I have read nearly every thread on the Rubicon vs Outlander. However, at the risk of angering the forum gods and repeating an often asked question, I will ask.
Most of the threads out there talk about top speed, ride, reliability and "will it run 29" mud tires," and this isn't necessarily what I'm after....necessarily. My current ride is an '03 Honda Rubicon, in great shape and trouble free. I will keep this bike and my son will ride it.
Here are my riding needs/preferences:
1) Must start every time. I understand that batteries go bad, and what not. Barring poor maintenance, it must inherently start every time. No problematic fuel injection setups, etc.
2) Must get me back to the truck, again barring operator error.
3) I don't care about top speed. I usually hit my comfort zone around 35 mph, so anything above that is just advertising as far as I'm concerned.
4) While top speed isn't important, good usable power is.
5) Riding Type - I'm not a mudder. I live in the high desert of the southwest, so I have everything from flat desert riding to mountainous trails, as well as rocky trails. I don't seek out the tallest steepest hill to climb, but if I encounter a big hill on a trail, I need for the bike to be able to handle it. Most of the riding will be trail riding, but...I also need the bike to be able to haul my butt out of the woods with an elk strapped to it. This won't be the norm, but when I need this level of utility, it needs to perform without worry of the machine failing on me. I also may ask it to take me and my son out on a 2 day overnight camping trip.
6) I will not be installing taller than stock tires, so I don't care which one runs 28" mudzilla's (or whatever) better. But, when new tires are required, I want to have the confidence to know that I can install a set of radial tires, for example, knowing they may be heavier, and the machine will still handle it.
I spent all day yesterday at both Honda and Can-Am dealerships. While they were different stores, they were owned by the same company and they don't work on commmision, so there was no real incentive for them to push themselves on me, and their behavior proved that. They were all very straightforward in answering my questions, and very indulgent of my rants. I told the Honda guy that "cuz it's Honda" may have worked a few years ago, it wasn't going to be good enough. I will be honest, I never thought I would even consider something other than a Honda, but....as the years have gone by, I hate to admit that the other brands, while always ahead in innovation, they are also catching up in quality. There's the rub...."catching up." Have they caught up? While admittedly unfair, sins of the past make it hard for me to look at brands such as Polaris. At the same time, past reputation is what keeps me in the Honda camp. I'm not sure I should follow so blindly. As consumers, competition is great for us. That is what has me so frustrated with Honda. I have no problem with them doing their own thing, such as not using a CVT. No problem at all with that. But, do they always have to take so long to upgrade their products? When I heard the Rubicon was being updated, I thought to myself "finally...the machine I've been waiting for is here." Then when it came out, I looked at it, and other than the IRS, it seems to me that it's not a new machine at all. It seems to me that they just said to themselves "we don't want to have two 500 class engines, so let's dump one. After that, they just pulled old parts off the shelf and bolted them into a slightly different configuration and slapped a Rubicon sticker on it. I don't see anything other than an IRS equipped Foreman, with optional DCT. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and after spending two hours crawling all over it yesterday, I was tempted to buy on the spot. What I'm trying to get at is that Honda had an opportunity to get on the green in two on a short par 5 with a giant green and wide fairway, but chose to lay up instead, taking the safe road. Meanwhile, over at the Can-Am dealership they had no problem rattling off, with confidence, all of the high points of the Outlander, while the Honda salesman was less confident in the facts. Not trying to say the Honda guy was being more of a "salesman," it seemed more like he knew I had done my research, and he knew the "cuz it's a Honda" approach wasn't going to work, so he went after the facts, but didn't seem to have the confidence in the that the Can-Am guy did. I guess you could say the Honda guy felt like he needed to convince me, but the Can-Am guy felt the machine spoke for itself.
Honestly, I think both machines would fill my needs just fine, and their price points are in the same neighborhood. But, they are expensive enough, that I want to get some opinions from both camps. If I chose Can-Am, I would wait for the 2016, as they have bumped it to a 570, and they're claiming better bottom end. With the Rubicon, I would probably do the same, wait for a 2016, unless I found a 2015 at great discount.
