Industry News UTV Product Reviews

CAN-AM MAVERICK X3 X RC VS POLARIS RZR XP TURBO S

Can-Am Maverick X3 X RC vs. Polaris RZR XP Turbo S

Which factory long travel car is the true king of the desert?

By Cody Hooper

Machine tests are difficult to judge when you don’t have the competition on-hand. Over the years, we have been fortunate enough to take part in many manufacturer press introductions, stemming all the way back to the early prehistoric days of the UTV segment when the Yamaha Rhino reigned King. Usually, we will give our first impressions on a unit after the first ride, but reserve comparisons until we can get two or more machines in the same place at the same time. And as luck would have it, we happened to have two brand-new 2018 turbocharged sport UTVs on hand at the same place & time, less than a week after the hot release of the new Polaris RZR XP Turbo S.

UTV owners are fickle beings. We like fast stuff. We like comfortable stuff. We like capable stuff, and we like dependable stuff. To ask a machine to do all four of those things flawlessly day in and day out is like asking your tow rig to double as a daily driver for your work commute in the city. Is it possible? Yes, but compromises have to happen.

The two machines we have on-hand here are the least compromising of the modern-day Sport UTVs. They don’t sacrifice width or size for trail clearance. They don’t compromise on power to save cost. They don’t give up nearly anything the high-performance, adrenaline-junkie UTV owner would ask for, but they do cost a small fortune. Hovering just below the 30 grand mark, both the Can-Am Maverick X3 X RC Turbo R (see also Can-Am Maverick X3 X RC Turbo R Review) and the Polaris RZR XP Turbo S (see also Polaris RZR XP Turbo S First Ride Reviewrepresent the highest echelon of performance that your UTV savings fund can buy from a showroom. Therefore, this test will not take in to account the cost of the machine, or its value proposition in the marketplace. If you’re in the market for a less expensive machine, a narrower machine, or a more beginner-friendly machine, Can-Am and Polaris already make them in plentiful numbers. This test is all about finding out who is king of the hill in the “Supercar Segment” of the UTV market.

We have to come clean. The Maverick X3 X RC we used for the test has been in our stable for a few months, and it already has some modifications. It has a No Limit cage, front A-arms (stock geometry), tie rods, ZRP radius rods, and a set of brand-new ITP Coyote 32 inch tires. The tires were part of the plan- we wanted to put the X3 and the RZR on the exact same tire to eliminate worries of handling or traction differences related to the OEM’s choice of stock rubber. The bolt-ons on the X3 don’t change the performance, but do increase the safety and durability aspects of the machine. The XP Turbo S will also receive the same treatment soon. The good thing is that we also had two identical, bone-stock Can-Am X3 X RCs on hand at the time of this test (yes, 3 X RCs in one place!) that also had identical shock setups to our long-term Can-Am loan unit. After spending some seat time in all three Can-Ams, we can confirm that the modifications that we have made to our long-term car did not affect the performance of the X3 (save for the tire swap).

For our first day of head-to-head testing, we headed to a familiar test spot in California City, California. The weather gods helped us out a bit, laying down a solid amount of rain the day before our testing to keep the dust to a minimum and the traction locked down. We unloaded the machines at 6:30 AM and set tire pressure at 13 psi, then set off for our first round of testing: deep, nasty, uneven desert whoops.

TESTING

WHOOP SECTION A
The section we chose to do our head-to-head testing on is one we are very familiar with. We have tested every major-brand sport UTV on the market in this same spot except for the Textron Wildcat XX (we will soon). This spot has also been our home for Class 1 and Trophy Truck testing, and the area is a great playground to dial in suspension settings. There is a huge diversity in desert-type terrain here, with deep sand washes, fluffy silt beds, rock-strewn hardpack, dusty backroads and a plethora of whoops. The first section we tested in is a half-mile long whoop section with a huge S-turn and an uphill/downhill section. Typically, we can set a car up fairly well using this test section alone, as it taxes the cars incredibly hard at any speed over 40 mph.

