pension versus the RZR’s single A-arm
front setup. Typically, a dual A-arm
setup has the potential to perform way
better than the cheaper-to-produce
single arm. Luckily for Polaris, the
Pitster front end lacks the refinement
that would make it superior to the RZR.
The shocks are way too stiff, almost to
the point of being rigid if a lightweight
child is driving. Another downfall is the
use of wide offset wheels instead of
making the A-arms longer. With the
RZR 170 clearly having the smoother
stock suspension, the aftermarket will
probably be able to do a lot more with
the Pitster Pro front end than they can
with the RZR 170. Wider, long-travel
A-arms, better shocks, and narrower
offset wheels could leave the Pitster at
the same overall dimensions but with all
kinds of handling improvements.
WHICH ONE TURNS BETTER?
Both the mini UTVs have a really
large turning radius, with the Pitster’s
being even bigger. Overall, the RZR
turns slightly sharper and requires a
lot less effort. Both machines push a
little in the corners, but the RZR is definitely easier to drive through the turns
in most situations. The Pitster’s dual
A-arm front end and stiffer suspension
do keep the front tires from cambering
out when the car is ridden aggressively
into turns. The design allows the more
skilled driver to powerslide the 150
through turns easier—if the conditions
are right. The Pitster is nearly impossible to steer when it’s not moving.
Maneuvering either machine around the
WHICH ONE IS EASIER FOR KIDS TO
garage is not easy, but it’s definitely
easier with the Polaris.
At operating speed, both machines
are equally easy to drive, and the controls are similar if not identical. The
Pitster Pro is a little easier for kids to
start, as the slightly cold-blooded RZR
will require brake, gas and choke control to get it fired when it’s not warmed
up. Once at operating temperature,
both machines start easily, but the
Pitster would occasionally require you
to reset the key back to the off position.
WHICH ONE RULES THE TRAIL?
Both machines were equally impressive on most trails we tackled. In the
slower-going, rockier or twistier terrain, the Polaris was a little easier on
the arms, requiring less strength and
input. On fire roads or in flat fields, both
machines worked great. When it came
to powersliding turns, the stiffer Pitster
150 proved to be the champ.
WHAT ABOUT RELIABILITY?
Right off the bat, the Pitster revealed
a few mechanical oversights with the
front tire beads and an ill-adjusted
chain-tensioner bolt, but after we fixed
those little issues, it has provided hours
and hours of trouble-free use. Our RZR
didn’t give us any problems. We have
heard rumors of the intake system
being under par for dusty or silty conditions. We will be sure to install a performance filter and intake system on ours
for review in an upcoming issue.
WHICH ONE HAS THE BETTER BRAKES?
Both the 150 and 170 have the same swingarm and twin-shock suspension, with 3. 5 inches of
travel and a parking brake attached to the rear caliper, but the Polaris (shown) has a sensor
to alert the driver that the brake is still engaged.
Here’s where the Pitster is most different, as
the Double X has dual A-arm front suspension that better controls camber changes
during the 3. 5 inches of front-wheel travel.
Spring rates are too stiff, though.
Polaris went with single front A-arms, which
creates more camber change during travel,
but steering effort is lighter on the RZR than
the Double X. Brakes are better too.