Ski-Doo Snowmobiles Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Got a question for the die hard Doo'ers , what year was the last year for the second series SC-10 and what was the first year for the third series and were these suspensions installed in all the machines upon introduction , I would like to make an up date on my machine and make sure I get the right one . thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
795 Posts
the first year for the sc-10 2 was 2000 fist year for sc-10 3 was 2002. not sure what models they were on go check skidoos archives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
795 Posts
the sc-10 was uncoupled, well it had the ACM nut which only coupled the front and back arms under acceleration. the sc-10 2 was fully coupled and wieghed 7lps less then the sc-10. hope this helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
thanks , some peaple beleive the third series is much better than the second series , & I was was wondering what the mechanical differece was between them , I am going to upgrade from the SC-10 - 1 to something newer and hopefully better , but I don't care for moving the rear mounting brackets if their is not much difference between the two latter editions of the SC-10 .thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
523 Posts
wiscdoo said:
thanks , some peaple beleive the third series is much better than the second series , & I was was wondering what the mechanical differece was between them , I am going to upgrade from the SC-10 - 1 to something newer and hopefully better , but I don't care for moving the rear mounting brackets if their is not much difference between the two latter editions of the SC-10 .thanks
[snapback]748857[/snapback]​
I think the only difference between the sc10-2 and sc10-3 is the travel. Not sure exactly how many inchs. 1-2"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
SC10 III is only 12 inch max travel. At least according to Ski-Doos 2002 spec sheet. I think it is also coupled differently than the II.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I have ridden a 2002 MXZ 500 and rode it hard , that machine had the series two SC-10 and it was fantastic , seems the latter they are the longer the travel , now I see they have a forth series on some machines , guess I will wait until I see a good buy and jump on it , I have seen a number of them on e bay . thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,759 Posts
SC 10 II-10 inches SC 10 III-13.5

In 2002, the x packages got 13" of vertical travel at the bumper, due to the tilted zx-x tunnel. The zx non-tilt tunnel you get 12" vertical, 2" more than the SC10 II. Now, if you were to put the II in a zx-x tilt tunnel, you get 11.5" vert. at the rear bumper, at least the 2001 440 did. So, apples to apples the III is about 1.5" more vert. travel at the rear bumper than the II. Not a whole lot, but the geometry is different, rising rate not linear, and rides smoother with more ride in. They're both good skids.

I'm totally confused why the Rev's get 14.5" with the same skid, I mean, unless the 2002 zx-x tilt tunnel, had it been 'tilted even more' would have given more than 13", like 14.5". BUT, it may be that they're simply measuring differently, to compete with Cat who measures the arc of the rear wheel. Numbers like that and weight do sell snowmobiles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
wiscdoo

I have purchased a sc-10 III to replace my sc-10 I on my 1996 Formula SLS.
The suspension I bought was a 2002 mxzX 800. It installed easily the only thing I
had to do was open the rear suspension mounting holes a little bigger. I rode the
sled and "WOW" what a big difference.
I don't know about anyone else but I was constantly replacing parts on my original suspension. The front swing arms were always breaking, the shocks were always loosing their charge. I was glad to get rid of the old suspension.

P.S. Keep your eyes open on E-bay. Go under sc-10 suspension, mxz suspension,mach suspension, or snowmobile suspension. You can get a real good
deal on there.

How that helps you out, Luke
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Travel, shmavel - It all depends on how/where you measure it. It's not how far ya go, but how ya get there. Yamaha have done wonders with "restricted travel" suspensions.

But for the record "actual travel", measured at the bump-stop (where it should be) on an SC-10 III is 12 inches. On the SC-10 II it's 10... You want "TRAVEL" - the later series M-10 is the way to go... 14+ inches...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,759 Posts
Well travel does help - you're better off having 12" of good travel than 10" of good travel. But travel isn't everything, 12" of poor/inferior travel is worse than 10" of good travel. That is, you're better off with a 10" SC10 II w/ properly valved x package shocks than with a 12" SC10 III w/ gas cell shocks, in the moguls and jumps at least. And say if SC10 III had only 10", as SC10 II did, but maintaining the rising rate design difference, although they're both 10", the III would ride nicer in the stutter bumps.

It is all how you measure it when comparing travel numbers. Some measure at the bump stops, some at the rear bumper, and some really stretch the truth trying to sell sleds and measure along the arc of the rear idler. But measurement techniques being equal, travel does matter, I sure wouldn't want to go back to even a fantastic 5" suspension compare to an average performaning 12" skid. So its how far ya go AND how you get there, not one or the other.

Actual travel should be measured right under where you're sitting, that is, to the bump stops. I think that is where the '10' in 'M10' comes from. They could have called it M14 had they measured at the rear bumper (or maybe that's the arc of the rear idler, I don't know).

I don't think the SC10 II is 10" to the bump stops, nor is the III 12" to the bump stops. They are 10" and 12" vertical at the rear bumper, respectively, or at least that's what I read. At the bump steps they may be only 9" and 11", in which case even the SC10 III doesn't have the travel of the M10, whose name implies it has less travel than the SC10 III, when in reality it has more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Yeah - what he said...

...just measured my SC-10 II - 8 inches at the bump stop - not millimeter more! From that, I'd assume the SC-10 III to be 10in

Hmmmfmfmf who woulda figured!?

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
700GSE said:
Travel, shmavel - It all depends on how/where you measure it. It's not how far ya go, but how ya get there. Yamaha have done wonders with "restricted travel" suspensions.

But for the record "actual travel", measured at the bump-stop (where it should be) on an SC-10 III is 12 inches. On the SC-10 II it's 10... You want "TRAVEL" - the later series M-10 is the way to go... 14+ inches...
[snapback]787098[/snapback]​
The actual travel of the SC- 10 II is 8 inches and the actual travel of the new SC-4 is 9.5 inches. The measurments were taken between the rubber bump stop on the rail to the upper point of the rear torque arm that the spring is installed. This is the TRUE,ACTUAL travel and is also the same methoed that fast uses to measure the m-10 and 12 rear skids. The manus measure at the rear bumper so they can inflate there travel claims. Unless you are sitting on the rear bumper all the time,these claims are meaningless.
BTW the true travel on the m-10 is 9.6 inches and the new m-12 is 11.5
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
I especially like the "travel" rating on the hybrid, two-up, and mountain sleds - up to 15" - without changing shocks?!?!? Nice!

P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,759 Posts
Wow, then an M12 would sure be nice if it has 2" more than the already pretty awesome and bump eating SC4. Even the M12 has 1/2" more than the SC4, hmmmm. They sure must have been ahead of their time when introduced around 1991 eh?
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top