First up was the all-new RZR XP Turbo S. We tried the XP through this section multiple times in all three Dynamix suspension settings- Comfort, Sport, and Firm (more details: RZR DYNAMIX – THE FIRST, INTELLIGENT SUSPENSION SYSTEM FOR OFF-ROAD). In Comfort mode, the front end’s wheel movement caused the car to track to the outside of the corners, as the damping was too soft to really keep the tires in contact with the ground well. Switching to Sport mode, we could drive the RZR through the whoops better, and the front end didn’t tend to go light and push as it did in Comfort. Switching to Firm was far too stiff for casual driving. When matting the accelerator and pushing the RZR over 60 mph in this setting, it really shined- the Firm damping mode should have been labeled “Race”. The Fox shocks fitted to the RZR XP Turbo S are almost identical to Fox’s high-end 5-stage Internal Bypass (IBP) shocks, except the adjusters have been replaced with computer-controlled servo motors. This allows the Polaris’ brain to adjust the shocks on the fly, using speed, brake/accelerator position, steering position, vehicle angle, and more to adjust the damping seamlessly.

The X3 X RC was set up using FOX’s guidelines, which are available for free on Fox’s website. If you have a 72 inch Maverick and you haven’t adjusted the preload, crossover, compression, and rebound, you are TRULY missing out on the performance and comfort this machine has to offer. While the X3 doesn’t have electronically-adjustable suspension, it does offer some of the best hardware in the business. The Fox Podium RC2 IBP shocks are almost infinitely adjustable, and getting the settings right really keep the car in check. In our testing, the X3 just straight drove through the whoops without issue. As speeds increase, so does the harshness- not necessarily from bottoming, but rather compressing the shocks into their bump zones where the damping and spring rates get incredibly stiff to avoid bottoming out.

Can-Am Maverick X3 vs. Polaris RZR XP Turbo S

Whoops with a small kicker

The X3 feels a little more stable through the whoops, mainly due to the rear wheels being a foot further from the fronts than in the RZR. The lower seating position adds to the feeling of stability, as the movement of the vehicle doesn’t affect the driver in the X3 the same way it does in the RZR. Hopping back and forth between the machines quickly, the cockpit layout and seating position really make themselves known. It’s almost as dramatic as getting out of a sports car (X3) and into a truck (RZR), as you feel like you sit a foot higher in the Polaris. That being said, the steering angle and wheel placement on the Polaris are hands-down the favorite between the two. The Polaris wheel is at the perfect distance from the seat, allowing for easy control over the wheel in rough terrain. The X3’s wheel is tiny and is seemingly bolted to the dash. It’s simply too far from the driver’s reach to be comfortable with at high speed. This can be easily remedied with an aftermarket steering wheel hub.

Speed-wise, these machines are basically tied in the whoops. Both were able to eclipse 60 mph in this section without pushing wide mid-corner in the bumps, but they do it very differently. The RZR’s suspension feels more compliant, but the ride in the cab tosses you about more than it does in the X3. A good set of seats and harnesses will alleviate a lot of this feeling, as the stock RZR seats are about the worst in the Sport UTV segment. They flex terribly, so if you don’t have the seat in the furthest back position (where the seatback rests against the interior plastic), you get about 3-4 inches of fore and aft movement while belted in. This tends to slam your chest against the harness and isn’t comfortable. Our workaround was to slide the seat all the way back.  Both machines are well-sorted enough to steer through the whoops without issue. If we had to pick a winner in this segment of the test, it would go to the X3, but only because the stock Can-Am seats are a bit more robust than the Polaris units, and don’t flex as much. In all honesty, both of these machines should have aftermarket-style bucket seats and 5 point harnesses, as the speed they can carry over rough terrain is astounding. Score one for the X3.

SWITCHBACK SECTION

After the first test section, we headed for some tight switchback trails. A 3-mile long sand wash in our test area is bordered by some of the most fun, high-speed winding trails the desert has to offer, with whoops, drops, berms, and jumps littered across the snaking desert floor. Flogging both of these machines through these two-track trails revealed more differences and similarities. First off, the power both of these cars create is absolutely astonishing. Remembering that only a decade ago, we were absolutely staggered at the release of a 55-horsepower RZR 800 H.O., it’s incredible to think that modern machines are at TRIPLE that horsepower rating.

