Camoplast Tracks: 2.5" Peak vs. 2.6" Power Claw vs. 3" Challenger Extreme

Camoplast Tracks: 2.5" Peak vs. 2.6" Power Claw vs. 3" Challenger Extreme

So its time to change the track out on the ol' buggy and with all these new options, I'm not sure which way to turn. I was always real satisfied with the challenger extreme whenever I had them. The Polaris series 4-5.1 aren't stiff enough for spring riding I think. And I wasn't real impressed with my current 2.25" power claw until I put it on backwards -but this didn't seem to be as buoyant in deep powder as it seemed to trench more than typical.

The track I'm replacing is a 153"x15"x2.25" 3.0 Pitch P.C.

The tracks I am interested in are:

A) 154"/155" Camoplast Peak 2.5"
B) 153" Arctic Cat Power Claw 2.6"
C) 156" Camoplast Challenger Extreme 3.0"

Where I can see the obvious differences such as the sheer size of the 3" or the price effectiveness of the Peak, has anyone seen side by side comparisons of these three traction pieces? What one works the best? Is it the heigth, the lug pattern, or new technology at a great price?

I look forward to everybodies opinions and analysis. Thanx,

Why not a camo extreme 2.5"? Still the most proven all around mountain track.

bnorth said:

Why not a camo extreme 2.5"? Still the most proven all around mountain track.

Click to expand...

Just put this track on to replace my 153 X 2.25 pc. It looks like a really nice and aggressive track. I talked to a couple of guys that had this track last year and really liked it.

In our dry Montana powder...and with the conditions we get in the spring....

I'd say the best all around is the Camo 2.5".

But with that being said...I REALLY want to try the 3" lugs in a 156 with the 15 wide.

SnoDmon said:

So its time to change the track out on the ol' buggy and with all these new options, I'm not sure which way to turn. I was always real satisfied with the challenger extreme whenever I had them. The Polaris series 4-5.1 aren't stiff enough for spring riding I think. And I wasn't real impressed with my current 2.25" power claw until I put it on backwards -but this didn't seem to be as buoyant in deep powder as it seemed to trench more than typical.

The track I'm replacing is a 153"x15"x2.25" 3.0 Pitch P.C.

The tracks I am interested in are:

A) 154"/155" Camoplast Peak 2.5"
B) 153" Arctic Cat Power Claw 2.6"
C) 156" Camoplast Challenger Extreme 3.0"

Where I can see the obvious differences such as the sheer size of the 3" or the price effectiveness of the Peak, has anyone seen side by side comparisons of these three traction pieces? What one works the best? Is it the heigth, the lug pattern, or new technology at a great price?

I look forward to everybodies opinions and analysis. Thanx,

Click to expand...

Everyone says that a 3" track is a poor man's turbo. With that being said, you have to make sure your sled will turn it at high enough speed for it to be effective. I just replaced my stock track with a CE 2.5" and this track looks mean. I have ridden some sleds with the CE and the track flat out performs, in all conditions.

kevinm7 said:

Everyone says that a 3" track is a poor man's turbo. With that being said, you have to make sure your sled will turn it at high enough speed for it to be effective. I just replaced my stock track with a CE 2.5" and this track looks mean. I have ridden some sleds with the CE and the track flat out performs, in all conditions.

Click to expand...

I love my build and the CE 3" made a huge difference over the stock track. My buddy has the peak 2.5 on his turbo xp and he finds the lugs to stiff. As mentioned, you need the power to turn the 3" track.

hivoltagesledhead said:

I love my build and the CE 3" made a huge difference over the stock track. My buddy has the peak 2.5 on his turbo xp and he finds the lugs to stiff. As mentioned, you need the power to turn the 3" track.

Click to expand...

3 inch is another league and i,ve run a 2.5 camo for years

Another vote for 2.5" CE

X3 hands down. A stock pro can spin it just fine.

TheJett29 said:

X3 hands down. A stock pro can spin it just fine.

Click to expand...

2 brand new Pros, one got a pump gas turbo and the other a 3 inch. They are dead even on the powder climb.Jus sayin. the 2.5 is a great all round track but not even close on the mountain.

My vote is for the 2.6 PC. Last year I found it to be superior to my 2.5 in every condition except the extremly bottomless day. I honestly wasn't that happy with the 2.5 CE. Don't get me wrong it's a good track just not as great in every condition as I was hoping. I don't have any experience with the 3"

byeatts said:

2 brand new Pros, one got a pump gas turbo and the other a 3 inch. They are dead even on the powder climb.Jus sayin. the 2.5 is a great all round track but not even close on the mountain.

