2016 Pro Rmk 3" will new camo 3.2 fit? Mods?
- Thread starter Rotaris
- Start date
Will it fit... yes, barely... and a couple of people have done it.
Here is MY opinion... others will have theres too.
There is a BIG difference between able to fit and optimal clearance however.
This sled was designed to run with a 2.6" track... Polaris "Squeezed" a 3" track in there with the same drivers... that is tight IMO, from the factory.
The factory runs the 2.6" & 3" lug tracks on 7 tooth drivers, there is nothing smaller.
Once ice forms on the front close-off... it will be slapping the ice there the whole time.
More clearance helps out... better clearance = more track speed.
Less noticeable in dry powder.. but very pronounced in high-moisture content snow.
I think that any potential gains from a taller lug will be lost in parasitic drag.
A D&R would fix that... but then...boy, would that lower part of the drive be hanging down low.
Just my two cents... the 3" is tight... the 3.2" will be even tighter.
Here is MY opinion... others will have theres too.
There is a BIG difference between able to fit and optimal clearance however.
This sled was designed to run with a 2.6" track... Polaris "Squeezed" a 3" track in there with the same drivers... that is tight IMO, from the factory.
The factory runs the 2.6" & 3" lug tracks on 7 tooth drivers, there is nothing smaller.
Once ice forms on the front close-off... it will be slapping the ice there the whole time.
More clearance helps out... better clearance = more track speed.
Less noticeable in dry powder.. but very pronounced in high-moisture content snow.
I think that any potential gains from a taller lug will be lost in parasitic drag.
A D&R would fix that... but then...boy, would that lower part of the drive be hanging down low.
Just my two cents... the 3" is tight... the 3.2" will be even tighter.
Last edited:
R
Rotaris
New member
Thank-you and agree on your opinion. I ran a 3" with Avid 7 tooth on a XP. Very tight and Ran it for a couple of years.
I could not state there were any negative effects of tight clearance in my opinion, other than more vibration.
Different sled of course but principles the same. Would like to hear more feed back.
I need a new sled and like the looks of the New axys, but wish they had put "saw tooth" design on top of paddles. Only thing that is holding me back from buying Pro RMK is the 3" series 7 lug. I have not tried one but come spring conditions I think that saw tooth helps slow you down when falling down the side of mountain. PURE speculation on my part.
Constructive criticism required here.
I could not state there were any negative effects of tight clearance in my opinion, other than more vibration.
Different sled of course but principles the same. Would like to hear more feed back.
I need a new sled and like the looks of the New axys, but wish they had put "saw tooth" design on top of paddles. Only thing that is holding me back from buying Pro RMK is the 3" series 7 lug. I have not tried one but come spring conditions I think that saw tooth helps slow you down when falling down the side of mountain. PURE speculation on my part.
Constructive criticism required here.
I dislike the saw tooth fins on the series 5.1 track (pro ride and dragon RMKs). Remember the "f bomb track mod"? I believe the soft fins make the track spin out easier on areas scares with snow such hard pack icy trails, roads, loading into trailers ect.
Idk much about the newer 3" plus tracks. I got a lowly 2.4 or something on my pro. But I've ridden enough to know that I wouldn't be thinking hard pack performance and 3" paddles at the same time.
The factories are building very specialized sleds now and the same adage rings true. There's no best at everything machine.
If I was dropping over 1k on a specialized track, I'd spend 200 on a spring track if I was that serious about it.
The series 7 brakes much better than the 2.4.
Hookup on hardpack and old tracks better.
All the pictures of the x3.2 i have seen after use, the track has the sawtooth ends bent over and the paddles also have a set to them.
After 150 miles on my series 7 the paddles are still straight and perpendicular to the belting. I've thrashed it over rocks and logs quite a bit.
I haven't found any evidence that more clearance than is necessary around the track gives any tangible benefit.
Basically anywhere there's not a cooler the "plaque " buildup makes every sled have only the clearance the paddles make.
And unless the track is pulling a full load of snow over the top as it comes around.....
The space between the paddles "especially with a taller lug" gives you all the air space you are ever going to get.
Get the x3.2. It will bolt right in a 3" axys and still have 1/4" of room to the coolers on top of the tunnel.
Make sure you test it side by side with a series 7 in another sled.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hookup on hardpack and old tracks better.
All the pictures of the x3.2 i have seen after use, the track has the sawtooth ends bent over and the paddles also have a set to them.
After 150 miles on my series 7 the paddles are still straight and perpendicular to the belting. I've thrashed it over rocks and logs quite a bit.
I haven't found any evidence that more clearance than is necessary around the track gives any tangible benefit.
Basically anywhere there's not a cooler the "plaque " buildup makes every sled have only the clearance the paddles make.
And unless the track is pulling a full load of snow over the top as it comes around.....
The space between the paddles "especially with a taller lug" gives you all the air space you are ever going to get.
Get the x3.2. It will bolt right in a 3" axys and still have 1/4" of room to the coolers on top of the tunnel.
Make sure you test it side by side with a series 7 in another sled.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
S
sledneck_03
Well-known member
Friend of mines axys. Yes thats a 3.2"
R
rubbersidedown
Member
I installed the 3.2 on my in season 155. It flat out rocks. There is 3/8" clearance with the front of the tunnel. As long as you keep the track tension just right, I don't think there will be a issue. The track is TOUGH. I have hit things I thought for sure we're going to take paddles off and it still looks brand new.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Friend of mines axys. Yes thats a 3.2"
Since he is running the TKI- tell him to put at least the 2.33 in there gear ( if he doesn't already) Ran the 2.26 but the .33 likes the 3.2 track
I'd like to hear how they compare also.... but only if the sleds are IDENTICAL. Meaning... Side-by-side... same pipe/can/clutching/gearing and track tension...or any other mod.
In the same conditions, on the same DEEP-POW day.
With stock clearance in the AXYS-mtn.... I'm wondering which one would be best.
.
Last edited:
Is that 33 gear with a boondocker sidekick ? Thinking about doing a 3.2
I had the 3.2 tki belt drive with .33 gearing on my 16 with starting line products pipe and can combo. Was very impressed with the set up. Ran very strong and the track flat out eats. Was hard to sell but time for an upgrade. Durability of the track itself may have been the most impressive part.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With no disrespect towards Mountainhorse and TRS opinion on this, I completely agree with SMF on this.
I use to subscribe to this theory. But real world results changed my mind.
Reduced clearance, losses due to parasitic drag if they were ever detected were negligible at best. And I have never noticed it. Performance increase from a better and taller lug track were far greater than less paddle and more clearance.
I have been down the D&R road and added paddle clearance in a variety of snow conditions and there is nothing I found that ever even remotely suggested this is a real world issue.
I do not consider this clearance in my builds any longer.