Either machine you choose is plenty fast. Corner to corner, you can’t tell the difference, other than the sound. Both machines will push you back in the seat and spray a roost that a sand car would be proud of. They do put it down rather differently, with the Can-Am having a touchier and shorter-throw throttle compared to the RZR’s more user-friendly and linear power delivery.

Can-Am Maverick X3 vs. Polaris RZR XP Turbo S

Hard cornering

Speaking of sound, we never really noticed just how quiet the X3 was until we ran it side by side with the XP Turbo S all day. When both machines are idling side by side, the RZR’s sound almost completely masks the X3’s, so much so that our videographer asked us multiple times if we had started the X3 yet. The X3’s sound is very much like a Sea-Doo, emitting a muffled whirr with plentiful (and magical) turbo noises. The XP Turbo S is more of a throaty bark, almost never sounding turbocharged, but always authoritative. It’s not overly loud, but noticeably more so than the X3. The XP Turbo engine is one of the best soundtracks money can buy, even in stock form.

In the really tight stuff, the RZR’s shorter wheelbase begins to shine. Locked in Sport mode on the Dynamix control, the RZR cuts and carves with the best in the business. The Dynamix setup is no gimmick- during our testing, the difference in body roll, dive, and squat vs the X3’s “standard” Fox Podium RC2 shocks was immediately noticeable. Both cars have great swaybar settings from the factory, but the Polaris’ Dynamix shock setup immediately firms up the outside shocks during cornering and the fronts during braking. This keeps the car almost completely level. When driving hard during and two-foot brake/accelerator work, the RZR pulls ahead slightly, as it pivots on a dime and springs out of the hole with ferocity. The Can-Am is not far behind, but the longer wheelbase and higher degree of body roll lead to a split-second of push from the front end when the car is at its limit. This could be remedied by suspension work we believe, but it won’t ever be as sharp as the shorter-wheelbase RZR. Score one for the XP.

DEEP, UGLY SAND

It’s inevitable in the desert- spend enough time out here, and you will come across some of the nastiest, tracked-out sand washes imaginable. Tire tracks over a foot deep, slippery tops, and enough ruts to make a pro-level MXGP rider nervous- these traits all describe a typical Mojave desert sand wash. Here, both machines feel strangely at home. Both will stick a line and shred a berm under power, but neither feel 100% perfect. The RZR is shorter and taller, so it will skip a berm easier than the X3. The X3 is longer, and won’t pivot like the RZR. Does it matter? No. Either one is incredibly adept at sand work, but we have to give the edge to the RZR here simply because of the steering wheel placement. In rough, tracked sand, where you’re pushing the power steering systems to their limit, the RZR is easier to handle. The X3’s wheel placement rears its head again, making the driver’s steering inputs feel more labored and less controlled. It’s not a deal breaker by any means, but those looking to do a lot of sand wash work will benefit greatly from bringing the wheel closer to the driver. Score another one for the XP.

Can-Am Maverick X3 X RC vs. Polaris RZR XP Turbo S

Drag Race to 80MPH was very close


HIGH SPEED

We are fortunate to have some of the longest, flattest dirt roads in existence in our test bed. Out here in the desert, you can find some roads that go 10 miles without a curve in sight, and we chose one to do our high-speed testing in.

We lined up both cars for drag races multiple times, and up to 60 mph, it all depends on reaction time. Whichever car got the jump won the race. The X3 put about a half-car length on the XP a couple of times at 80 mph, but both cars hit their limit just shy of 90. At that speed, the long wheelbase of the X3 lends itself to a more stable feeling. Not to say that the XP feels unstable at speed, as it’s anything but that. 

