I have been thinking about changing my 2010 Actic Cat 153" m8 to a 174" track. I like to do it all (play in the powder, the tree's and highmark) so I am wondering how much harder will it make it to boondocking and if it will actaully give me that much more climbing benifits. any advice is great thanks
174" track
- Thread starter chevyz71z28
- Start date
i would
Any reason, Do you know how much tougher it will be to boondock and manouver through the trees
T
twsandrew
Well-known member
If you are an experienced rider that has no problem throwing your M8 around there is only upside. I resisted for the reason you mention (worry about boondocking) but after upgrading both my sleds I could not ride anything else. The float diff is so huge that you can boondock better than ever
Ya everbody I ride with has been telling me "if I put a 174" on my sled it will handle like a tank and it will only be good for going straight up". And since i really like pulling lines through tree's it had me worried so I have been holding off; But since none of them have ever rode a 174" I wanted to see what people who have say
As stated above it makes boondocking even better. The extra flotation and tracion means you can pick your way through without needing to carry as much speed ( although once you get used to it you will ). By the way taking advise from people who have never ridden one is probably not the best thing to do. Maybe they are just trying to talk you out of it because they know they will not be able to keep up!!! Once they ride it you will see some of them do it too.
ive been running one for 3 years now and i think its the greatest thing in the world its made everything easyer well werth the time and money
i ride with the 174, and they are more to handle than the 162, and boondocking will not be the same, they will go threw more but when stuck, they are a real pig, down that much deeper, if your a big guy and a good rider, than they can be the track for you, but most i would think would not be that happy with it
Over the years I've read various performance articles, each one promoting the writer's views. I guess that it is my turn, so here goes.
First of all, I live and ride in NW Montana. We usually have about 150 inches of snow at the elevations we ride, moderate hills and lots of trees. It is a lot like Revelstoke and Golden B.C., but with trees. I'm lucky in that I can ride my sled from the house.
The first and most important performance tip that I can give you is have a reliable sled. This is especially important to those of you who are only able to get out 10 or so times a year. Driving for hours to get to the snow and having snowmobile maintenance clinics in the woods is no fun for you or your friends.
There are lots of engine modifications you can get. Some of them work very well and some don't. They all try to get more power out of the stock engine. Whenever you get more power out of an engine there is more wear and shorter life. I have some modified motors and I'm willing to accept the additional maintenance risks, but they are always there. Without going to the expense of a turbo or supercharger, you will have an increase of about 10%.
Total sled weight can be an issue. The less weight an engine has to move the faster the sled will accelerate with the same horsepower/traction. The operational weight of a light sled is around 700 pounds (sled 450, fuel and fluids 100, driver and gear 150-200 pounds). It is relatively easy to lose 15 or 20 pounds on a stock sled. An aftermarket exhaust canister will usually do that with a cost of $400-$500. Total operating weight reduction is less than 3%. Losing additional weight is harder and more expensive, about $100 a pound.
It is my view that having the proper track for your conditions is the smartest and most economical method of improving the performance of your sled. Your track transfers your horsepower to the snow. Efficient interaction between the snow and your track is vital.
First of all I'd like to address a couple of myths about tracks. You need a big motor to move a bigger heavier track, wrong. A track is a big conveyor belt. The engine has to overcome the drag of the clutches, bearings in the chain case and bogey wheels. Bending the track around the drivers and idlers also creates drag. If you go from a 155" track to a 174", the distance from the drivers to the rear idlers is increased about 9 inches. System drag doesn't increase, just because there is more distance between the drivers and rear idlers. Granted, accelerating a heavier track from zero to 50 MPH will take a longer time as compared to a lighter one. If it takes 10 seconds to accelerate a 60 pound 155" track to 50 MPH, it will take about 20% longer to accelerate a 72 pound 174" track, an extra 2 seconds. That delay will hardly be noticeable. What will be notable will be the acceleration the bigger track has over the smaller one.
