Can-Am Maverick X3 X RC vs. Polaris RZR XP Turbo S: 2018 Desert Comparison

By Cody Hooper

In 2018, we put the Can-Am Maverick X3 X RC Turbo R and Polaris RZR XP Turbo S on the same California City, California, desert course. These 72-inch-wide, turbocharged two-seaters were remarkably close in speed, but their wheelbases, seating positions and suspension systems made them feel very different. Here is how the original head-to-head test played out in whoops, tight trails, sand washes, drag races and jumps.

Editor’s note: This is a comparison of the 2018 machines and the equipment we tested. Specifications and impressions below are specific to those vehicles, not current model-year offerings.

Test setup: same tires, same terrain

The X3 was our long-term test machine, fitted with a No Limit cage, stock-geometry replacement front A-arms, tie rods, ZRP radius rods and 32-inch ITP Coyotes. Matching Coyotes on the RZR removed a major tire variable. We also drove two stock X3 X RCs with the same shock settings to check our impressions. We set tire pressures at 13 psi and tested after rain had improved traction and settled the dust. The X3’s production tire specification in the table below remains its original 30-inch Maxxis Liberty, while the direct driving comparison used the matching 32-inch Coyotes.

For more background, see our Maverick X3 X RC review and RZR XP Turbo S first ride.

Photos from the comparison

[Show slideshow]

Whoops: X3 stability versus Dynamix control

In a half-mile section of uneven whoops, both machines exceeded 60 mph without pushing wide in the bumpy turn. The X3’s 102-inch wheelbase and lower seating position kept the cabin calmer, and its supportive stock seats held us in place better. Its FOX Podium RC2 internal-bypass shocks worked especially well after we adjusted preload, crossovers, compression and rebound, although the ride became firmer as speed drove the shocks deeper into their bump zones.

The 90-inch-wheelbase RZR felt more compliant at the wheels, but its stock seats flexed and let the driver move fore and aft. We favored Sport for most of this section: Comfort let the front push, while Firm worked best at a hard charge. The RZR’s FOX Live Valve shocks and Dynamix control changed damping as we drove, a useful advantage that becomes more apparent in corners and on landings. For this first whoop run, the X3 earned our slight edge because of cabin stability and its seats.

Switchbacks: the shorter RZR turns in quicker

Both turbo engines pulled hard from corner to corner. The X3’s throttle felt shorter and more abrupt; the RZR’s delivery was easier to meter. In tight two-track, the shorter RZR pivoted more readily. Dynamix in Sport also resisted roll, brake dive and squat, helping the Polaris change direction cleanly. The longer X3 pushed slightly at the front when driven at its limit. We gave the switchbacks to the RZR.

The engine note was another clear difference. The X3 sounded quieter and more muted alongside the throatier XP Turbo S. Neither had a meaningful power advantage on the winding course.

Rutted sand washes: steering position matters

Both cars could hold a line and drive out of a sandy berm. The X3’s extra length helped it settle, while the RZR rotated more easily. In deeply tracked sand, however, the RZR’s steering wheel sat closer to the driver and its assistance made corrections less tiring. The X3 wheel felt too far away for confident rapid inputs. A steering wheel hub can address that ergonomic complaint; as tested, the sand-wash edge went to Polaris.

Drag race and high speed: nearly even

Repeated starts to 60 mph were close enough that reaction time decided the run. On a few passes to 80 mph, the X3 opened about half a car length; both approached their limits just below 90 mph. These are observations from our test, not standardized acceleration or top-speed figures. At speed, the X3’s longer wheelbase and lower seat gave the driver a settled feeling. The RZR remained composed, with Dynamix contributing to ride comfort, but its shorter wheelbase and quicker steering made it feel a little busier. We gave the high-speed confidence edge to Can-Am.

Jumps: the RZR lands with more composure

Both machines flew level, but the XP Turbo S was more comfortable on hard landings. Its Dynamix system increased compression damping in the air, helping the shocks absorb impact without the pronounced skidplate slap we heard from the X3 when it bottomed. The X3’s approach to full compression also uses the frame and skidplate to share the load. In this test, the RZR’s landings were easier on the occupants, so it won the jump section.

Uneven whoops: the X3 settles the cabin

Our final section mixed offset, two- to three-foot whoops that tossed the machines side to side. Both skimmed through cleanly. Slow-motion footage showed more wheel movement from the X3 without more cabin movement, and its longer wheelbase gave it a slight comfort advantage. We awarded this section to Can-Am.

Cockpit comfort and equipment

The X3 had the better stock seats, more legroom, full doors and a lower, more enclosed seating position. Its tradeoffs were limited forward sightlines and a long reach to the wheel. The RZR offered better visibility of its front tires, a well-positioned Sparco steering wheel and easier steering in rough going, but less legroom for tall drivers and seats that flexed during aggressive driving. We called the cockpit comparison a tie.

The equipment contest also ended level. Polaris supplied Ride Command, a rear camera and the electronically controlled Dynamix suspension. Can-Am countered with a factory winch, beadlock wheels, substantial skid protection and its selectable Smart-Lok front differential. See our Smart-Lok introduction and Dynamix overview for more on those systems.

Verdict: choose the cockpit and terrain that fit you

Our 2018 scoring ended in a tie. The X3 felt steadier in fast whoops and open desert and had the more supportive stock seats. The RZR turned faster in tight terrain, steered more naturally in churned-up sand and landed jumps with greater composure. Each reached essentially the same pace by a different route. Sit in both, check your reach and legroom, and drive them back to back if possible. That will tell you more than the small difference in claimed horsepower.

Suspension settings from our test

RZR XP Turbo S: We added half an inch of front preload and used Dynamix Sport for most of the test. We thought the rear might benefit from roughly a quarter inch less preload.

Maverick X3 X RC Turbo R: These are the settings we liked on our RC2-equipped test car. All clicker settings are measured outward from fully seated. Record your baseline and check sag before changing your own vehicle; load and terrain can change the ideal setup.

2018 Can-Am Maverick X3 X RC Turbo R vs. Polaris RZR XP Turbo S specs

Manufacturer claims and original test-era specifications; the comparison X3 wore 32-inch ITP Coyotes instead of its stock 30-inch tires.