The RZR’s more aggressive steering ratio and shorter wheelbase makes it slightly more twitchy than the X3 at high speeds, but both handle big bumps and jumps at speed incredibly well. Ironing out miles of whooped-out terrain in either car is incredibly enjoyable, with a slight edge in comfort going to the Polaris for its Dynamix active suspension control. Even in the Comfort setting, the RZR firms up at speed to handle the increased wheel velocity from impacts. The lower seating position in the X3 makes the driver feel more confident when things start getting fast, so score another point for the X3.

JUMPS

Everyone loves air time, and we are no exception. The feeling of weightlessness in a UTV is a freeing thing, especially if the landing goes off without a hitch. This is the only place where the RZR clearly pulls ahead of the Maverick, and it all comes down to that tricky Dynamix suspension system. When the RZR’s computer senses it has gone airborne, it automatically dials all four shocks in to maximum compression damping, stiffening up the Fox shocks so the landings are less dramatic. Without the on-the-fly adjustability of the Dynamix system, the X3 is left to its default shock setup. It bottoms more easily than the RZR, allowing the skidplate to slap the earth with authority. We are up in the air (pun intended) about the necessity of this type of design, as it has its shortfalls and its strengths.

The RZR XP Turbo S is designed to still have around 4 inches of ground clearance under the rear skidplate at full bottom, which lets the tires do their job of smoothing things out and keeps the vitals of the car off the ground. The Can-Am X3 is designed to lay frame at full bottom (or just short of it), which spreads the load to the frame and keeps suspension parts alive a little longer. Hard landings in the RZR are simply more comfortable than the Maverick, from inside the machine and from an onlookers’ perspective. The Can-Am makes some harsh noises when bottomed hard, letting you know the machine is at its limit and you need to back off. The RZR doesn’t bottom as easily, asking you to push it harder.

Both machines fly level and land very well. With nearly 2 feet of travel at each end, both cars can take some serious abuse before you reach the limits of their suspension. However, at that limit, the RZR is more composed when landing. Score another point for the XP.

Can-Am Maverick X3 vs. Polaris RZR XP Turbo S

Whoops

WHOOP SECTION B

At this point, we are tied- two points for the RZR, two for the X3. Our final whoop test section for the day was a bit unorthodox. It’s a blending of two single-track trails, with the whoops spaced apart unevenly left to right. Think of it as two mogul sections on a ski hill, but side by side. It tosses cars side to side while testing their ability to smash through 2-3 foot deep whoops at speed. If a car is unbalanced, you will find out here very quickly.

We will get right to it- both cars fly through this section. It doesn’t upset either car, with both the X3 and the XP Turbo S skimming right over the tops without issue. Referring to the slow-motion footage, the X3 has more wheel movement, but no more cab movement than the RZR. Either one is a blast to run hard through this section, and switching back and forth solidified that feeling. Here, we will give a slight edge to the X3 for its longer wheelbase, as it helps smooth the ride in the cab a little more. 

Can-Am Maverick X3 vs. Polaris RZR XP Turbo S

Uneven whoops

COMFORT

As we reach this segment of the test, we continue to scratch our heads. Both cars get so close to perfection, but fall short in the details. We will start with the X3.

The seating position and the physical seat on the Can-Am are miles better than the Polaris. Leg room is much more plentiful, afforded by the cab design and a 12 inch stretch in wheelbase over the RZR. The seat is low, the doors are tall, and the dash is as well. You sit in the X3, where it almost feels as if you sit on the RZR. The two largest detriments to the Can-Am’s interior layout are outward visibility and the reach to the steering wheel. Both can be remedied fairly easily with aftermarket parts, and should be the first items on the list for any X3 owner. We had our X3 seat in its most upright position, with the slider set close enough to where our legs weren’t bunched up in the footwell. The reach to the wheel was still too long, and didn’t lend us confidence at speed. The seats are lightyears ahead of the Polaris in terms of comfort and support.