A sled will accelerate as long as the track can push against the snow and the snow stays put. Except in very hard snow conditions there is always some track slippage. For each snow condition there is a point where the snow starts to give and move rearward, forward momentum is lost and the rear end starts to sink. We want to use horsepower to move a sled forward, not push snow backward.
Obviously, it is the track's paddles that push against the snow, the more square inches of paddles, the better. My personal sled has a 174X16X3" track on it. There are 21 rows of paddles on the ground, not counting the track leaving the drivers to the rails. I have 528 sq. inches of paddles to move my sled. Using the same logic, a 163X16X2.25" track has 358 sq. inches. A 155X15X2.25 has fewer than 300.
I have been told that it takes twice as much horsepower to climb a 30 degree slope at 40 MPH as it does on the flat. We all have machines with enough horse power to go at least 40 up a 30 degree slope. The problem is that there are times that the track can't transfer this power to the snow. Once the snow starts to give, you are going to slow down. When you slow down the track starts to dig a trench. If you are trenching, you're rear suspension sinks. You are now climbing a steeper hill. That steeper hill requires more horse power and the trenching increases until either you turn out or are stuck. In every situation, my 174 track has about half the paddle loading of the 155 and I will have to turn out later, if at all.
To sum this up, if someone came to me and asked me to race an Olympic swimmer, what would I do? I could lose weight, start a fitness program, or buy big swim fins. Which one makes the most sense to you?
First of all, I live and ride in NW Montana. We usually have about 150 inches of snow at the elevations we ride, moderate hills and lots of trees. It is a lot like Revelstoke and Golden B.C., but with trees. I'm lucky in that I can ride my sled from the house.
The first and most important performance tip that I can give you is have a reliable sled. This is especially important to those of you who are only able to get out 10 or so times a year. Driving for hours to get to the snow and having snowmobile maintenance clinics in the woods is no fun for you or your friends.
There are lots of engine modifications you can get. Some of them work very well and some don't. They all try to get more power out of the stock engine. Whenever you get more power out of an engine there is more wear and shorter life. I have some modified motors and I'm willing to accept the additional maintenance risks, but they are always there. Without going to the expense of a turbo or supercharger, you will have an increase of about 10%.
Total sled weight can be an issue. The less weight an engine has to move the faster the sled will accelerate with the same horsepower/traction. The operational weight of a light sled is around 700 pounds (sled 450, fuel and fluids 100, driver and gear 150-200 pounds). It is relatively easy to lose 15 or 20 pounds on a stock sled. An aftermarket exhaust canister will usually do that with a cost of $400-$500. Total operating weight reduction is less than 3%. Losing additional weight is harder and more expensive, about $100 a pound.
It is my view that having the proper track for your conditions is the smartest and most economical method of improving the performance of your sled. Your track transfers your horsepower to the snow. Efficient interaction between the snow and your track is vital.
First of all I'd like to address a couple of myths about tracks. You need a big motor to move a bigger heavier track, wrong. A track is a big conveyor belt. The engine has to overcome the drag of the clutches, bearings in the chain case and bogey wheels. Bending the track around the drivers and idlers also creates drag. If you go from a 155" track to a 174", the distance from the drivers to the rear idlers is increased about 9 inches. System drag doesn't increase, just because there is more distance between the drivers and rear idlers. Granted, accelerating a heavier track from zero to 50 MPH will take a longer time as compared to a lighter one. If it takes 10 seconds to accelerate a 60 pound 155" track to 50 MPH, it will take about 20% longer to accelerate a 72 pound 174" track, an extra 2 seconds. That delay will hardly be noticeable. What will be notable will be the acceleration the bigger track has over the smaller one.
A sled will accelerate as long as the track can push against the snow and the snow stays put. Except in very hard snow conditions there is always some track slippage. For each snow condition there is a point where the snow starts to give and move rearward, forward momentum is lost and the rear end starts to sink. We want to use horsepower to move a sled forward, not push snow backward.
