Can-Am Maverick Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
I think their marketing is working perfectly and they must love seeing posts like that :)

I've learned from friends in marketing that they will intentionally position the lesser item at the competitive price point, so they can "price protect" the item they really want to sell in volume. Ex. if they ONLY sold the XRS, they would probably have to price it closer to the $15.9 level, but thanks to the entry level option, the $17.5 seems like a bargain. Most electronics will offer a good-better-best pricing strategy, which I suppose in this case will be the Mav Max at the top.

bottom line, YES, I think the delta is worth it, and likely recovered in resale value, but I really wish the overall entry price to these things were lower. Nearly 20K out the door is a hard pill to swallow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Could someone point me to the differences in the shocks besides the size? I searched but didn't find much.

I'd like to better understand the drawbacks of going with the 2.0's. Are they less adjustable? Softer? Stiffer?

Obviously the 2.5's would be preferred for competitive racing, landing bigger jumps, and avoiding "fade", but I would appreciate someone with more experience explaining how the average rider might notice the difference? Has anyone tried them both on harder packed ground to actually feel the difference?

I did demo both models on muddy trails, and honestly, without doing jumps, and at the more modest speeds, I really couldn't tell the difference.

Regarding the original thread topic, yes, I still suspect the $1500 is "worth it", and that is not what I'm asking. trying to keep price out of it.

thanks in advance for the education! happy new year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
The 2.0 has preload and compression. The 2.5 has preload, high and low compression, and rebound. I have my rear 2.5 set to 10 rebound, 0 high and 0 low compression, and they are still too stiff!
thanks Glamis. Not sure I understand the difference between high/low compression vs. just compression. Also curious if anyone has some helpful links or simple examples of each of these.

I'm assuming preload is how much pressure is on the spring, which sets ride height (the only adjustment I used to have on my quad). And I'm assuming compression and rebound are adjusting the shock resistance.

Still curious about any real world examples of where a rider would notice the difference between the 2.0 and 2.5. ex. perhaps the 2.0s would be less stiff, which seems to be the only complaint.

and yes, I agree with the poster about the value of the bead locks (if you don't mind heavier?) and the gauges, but some people may not care about beads if they are getting sand rims/tires anyway, and I never had a speed-o on my quad, so I'm not sure I would care about the instruments. again, not judging value here, just genuinely interested in understanding shocks better.

thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
I understand the desire to have more shock than you need (it was the biggest investment I made on my quad), and I understand the 2.5's are the latest and greatest. But other than worrying about fade after many laps of a race course and bottoming out big jumps, I was just trying to understand the difference in ride experience and how the additional adjustments will benefit the average rider (i.e. not likely to modify for more power, not likely to go for huge air, and not likely going to race).

Perhaps I should focus the question... how would the 2.5's help for trail riding or riding bowls in the dunes? and people quote the "less fade" aspect, but is that a problem on current machines when going through a single set of whoops? Would be curious to see the X and XRS in side by side slow motion.

just a curiosity. if I had the money, I know which one I would want :) but I also understand marketing and positioning of a premium product that may only benefit a few.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top