The RZR is a polar opposite to the Maverick in this regard. Even with the seat positioned as far back as the slider will allow, the driver’s left leg is left in an upright position against the footrest that will leave taller drivers’ knees bruised from boucing against the door frame. The RZR’s seats, as mentioned before, should be relegated to office duty and don’t belong in a machine that can do 85+ mph over 3-4 foot holes in the desert floor. That being said, the visibility out of the RZR is astoundingly good. You can see both front wheels at all times from the driver’s seat, and the end of the hood almost seems to be in reach of the driver. The RZR also has negative overhang front and rear, meaning the tires stick out past the bodywork quite a bit. This is fantastic for high-speed driving, as it means that your approach and departure angles are limited by the tires and not the car itself.

The RZR’s steering column and wheel changes on the Turbo S model are a welcomed addition. The sloppy steering wheel adjuster in the column has been fixed, and the wheel moved closer to the driver. The Sparco wheel is also much more rigid than the old plastic-wrapped steel core unit, and is as good or better than any aftermarket steering wheel we have ever fit to a RZR chassis. Coupled with the 25% boost in power steering assist, the RZR’s steering setup walks all over the X3’s. It’s easier to turn under load, is more manageable at speed, and exhibits less fight and kickback through the wheel when things get rough. If the RZR had 3 inches more leg room and better seats, we would call it here; however, it doesn’t. We can’t give the Can-Am a full point ahead here, so we will call it a tie. Score one for the XP, and one for the X3.

FEATURES

The Can-Am’s instrumentation was state-of-the-industry last year, but Polaris caught up quickly. The gauge cluster behind the wheel on the X3 and RZR Turbo S are nearly identical, down to the opposed tach and speedo gauges. Where the RZR pulls ahead in interior design is the ride command system. At this price point, the RZR stands out with a host of electronic equipment that Can-Am has yet to touch. The Ride Command system offers GPS, vehicle diagnostics, extra gauge readouts, Bluetooth and stereo controls (speakers don’t come standard), front and rear cameras (XP Turbo S comes with a rear-facing camera stock, but is pre-wired for a front camera), and GoPro camera controls built in to the touchscreen display. We were enamored by the Ride Command and Dynamix system on the RZR, and we used the backup/rear view camera no less than 100 times during our testing. It’s a very welcomed accessory suite, and we wish the X3 had it as well.

The Dynamix system on the RZR is something that we honestly thought would be categorized as a gimmick during our testing. On the 64 inch model, it’s fairly impressive, but on the long-travel 72 inch wide RZR XP Turbo S, it is simply sublime. Never having to get out of the car to adjust clickers is golden, but the added speed/angle/steering-adjusted shock changes while driving really knock it out of the park. Dynamix is the real deal, and we cannot wait to see where Polaris takes it in the future.

The X3 packs on features in the chassis department. It comes with full-body HMW skid plates, a front-mounted winch, beadlock tires, and a front differential locking switch from the factory. Couple that with its tri-mode adjustable steering assist (we leave it in MAX all the time) and its intelligent throttle control, and the gap narrows between the two. The choice between these cars starts to come down to personal preference on the cockpit layout, electronic controls, and vehicle appearance. Again, this segment is a tie- score one for the X3 and one for the XP.


JUDGEMENT DAY

We are proud to say that in our 15 years of UTV testing, we have yet to pit two vehicles against each other that are so closely matched. Multiple testers swapping back and forth between the vehicles seemed to always prefer the car they just got out of. It really is that close- they both achieve the same results, but in different ways. Either car will take enough punishment to make your passengers sick without blinking an eye.

Both of them look fantastic, even in stock form. We do have to say that the RZR’s cab design and layout are a little long in the tooth, but we know Polaris has many more (read larger) machines up their sleeve for the future. The front fascia upgrade is a nice touch, but it’s still the same old RZR cab layout with some new features sprinkled in. The X3, by comparison, looks quite a bit newer, and mjuch sportier.

Both of these “Halo UTVs” are packed with more electronic wizardry, suspension equipment, and horsepower to make minced meat of any trail you can throw at them. And lastly, both of these cars are so incredibly fun to drive, it will blow your mind. In the end, the choice between the two is muddy. By our count, each of these cars scored 5 points during our testing, making this a tie, essentially. We hate to do that, but the choice between these two really does come down to personal preference. They will achieve the same result in different ways- either one is king of the desert and dune segment right now.