Click to expand...

This right here should tell you everything you need to know about the difference between a 2.5" and a 3"

3" hands down for me 'it was my poor man's turbo' one of the best improvements i did i had 174 to big and heavy but the 163 awesome! and could only imagine 156 with fast track speed ooooooh buddy !!

SNOWBUM101 said:

3" hands down for me 'it was my poor man's turbo' one of the best improvements i did i had 174 to big and heavy but the 163 awesome! and could only imagine 156 with fast track speed ooooooh buddy !!

Click to expand...

Heres the findings after running the 156X3 all last season. Spools very quick, Track was 63 lbs stock and with one/every other row ports was 62 lbs, Its a lighter lay-up track per "size" than the CE 2.5 was. Tips are soft and flex nicely and belting is flexible after break in.The 3 inch climbs up on top the snow . since the track rides high in the snow the sled is not climbing out of its own trench in addition to the steepness of the hill. This track reduces the actual % the hill the sled is climbing, and the 8-12 inch area behind the drivers does not contact the snow much when up to speed so this hinders performance of longer lengths unless snow is Very cold and bottomless. Once moving the 156 will outclimb the longer 3 inch in many conditions due to the front of the track simply is snowless and the faster 156 track speeds. I,m spinning the 156 at 55 mph+ with the 880 seconds after hitting the flipper. the 156 is working very well even with stock sleds,The longer 3 inch will be a tad quicker to get going due to the extra float but is slower once at speed due to losing track speeds.If your a big guy the longer will be better, Under 200 lbs the 156 will be faster.. I raced a Pro 800 turbo with stock 2.4 track and passed him 1/2 way up a powder climb. Yes its on Vid, The Pro is now changing to a 3 inch as well after that display.. The track is a mountain performer only. Not for racing around at speeds on the trail or lake.I seldom ride over 50 ish on the trails up and motor will run a tad hotter due to less spin and snow hitting the ex-changer.. For all round set snow performance the 2.5 may be a better choice for some however not even close to a 3 inch on the mountain.A bb and 3inch is the best boondocking performer you can get, far better than a Turbo with the instant spool and traction, Once we get to the mountain crest where there are long straight chutes the turbo is in its element and shines in conditions where he can stay on the throttle but in terrain with trees and steeps /variable terrain strong BB/156 is second to none and proven nimble as well. Yes I .m with turbos every ride and they even say thats the ticket in these Sierra conditions.There are treeless areas where pulling chutes all day is the riding style and turbos definitely shine there. The 3 inch is a game changer and this is not a thread about turbos, just helps for comparison.

I don't have an experience with the X3 but have an older 3". Boondocking in deep snow I loved how forgiving it was, come around a corner too slow and grab the throttle to the bars, no problem instead of trenching out it gets on top and climbs. Only downside I really noticed was sidehilling it can be tougher to get it initiated especially if the snow is more setup. It doesn't spin to create that ledge it sits in. Took some getting used to.

What about 3" and track noise? Vibration?

I have a 12proclimb. First I had the peak. I liked it in powder but in spring it was too soft. Then I got the 3" and was extremely close to climbing right with turbo cats, and above pg turbo pros. Now with the turbo and 3" it is downright amazing where it will go. We have put a couple other 3" on closer to stock sleds and what I learned is if I were to do one mod to a sled it would be a 3". Period

EOS said:

What about 3" and track noise? Vibration?

Click to expand...

The track is not the vibration problem. What causes vibration is removing clips when using small 7 tooth drivers. My last 2.5 with clips removed had small vibration and the new 3 inch fully clipped rolls as smooth as a stock track. 0 vibration. As track rolls over driver with every other clip removed it alters in height in each window as it hits. Hi-lo-hi-lo creating a harmonic vibration. Leave the clip as is and smooth as silk, this is exaggerated when using smaller drivers, not noticeable with larger 8 tooth drivers.

Carls Cycle has had great success with the 3" track. They are rolling out the door faster than they can get them. They are getting them special made, (center window is punched out). Last I heard they still have a waiting list. As far as performance, the posts above have desrcibed it well as, a poor mans turbo, dido. Give Chris or Jake a call, 208-853-5550.

I love my BB and 3" build soooo much that I dont see a new sled in my future for a loooong time. I will just keep replacing pistons or misc parts until I have no choice but to buy new. There just isnt a stock machine that even comes close.

Do the 3".......and rip it up man !!!!!