2012 Polaris RZR XP 900 vs. Arctic Cat Wildcat 1000

Originally published October 3, 2011. This article compared the two machines using their announced specifications before we had driven the Arctic Cat Wildcat 1000. We have updated the presentation and added hindsight from our later testing while preserving the original comparison.

For the first few years of the sport side-by-side market, Polaris had the category largely to itself. The original RZR established the compact recreational UTV formula, and the wider Polaris RZR S brought factory long-travel suspension to riders who previously would have needed aftermarket components.

Polaris raised the bar again in January 2011 with the RZR XP 900. Its 88-horsepower ProStar engine, rear trailing-arm suspension and lower seating position made it one of the first machines that truly felt designed for aggressive desert and dune driving.

Then Arctic Cat introduced the 2012 Wildcat 1000. It combined a 951cc V-twin with 17 inches of front travel, 18 inches of rear travel, a 90-inch wheelbase and standard electronic power steering.

Suddenly, sport UTV buyers had a genuine head-to-head question: Polaris RZR XP 900 or Arctic Cat Wildcat 1000?

Polaris RZR XP 900

RZR XP 900 vs. Wildcat 1000: Quick Comparison

Specifications and pricing reflect the machines as announced for the 2012 model year. Manufacturers measured and reported vehicle weight differently than the curb-weight figures commonly used today.

Arctic Cat Wildcat V-Twin 1000 H.O.

Suspension and Rough-Terrain Performance

The biggest advantage visible on the Wildcat’s specification sheet was its suspension. Arctic Cat claimed 17 inches of front travel and 18 inches at the rear, compared with 13.5 inches up front and 14 inches at the rear of the RZR XP 900.

Both machines used rear trailing-arm designs, but Arctic Cat combined its five-link rear suspension with 2-inch Walker Evans Racing shocks. Polaris used a three-link trailing-arm arrangement with 2-inch FOX Podium shocks.

Both shock packages could be adjusted and internally revalved, which was especially important for owners building these machines for dunes, desert racing or rough recreational terrain.

The Wildcat also had an 8.6-inch wheelbase advantage. Its 90-inch wheelbase allowed the front and rear suspension to work across widely spaced bumps with less pitching than the shorter RZR. That helped the Arctic Cat remain composed in whoops and other fast, rough terrain.

The tradeoff was size. At 120 inches long, the Wildcat was nearly a foot longer than the RZR XP 900. That affected trailer space and made the Wildcat feel less compact in tighter terrain.

Engine and Acceleration

The Wildcat 1000 used a 951cc single-overhead-cam V-twin derived from the engine found in the Prowler XTZ. For the Wildcat, Arctic Cat revised the intake and exhaust systems and used 50mm throttle bodies to improve performance.

The RZR XP 900 introduced Polaris’ 875cc ProStar parallel twin. The dual-overhead-cam engine produced a claimed 88 horsepower and was designed specifically for the new high-performance side-by-side.

Although the Arctic Cat had the displacement advantage, displacement alone did not determine performance. The RZR was approximately 115 pounds lighter and delivered stronger acceleration. The Wildcat’s original advantage was its ability to maintain speed through rough terrain rather than winning a smooth, straight-line drag race.

Chassis and Seating Position

Both manufacturers placed the engine behind the occupants. This allowed for a lower seating position than the engine-under-seat layouts used by many earlier UTVs.

Lower seats helped reduce the center of gravity, while the rearward engine placement contributed to better chassis balance in bumps and when the vehicle became airborne. These design choices became defining characteristics of the modern sport UTV.

Power Steering

Arctic Cat equipped the Wildcat 1000 with variable-assist electronic power steering. The system adjusted its assistance using steering effort, vehicle speed and tire resistance.

The original RZR XP 900 did not include power steering as standard equipment. Polaris offered an accessory EPS kit, and aftermarket systems were also available, but their cost needed to be included when comparing the two machines.

Power steering was particularly helpful in rocks, tight trails and other low-speed situations. At higher desert speeds it was less essential, but the Wildcat still held a meaningful equipment advantage.

Weight and Maneuverability

The RZR XP 900’s claimed dry weight was 1,190 pounds, compared with 1,305 pounds for the Wildcat. That 115-pound difference contributed to the Polaris’ stronger power-to-weight ratio and more responsive character.

The shorter wheelbase also made the RZR easier to maneuver in tighter conditions. The Wildcat exchanged some of that agility for greater stability and suspension performance in high-speed, rough terrain.

Vehicle weight becomes even more important after accessories are installed. Cages, spare tires, storage systems, bumpers and other equipment can quickly add several hundred pounds. That added weight affects acceleration, braking and suspension performance on either platform.

Which Machine Looked Better on Paper?

Based on the specifications available in October 2011, the answer depended on where the machine would be driven:

• For acceleration and agility: The lighter, shorter Polaris RZR XP 900 held the advantage.
• For whoops and rough desert terrain: The Wildcat’s longer wheelbase and additional suspension travel gave it the edge.
• For factory equipment: The Wildcat included electronic power steering, while the original XP 900 required an accessory system.
• For compact dimensions: The RZR XP 900 was easier to fit in a trailer and more maneuverable in tighter terrain.

What We Learned After Driving Them

Our later seat time largely confirmed the original prediction. The first-generation Wildcat had exceptional suspension and could be driven remarkably fast through rough terrain. Its long wheelbase and generous wheel travel were not merely impressive numbers—they gave the machine a genuine advantage in bumps and whoops.

However, the original Wildcat’s engine and clutch calibration did not deliver the acceleration its 951cc displacement suggested. The lighter RZR XP 900 felt quicker and more responsive, while its shorter chassis made it more versatile in tighter terrain.

Arctic Cat later improved the Wildcat’s clutch calibration and introduced the more powerful Wildcat X. Those changes addressed one of our biggest criticisms of the original machine.

For additional firsthand coverage, read our Polaris RZR XP 900 long-term review and report from the 2011 RZR XP 900 media event.

Historical Verdict

The RZR XP 900 and Wildcat 1000 approached the emerging sport UTV category from different directions. Polaris emphasized acceleration, lower weight and a compact chassis. Arctic Cat emphasized suspension travel, wheelbase and high-speed stability.

Neither machine completely replaced the other. The RZR was the quicker and more agile all-around platform, while the Wildcat established a new benchmark for factory suspension performance in rough terrain.

More importantly, the arrival of the Wildcat gave Polaris its first direct competitor in the pure-sport category. That competition helped accelerate the suspension, power and chassis development that reshaped the entire sport UTV market over the following decade.