153", or 162" ??? That IiiiIis... the question

Yourworstnightmare · Oct 15, 2009

So ladies and gents, what do I get?

for a 2010 Arctic Cat M8 Sno Pro.

153", or a 162" ?

Boondocking, Tree Riding, a good portion of chutes and hill climbs, and a lotta mountain riding up here in Idaho, and northern Utah (mostly)

Of course, want to ride in the DEEP Pow......

I'm leaning towards the 162", but.... I'm afraid it's gunna' be a Mac Truck!!

Please help me out. Wanting to make my purchase by the end of November....

eludnu · Oct 15, 2009

I have two 153's and a 159. My buddy rides a 162. He wishes he had a 153. I can go anywhere he can, and can ride faster than he can in the tight tree's. One or two days a year, he's happy, but then I'm no less so on those same days.

153.

sled-fiend · Oct 15, 2009

I went 153'' after major deliberation lol :beer;

theultrarider · Oct 15, 2009

162. Riding a 159 myslef right now. I will never go smaller again. I have ridden several 155's and 163's of freinds. The 155's are good, but when I weight in at 240 and it gets deep and tight, give me the 163. We do alot of slow speed, tight boondocking, places where you just can't carry speed. In those places, it is hard to replace the floatation of the bigger track. Out in the open it is a different story. All depends on how and where you ride.

Yourworstnightmare · Oct 15, 2009

theultrarider said:
162. Riding a 159 myslef right now. I will never go smaller again. I have ridden several 155's and 163's of freinds. The 155's are good, but when I weight in at 240 and it gets deep and tight, give me the 163. We do alot of slow speed, tight boondocking, places where you just can't carry speed. In those places, it is hard to replace the floatation of the bigger track. Out in the open it is a different story. All depends on how and where you ride.

Well, I weigh in (currently) at 202lbs. I'm 5' 10". I can throw my F7 around like it's nothing..... but, I want a dedicated mountain sled.

I'd like to do some crazy tree riding, like you say.... where you cant carry much speed, and have to almost stop, while being in deep pow. I know that up here last year, even my buddy's 144" was getting stuck, or damn near stuck consistantly.... because the snow had no base, or very little base... with 100+ inches of snow....

(Trinities!

)

I know that me personally, I'll prolly only get heavier as time goes on, plus my gear, and a spare fuel jug & bungee, etc.....

I'm also a mad gear head. I like to tinker. a LOT. I forsee a turbo in the future, after money gets a little better.

I dunno if I'd kick myself in the *** if I bought a 153, then turbo'd it, only to want the 162.

DECISIONS!!!

AhhhHHhHhhH!

89sandman · Oct 15, 2009

i live for the deep/trees, see my currently line, nothing better than spending the day in the trees and not seeing a road all day!!! i'm talking days when you stop you'd better be facing down hill and you still have to pack the front of your sled to take off and you still might get stuck

days when your pinned so much just to keep going the insulation on the inside of your hood starts to melt!!! if you want to ride the deep the 162 is the only way to go. here in oregon where the snow is sooooo thick there is no comparison. sure is nice to have those extra lugs for stopping power on the way down and traction on the way up. when i say deep i mean deeeeeeepppppp!!!!!

this first pic shows what i mean by thick, the stuff will turn into boulders in front of your sled...

Bkinz · Oct 15, 2009

Go with the 162" it is awesome, knowing that you can almost stop and take off again w/o getting stuck. On my D7 with the 163" i can go through the trees at a crawl in 2-3ft and turn uphill and go. The extra lugs and length will get you just the extra ummphh to get you up on top. As for the trees, anyone who says the 162" wont boondock is kiding them selves.

tudizzle · Oct 15, 2009

the 153 will be more versatile better for more situations.

drinkwyo · Oct 15, 2009

if u foresee a turbo in the future it should be a no brainer. 162 all the way. Shorter sleds are fun. But the 162 will take u places the shorties cant go.

Yourworstnightmare · Oct 15, 2009

You guys are definitely steering me towards the 162......

Sandman.... that's just like the snow we had up in the Trinities last year. I needed to put a road-warrior style plow on the front to get back down the hill.... LOL.

I definitely would like to NOT see the road, for hours at a time. That's what I love about boondocking.... it gets you away from everyone. That's my soul intention of getting a true mountain sled.... to get off the trail more, and out into the back country.

I really appreciate everyone's opinions..... please keep em comin

ArcticBoy · Oct 15, 2009

Most of the group I ride with thinks 153 is the longest you need in "most" cases. But if you're gonna turbo well the n you might as well have more track. It's gonna be a HUGE difference coming off an F-7.

Twostroke · Oct 15, 2009

When money allows i'm going 162, deep pow and boondocking is all that matters.

strokerz · Oct 15, 2009

162"

I like to think of it like a water ski. If you have ever water skied you know a heavier person rides a longer (and wider) ski. I weigh 230 lbs and have owed both a 162" M7 and 162" M8. Of course if you ride flats and NO DEEP POW or weigh in at 180 lbs or less get the 153". But for me in 2 foot of powder I love my 162! I have ridin up to people with 141's stuck on flat ground ( deep POW)helped them and ridin off, just be easy on the throttle.

)

Wheel House Motorsports · Oct 15, 2009

if your affraid it will be hard to drive and steer a 162... dont be, there super easy to throw around and with your size, a perfect match in my mind. when it gets deep out, longer tracks are the only way... and i like small flickable sleds, also depends on who you ride with!

but when its deep out, the longer tracks always shine in our group, in the setup, its just scary anyways, dont need but a 136 then!

T&A1000 · Oct 15, 2009

I have one of each. 07 M1000 162 and I love it. 09 TM8 153, soon to be a 162!!

ChicksDigDoos · Oct 15, 2009

if it was me i would buy the 162 sled sell the track and put a 174 under it

Skinner · Oct 15, 2009

I went through the same dilemma when I bought my 08. Played it safe and got the 153. Now a lot of dollars later I have the 162 under it. I’m 6’3” 225 and I was wanting more with the 153. Now if you are even thinking about a turbo……162 for sure. JMHO

04LS6 · Oct 15, 2009

Had an 08 M8 snow pro 153. tried a 162 and wished I got that.

HILCLMR · Oct 15, 2009

153 or 162

Well the difference is only 9 inches, that works out to maybe 2 extra lugs in the snow? With a 3 pitch, no brainer get the 162, turbo it and then show the boys why you went 162!
Thats what my new one is M8 Sno Pro 162

MARCUSO · Oct 15, 2009

I have a REV 162, 3pitch, and an Everest 154.
I loved the 162 in the deeep and it was ok in the medium pack also, but....pushy in the set up. You always had to break the track free to slide around in the set up...

The 154 is more nimble, especially in the spring, and unless it is 4 feet of fresh, I would rather ride the 154.

Eludnu hit it on the head,

Some people say they just ride 4 feet deep, all the time.... I say BS. I get maybe a weekend , maybe maybe 2 weekends of stupid deep.

153", or 162" ??? That IiiiIis... the question

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads