can use everything else.

my main reason for not cutting the frame is resale value, i plan on getting a new sxs when a new big power long travel unit comes out.
I have the numbers you want, I've already scaled mine out on my race car scales. Getting ready to go out and eat, will post them tomorrow. You might be surprised on the numbers, (percentages).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
Alex are you going to be making a kit to do it once you get it all figured out?
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
6,219 Posts
Yes. That is my plan but its a ton of work. New arms, move the shock mounts and diff back so it can still use stock axles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
My plan would be as M/D said.Lengthen the frame before the shock mounts and a-arm mounts then a longer drive shaft and brake lines,unless you were going for more travel with the new a-arms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
hey kevin its bob you took me for a ride in your maverick , hey give me a call I lost your number541 350 1755 I got my mav and man I got some sweet spots to ride
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Marc Burnett (who just won San Felipe) has his mav stretched too. They did some dyno runs and if I remember right showed 12hp by straightening the axles with the stretch.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
6,219 Posts
Straightening the axles will not add noticable power, it damn sure won't add 5+ hp.
Marc's setup is similar to what I'm doing. His is mostly like that to pass tech though. He runs arms bolted in the stock location and the arms apply the stretch. The diff was just moved back some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Glamisfan posted this in another thread a while back. I cant find the original post he refers too.

The following is a very good post from the builder of this car....... LSR GREG summed it up pretty good. All of the newer long-travel UTV's (Maverick, XP 900, Wildcat, Deere 850I, etc.) will share the pecking order of wheel travel constraints. 1st factor: Tire dia. and bump travel. How close to the ground are you willing to let your car bump? Of all the UTV's I've seen, you will run out of ground clearance far before binding your cv joints. 2nd factor: Droop. Again, most of the utes I've seen are limited by the excessive cv joint operating angles as the suspension droops. This is due to the mounting height of the front and rear diff's. They cannot be mounted below the frame line now, can they? Shocks are not a factor that limits travel, due to the many options of extended and compressed length shocks available. Hell, I just finished building a Maverick that I used Foxs' 14" & 16" internal bypass truck shocks on the front and rear respectively. No silly liottle UTV shocks will keep a fabricator from achieving the desired wheel travel. I'm stroking the rear shocks at an ultra-low ratio of 1.3:1 for 19 1/4" of usable wheel travel, while the fronts are stroking at a respectable 1.5:1 ratio for just under 18" of usable wheel travel. Heres the 3rd and most important reliability factor when talking usable wheel travel: cv joints working at compounded angles (i.e. extending the wheelbase w/out moving the differentials). The majority of the long travel kit manufacturers are guilty of this. I will give you a real-world example of this industry standard that is parking race cars alongside race courses around the world! A stock Can-am Maverick has a claimed Horsepower rating of 101 H.P. On the dyno, bone stock, it will produce about 70 horsepower at the rear wheels due to work (horsepower) having to be transmitted through a compound angle. It is a fundamental certainty, and is easily calculated with basic trigenometry. The bad deal is that while Can-am pumps out more ponies at the flywheel/crank, it is at the same time introducing an un-acceptable radial load upon the cv's. The horsepower did not disappear into thin air, but rather was released by the way of excessive heat and shear loads as a result of the increased friction through the poor little cv joints. Here's your lesson: I moved the rear housing back 8 1/2" on the Mav, while only moving the rear wheelbase back by 5", left the motor bone stock, and dyno'd it. I'm now getting 82 horsepower at the rear wheels! Most all of who seen our car race said it is being over-driven, and will not last. We'll see how it lasts at Vegas to Reno. I intentionally over-suspended, extended, widened and weighted it. It has an undesirable power to weight ratio of 20 lbs. per horsepower, but can reliably run into 2-3 foot deep whoops at 65 or 70 mph w/out upsetting the attitude or overworking the shocks. Weight bias is 46/54 front to rear respectively, so it flies straight and true. Enough boasting. The point here is that what travel you do get, you use well, and reliably. I properly measure wheel travel at the centerline of the tire, in a vertical path, and keep the wheel rate as low as possible by stroking as much of a long travel shock as I possibly can. Beware of kits that extend the wheelbase and not the diff's, and say the longer axles make up for the increased wheel travels' demands on your cv joints.

http://www.maverickforums.net/forum/7-general-maverick-discussions/1763-marc-burnett-maverick-3.html
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top