Most of the threads out there talk about top speed, ride, reliability and "will it run 29" mud tires," and this isn't necessarily what I'm after....necessarily. My current ride is an '03 Honda Rubicon, in great shape and trouble free. I will keep this bike and my son will ride it.
Here are my riding needs/preferences:
1) Must start every time. I understand that batteries go bad, and what not. Barring poor maintenance, it must inherently start every time. No problematic fuel injection setups, etc.
2) Must get me back to the truck, again barring operator error.
3) I don't care about top speed. I usually hit my comfort zone around 35 mph, so anything above that is just advertising as far as I'm concerned.
4) While top speed isn't important, good usable power is.
5) Riding Type - I'm not a mudder. I live in the high desert of the southwest, so I have everything from flat desert riding to mountainous trails, as well as rocky trails. I don't seek out the tallest steepest hill to climb, but if I encounter a big hill on a trail, I need for the bike to be able to handle it. Most of the riding will be trail riding, but...I also need the bike to be able to haul my butt out of the woods with an elk strapped to it. This won't be the norm, but when I need this level of utility, it needs to perform without worry of the machine failing on me. I also may ask it to take me and my son out on a 2 day overnight camping trip.
6) I will not be installing taller than stock tires, so I don't care which one runs 28" mudzilla's (or whatever) better. But, when new tires are required, I want to have the confidence to know that I can install a set of radial tires, for example, knowing they may be heavier, and the machine will still handle it.
I spent all day yesterday at both Honda and Can-Am dealerships. While they were different stores, they were owned by the same company and they don't work on commmision, so there was no real incentive for them to push themselves on me, and their behavior proved that. They were all very straightforward in answering my questions, and very indulgent of my rants. I told the Honda guy that "cuz it's Honda" may have worked a few years ago, it wasn't going to be good enough. I will be honest, I never thought I would even consider something other than a Honda, but....as the years have gone by, I hate to admit that the other brands, while always ahead in innovation, they are also catching up in quality. There's the rub...."catching up." Have they caught up? While admittedly unfair, sins of the past make it hard for me to look at brands such as Polaris. At the same time, past reputation is what keeps me in the Honda camp. I'm not sure I should follow so blindly. As consumers, competition is great for us. That is what has me so frustrated with Honda. I have no problem with them doing their own thing, such as not using a CVT. No problem at all with that. But, do they always have to take so long to upgrade their products? When I heard the Rubicon was being updated, I thought to myself "finally...the machine I've been waiting for is here." Then when it came out, I looked at it, and other than the IRS, it seems to me that it's not a new machine at all. It seems to me that they just said to themselves "we don't want to have two 500 class engines, so let's dump one. After that, they just pulled old parts off the shelf and bolted them into a slightly different configuration and slapped a Rubicon sticker on it. I don't see anything other than an IRS equipped Foreman, with optional DCT. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and after spending two hours crawling all over it yesterday, I was tempted to buy on the spot. What I'm trying to get at is that Honda had an opportunity to get on the green in two on a short par 5 with a giant green and wide fairway, but chose to lay up instead, taking the safe road. Meanwhile, over at the Can-Am dealership they had no problem rattling off, with confidence, all of the high points of the Outlander, while the Honda salesman was less confident in the facts. Not trying to say the Honda guy was being more of a "salesman," it seemed more like he knew I had done my research, and he knew the "cuz it's a Honda" approach wasn't going to work, so he went after the facts, but didn't seem to have the confidence in the that the Can-Am guy did. I guess you could say the Honda guy felt like he needed to convince me, but the Can-Am guy felt the machine spoke for itself.
Honestly, I think both machines would fill my needs just fine, and their price points are in the same neighborhood. But, they are expensive enough, that I want to get some opinions from both camps. If I chose Can-Am, I would wait for the 2016, as they have bumped it to a 570, and they're claiming better bottom end. With the Rubicon, I would probably do the same, wait for a 2016, unless I found a 2015 at great discount.