Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Bravo Vs. Tundra in deep snow

  1. #1
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default Bravo Vs. Tundra in deep snow

    I recently bought an '07 Bravo to take over for a pretty tired '95 Tundra. I've used the tundra for everything from dragging logs to putting in trails in deep snow and never got stuck in the wide open marshes in deep snow. Recently we've gotten alot of snow so theres maybe 3' of powder in the swamps. I'm finding that I bog down constantly with the bravo. Even getting a full head of steam from a packed trail, I can only make it a ways before the ass end drops on me. Is there that much of a difference between the tundra and the bravo? Or is there something I can do to the bravo to improve the floatation in the deep stuff? The Bravo's front end seems quite a bit lighter than the tundra...and the Bravo has more of a paddle track (maybe 1") versus basically a flat track on the Tundra. Would plastic ski's improve performance? I would appreciate any opinions from those of you who are familiar with these machines.

  2. #2
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default Tundra

    I would check the height of the track against what is recommended first. Maybe a little deeper track is what you need. I have always run the big wide plastic skins on my machines. The Scandic that I have now, the skins are probably 8" or 10" wide. Some of the guys up in Nulato that use them for pulling logs put a 1/4" piece of plastic from the front bumper down under the machine just ahead of the track and fasten it. Acts like a big skid plate and floats the front of the machine up.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  3. #3
    Moderator AKmud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    3,185

    Default

    You might be noticing the difference in lug height. If the tundra had 1/2" lugs and the bravo has 1" you will be digging a hole twice as fast. Once you start spinning the track it starts going down.

    I've seen this with a buddy and his Formula 500. He has a 7/8" x 121" and I'm running a 1 3/4" x 136". We found some snow that I had one heck of a time starting from a dead stop without burying it. He had no problem at all. The smaller lugs allowed him to get some momentum up before he went vertical. Mine was moving so much snow it dug a 3' deep hole in 4 rotations!

    It's just a theory. It would be interesting to put them side by side and see if there actually is a difference or if it is just snow conditions.
    AKmud
    http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j96/AKmud/213700RMK1-1.jpg


    The porcupine is a peacful animal yet God still thought it necessary to give him quills....

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,293

    Default

    One word. Clutching. Tundra clutches are the best putt-putt'rs out there by a mile. For my money...absolutely nothing goes through the snow better than a Tundra II. And yes, I've ridden the others. An old Ocklebow would give a Tundra a pretty good run, though.

  5. #5

    Default

    The Tundra is a low-end torque beast with a slow top speed and the Bravo is just the opposite. You will have to change the clutch if you want low-end like the Tundra. What I had to do with a Bravo that I used to run (it wasn't mine) in the deep stuff was just to keep the speed going WFO or it would bog. There is no cure except the clutch for going up hills in powder tho. I used to drive a Tundra for a job I had and it could pull a heavy sled with 8 five gallon buckets of water from almost dead start up a 45 degree hill that was about 100 yards long. You will probably never get that out of a Bravo, and I am a big Yamaha fan.

  6. #6
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Thanks for all the replies. Yea, that makes alot of sense about the clutching. I'd rather not mess with the clutch unless I dont have a choice for what I do with it. I have noticed that pulling loads the Bravo seems to lack compared to the Tundra. Not to mention fouling plugs. Now that we had a warm/freeze cycle the Bravo stays up on the crust really well so its not been a problem. ONe of these days Im going to take them both out and comare them in the same conditions.

    Overall Im happy with the Bravo for just tooling around putting in trails and hauling firewood around the cabin. I got tired of nursing the Tundra to life all everytime I needed to haul wood and didnt want to spend alot for a new machine. When I looked under the hood of the Bravo I was hooked. Everything is so simple and easy to get too. At $3,300 I couldnt say no. Next winter I will probably get a real work machine and let the wife run the Bravo. Heck I may even pick up another mid 90's Tundra II just cause its so **** versatile. They werent kidding when they advertized it as the "mechanical snowshoe".. Thanks again.

  7. #7
    Member Jktimm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Meadow Lakes, Wasilla
    Posts
    213

    Default

    I have had a few Bravos and a few Tundras. I too, see the major difference as clutch speed. I prefer the better speed and fuel economy of the Bravo, as well as the bullet-proof motor. It may sound like a lot of trouble, but if you are going to use the machine in deep snow, you would probably be happiest with a lower speed clutch. It's not all that mutch work and you can get one off eBay. ABSOLUTELY you will be happier with the widest ski skins you can find for those skis. Even with the plastic skis, the wider skis keep you on top longer, are less likely to freeze down in frost, and make it easier for the track to push the pan through deep snow.
    just my two cents worth.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Whats the differences between a tundra and a Skandic 2?I have the Skandic, and was just wondering about these two models.Mine is a 1992 model,,with the 377cc engine I believe.It has about 1200 miles on it.Havent really driven it much.Are they good models for the deep snow..Is it mainly a workhorse?..Thanks.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •