Honda Rubicon

[Mastodon]

Hello,

So i was planning on getting a rancher 420 this spring, but have been looking at the Rubicon 500. Just wondering if this model is worth the extra cost.

Thanks

[58thecat]

Now it comes to fit and what you really like.
Or the foreman keeping you in the 500cc market and price closer to the 420...

[Blastoff]

I think the foreman is a better choice over Rubicon

[M.C. Gusto]

The rubicon doesn’t have a low enough first gear imo.

[elkhunter11]

The old Rubicon Hydrostatic transmission was excellent for towing or dragging, The new automatic transmission was a step backwards.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The old Rubicon Hydrostatic transmission was excellent for towing or dragging, The new automatic transmission was a step backwards.

No way!

I had the old hydrostatic transmission and it went at about 2500km if I remember. At $3k to fix I just traded it in on a grizzly 660 at the same dealership and haven’t gone back to Honda.

[Penner]

Originally Posted by M.C. Gusto

The rubicon doesn’t have a low enough first gear imo.

Don't mistake a Rincon for a Rubicon. A Rubicon 500 was a Foreman 500 with slightly larger engine, liquid cooling, and some other widget upgrades. A Rincon 680 had a 3 speed auto and independent rear suspension. Gearing sucked on the Rincon if into the heavy stuff.

The newer Rubicon and Rancher now both have independent rear suspension. Foreman still runs with a solid rear axle. Any of the 3 are bullet proof. More about what needs need to be met. Same could be said for the Yammy's as well.

[honda610]

I had a 2001 rubicon and a 2006 canadian trail rubicon. 2001 transmission went at 5k. And I changed the oil regularly. 2006 had the shift motor seize at 4200 and destroy the mesh gear to the transmission. Loved both quads. Till the repairs cost almost more than the machines. I still have a 1999 450 es. Bullet proof. 11k on the machine a few bearings and some brake pads. I would stay away from the fancy transmissions.