They’re both capable, comfortable, high-tech, and built stronger than anything else in either manufacturer’s stable. If you’re looking to choose between the two, the best advice we can give is to either try to drive both back to back, or sit in both back to back. The choice really comes down to personal preference and riding style. Either way, whichever machine you choose, you’ll be happy knowing that none of your friends stand a chance at keeping up in their “lesser” machines.

SUSPENSION SETUP NOTES:
RZR XP TURBO S- We added a half-inch of preload to the front end, and kept the Dynamix switch in “Sport” mode. The RZR may benefit further from taking about a quarter-inch of preload out of the back end.

MAVERICK X3 X RC TURBO R- Here is our favorite shock tune for the RC2-equipped Can-Am models:

**All clicker settings are “out” from fully seated**

Front
Low speed 2.5 turns out
High speed 3.25 turns out
Rebound 11 clicks out
Spring Length 23.5″
Crossover 4.75″

Rear
Low speed 2.5 turns out
High speed 4 turns out
Rebound 10 clicks out
Spring Length 31″
Crossover 6″

 

CAN-AM MAVERICK X3 X RC vs. POLARIS RZR XP TURBO S

SPECIFICATIONS

CAN-AM X3 XRC

POLARIS RZR XP TURBO S

ENGINE

INLINE TRIPLE CYLINDER TURBO

INLINE TWIN CYLINDER TURBO

HORSEPOWER

CLAIMED 172 HP

CLAIMED 168 HP

TOP SPEED

85+ MPH

85+ MPH

DISPLACEMENT

900CC

925CC

INTERCOOLED

YES

YES

FUELING

EFI

EFI

TRANSMISSION

“QRS-X” CVT BELT DRIVE, DUAL RANGE

“PVT” CVT BELT DRIVE, DUAL RANGE

PARK/PARKING BRAKE

IN TRANSMISSION

IN TRANSMISSION

4WD SYSTEM

LOCKABLE FRONT DIFF WITH SMART-LOK

AUTO-LOCKING FRONT ISOLATED DIFF

POWER STEERING

TRI-MODE DPS ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING

SINGLE-MODE ELECTRONIC POWER STEERING

FRONT SUSPENSION

DUAL A-ARM

DUAL A-ARM

FRONT SHOCKS

FOX 2.5 PODIUM RC2 IBP

FOX 2.5 LIVE VALVE IBP WITH DYNAMIX

FRONT TRAVEL

CLAIMED 22 INCHES

CLAIMED 19 INCHES

REAR SUSPENSION

4-LINK TRAILING ARM

3-LINK TRAILING ARM

REAR SHOCKS

FOX 3.0 PODIUM RC2 IBP

FOX 3.0 LIVE VALVE IBP WITH DYNAMIX

REAR TRAVEL

CLAIMED 24 INCHES

CLAIMED 21 INCHES

FRONT BRAKES

VENTILATED DISC, TWIN PISTON CALIPER

VENTILATED DISC, THREE PISTON CALIPER

REAR BRAKES

VENTILATED DISC, TWIN PISTON CALIPER

VENTILATED DISC, THREE PISTON CALIPER

FRONT TIRES

30X10-14 MAXXIS LIBERTY

32X10-15 ITP COYOTE

REAR TIRES

30X10-14 MAXXIS LIBERTY

32X10-15 ITP COYOTE

WHEELS

BEADLOCK

STANDARD

LENGTH

133 IN

122 IN

WIDTH

72 IN

72 IN

HEIGHT

67 IN

75 IN

WHEELBASE

102 IN

90 IN

GROUND CLEARANCE

15 IN

16 IN

MFR DRY WEIGHT

CLAIMED 1,751 LB

CLAIMED 1,718 LB

BED CAPACITY

200 LB

300 LB

FUEL CAPACITY

10.5 GAL

9.5 GAL

DOORS

FULL

HALF

PASSENGER HANDHOLDS

CONSOLE

T-BAR

You Might Also Like