Obviously, it is the track's paddles that push against the snow, the more square inches of paddles, the better. My personal sled has a 174X16X3" track on it. There are 21 rows of paddles on the ground, not counting the track leaving the drivers to the rails. I have 528 sq. inches of paddles to move my sled. Using the same logic, a 163X16X2.25" track has 358 sq. inches. A 155X15X2.25 has fewer than 300.
I have been told that it takes twice as much horsepower to climb a 30 degree slope at 40 MPH as it does on the flat. We all have machines with enough horse power to go at least 40 up a 30 degree slope. The problem is that there are times that the track can't transfer this power to the snow. Once the snow starts to give, you are going to slow down. When you slow down the track starts to dig a trench. If you are trenching, you're rear suspension sinks. You are now climbing a steeper hill. That steeper hill requires more horse power and the trenching increases until either you turn out or are stuck. In every situation, my 174 track has about half the paddle loading of the 155 and I will have to turn out later, if at all.
To sum this up, if someone came to me and asked me to race an Olympic swimmer, what would I do? I could lose weight, start a fitness program, or buy big swim fins. Which one makes the most sense to you?
Isn't it funny how not that many years ago the big debate was 136" tracks.I can remember people saying that a 136 was to long , not maneuverable and would need some serious ponies to turn it! Since then we all know how the tracks have got longer and now a 136 is the "perfect trail riding track" because it smooths out the bumps?! 136 isn't even considered for the mountains now.I fell to this pressure form friends when I had the choice of going 151 or 163 a few years back. I went 151 and regretted it for two seasons and finally made the switch to the 163. I have ridden 163 ever since and given the opportunity (I just had a kid) would swap over to the 174 . I have ridden a friends and I play alot in the trees and loved it. If you are a capable rider and not just looking for the ability to tell someone how long your track is, you should have a grin from ear to ear once you hit the snow.
We have 154, 163, 174 (2.5 and 3") to compare on every ride.....IMO the overall best combination on a stock engine 800 class sled used for boondocking/climbing/deep snow is a 174-2.5".
The 3" paddle definatly has an advantage in the deep, but the overall "fun-factor" does drop as spinning a 75lb track slows acceleration on a 150-160hp sled.
The 3" paddle definatly has an advantage in the deep, but the overall "fun-factor" does drop as spinning a 75lb track slows acceleration on a 150-160hp sled.
picked Up the rails, sliders , tunnel extension and bumper delete to get started on the conversion, only thing I have to deside is to go with the 2.5" or 3"; does anyone now how the clearnace is with the 3" on a 2010 M8. Also what would be the best gearing to use. And I am going to change out the clutches and Diamond drive
Curtis at TRACKS CANADA is a pretty good guy to talk to about this issue.
Nope it is a 2010 M8, but I am actaully changing the Daimond drive out, Talked to mountain Magic and they said a 3" will fit with a 1/4" clearance to the front in the tightest place
Hmm would have never know that scientific stuff about snow moving and paddle surface area to help you move. I guess I just got smarter reading this thread.
I am running 20"x174" in my custom Tundra most fun you will have in the trees and the deep.This will be my 4th winter with this setup!
I rode an 09 XP800 with a 174 with 2.5 paddles and i must say that thing will go ANYWHERE!!! clutched and piped sled, nothing major and it pulled the track well. My 900 Mountain cat with a 162 with 2.25 paddles would climb faster but the ski dont would ultimately make it farther. The sled was still very maneuverable through the trees and was a blast to ride, anyone with any skill at all will not have turning issues. The sled keeps climbing, although not as quickly as a smaller track. A 174''x16''x3'' is what is going on mine when i mutilate this one! Strongly recommend!
Good, thats what i wanted to hear. I have mine almost ready to be sent for powder coating. My 2010 m8 will have mbrp can, air box delete, 174" with 2.5", aftermarket daimond drive; geared down a tooth, and a paragon seconady clutch to get some of the speed back. hopefully she will work out nicely
Similar threads
