I donít know if there is much interest in this but since alot of people I talked to, and the dealers I dealt with, tried to convince me that owning a four-stroke sled is much more economical to own even though the upfront cost is higher I thought I would post this.
Since I am very frugal (my wife uses different words) and kind of a math geek I did some calculations that may be of interest to those making a decision about a sled purchase. When we were looking at buying sleds last year everyone made it sound like you are saving fist loads of gas money by going with a four-stroke. We were looking at Tundra LTís and the price difference was about $1800 between the 550F and 600 ACE. The dealer said we would recoup that in a year or two, but when I did the math, at $4 gallon we would of have to have of ridden over 6,500 miles before it was more economical to own the ACE over the 550F assuming the ACE uses a third the gas (10 mpg vs 30 mpg which is probably being generous) and other maintenance was equal. I donít think the average person is going to ride that many miles in two years, let alone five.
Yes, there are advantages to four-strokes besides fuel economy, but I liked the idea of a back-up pull start, less maintenance, and two-stroke simplicity/reliability. I am not trying to convince anyone that two-strokes or better than four-strokes, but unless you are realistically going to use your sled way more than the average person you may be better off financially going with a two-stroke.