3" Camo vs. 2.5" CE

[Anthony Oberti]

I have had several people PM me about my experience with the Camo 3" and the Camo Extreme 2.5". First off, my sled was a '13 Pro turbo, 163. I used the 3" the first several rides last season in, McCall, ID, Alpine, WY, and Utah. I think the 3" gets on top of the snow well, and gets amazing traction. However, I removed the 3" and replaced it with the 2.5" and couldn't be happier. The 3" pushed very bad in my opinion, was heavy, didn't roll onto it's side as easily, and made the sled more difficult to ride. The "flickability" of the sled was gone. It moved more snow and you could feel it! If your skis were pointing straight, you better not change your mind, because the sled was going straight! In my mind it was much more difficult to maneuver the sled. Ironically, a good friend was on a 3"x155" Pro the same trips, he too removed his track. And to further the point, the guy that bought my 3" removed it after several rides. I am not saying it is a bad track, but I did not like it. Maybe in very lite, deep bottomless snow, it is good. However, I put the 2.5"(3.0pitch) Camo Extreme on, and I can honestly say, it is the best all around track I have ever rode. It got good traction, floated well, but most importantly, it didn't take the fun out of the sled. Now some have argued, well, they are only a few pounds difference in weight...BUT, the 3" is a huge paddle, and it moves MORE snow.....that snow adds weight, and I could honestly feel a large difference between the two. Does the 2.5" get as much traction as the 3", no. I know some love the 3" and swear by it....that's great, but I sometimes think people were so caught up in the fact that they just spent 1500-2000 to put a new track on and "wanted" it to work. I want a track that works for me....I don't care if I loose money in the process. I hope this helps some of you. Like I said, this was just my experience and maybe there are regions with different snow types that the 3" works better. Good luck!

 

[AKFULLTHROTTLE]

I am sure the snow conditions from different areas could change things. I have owed both as well and love them both.

When I first changed my stock track in for the CE 2.5 I could not believe how crazy better it was. It dug a lot more than the stock track but just kept going no matter what. In my mind it was better in all conditions compared to stock.

I now have a turbo sled with the 3" and well I can not really compare the two side by side like you could because of the turbo vs N/A, I love this track. The traction it gets is unbelievable. My self I see no difference in "flickability", now I am not light so that may help me but only notice how much snow it moves in a positive way. I do jump back and fourth between an N/A same year Pro with a stock track though.

From a dead stop on the side of a hill straight up it just hooks and goes, the turbo does help this as well though.

IMO the CE 2.5 track is more than enough track for a N/A sled... IMO

 

[AKFULLTHROTTLE]

Now we do have another turbo Pro with the 3" and a Kmod rear suspension and that sled did loose "flickability". Big difference between the two sleds..

13 Pro CE 3" Stock rear skid with Exit shocks
Compared to
12 Pro CE 3" Kmod Rear skid with Raptor shocks

 

[Anthony Oberti]

Very good point.....my comparisons were all done with a Timbersled rear.

 

[damx]

I put a X3 162. On my 14. Pro. Stock beside. Par head, ski doo t stat mod.and raptor shocks, found it a bit harder to flick around, but not to bad, I did get rid of it because for how much hotter it makes the sled run. Stock track I was about 100' and with the 3" 130-160. In a foot of fresh. And on a bit of hard pack, stock was 125-140. Max. This 3" 160-190. Had to stop so much about 10-14 times on a 5km road/trail. Drove me nuts.lol. This year I went to the 9175. Can't wait to just ride and ride. Bring on the snow.

 

[pfi572]

Same as others .
2.5 x174 x 16 first and then 3 x 174 x16
Back to the 2.5 for all the same reasons listed.
3 inch wasn't for me as to many negatives verse the plus's.
My 2 cents
On a Doo with Timbersled skid.

 

[kylant]

I have had several people PM me about my experience with the Camo 3" and the Camo Extreme 2.5". First off, my sled was a '13 Pro turbo, 163. I used the 3" the first several rides last season in, McCall, ID, Alpine, WY, and Utah. I think the 3" gets on top of the snow well, and gets amazing traction. However, I removed the 3" and replaced it with the 2.5" and couldn't be happier. The 3" pushed very bad in my opinion, was heavy, didn't roll onto it's side as easily, and made the sled more difficult to ride. The "flickability" of the sled was gone. It moved more snow and you could feel it! If your skis were pointing straight, you better not change your mind, because the sled was going straight! In my mind it was much more difficult to maneuver the sled. Ironically, a good friend was on a 3"x155" Pro the same trips, he too removed his track. And to further the point, the guy that bought my 3" removed it after several rides. I am not saying it is a bad track, but I did not like it. Maybe in very lite, deep bottomless snow, it is good. However, I put the 2.5"(3.0pitch) Camo Extreme on, and I can honestly say, it is the best all around track I have ever rode. It got good traction, floated well, but most importantly, it didn't take the fun out of the sled. Now some have argued, well, they are only a few pounds difference in weight...BUT, the 3" is a huge paddle, and it moves MORE snow.....that snow adds weight, and I could honestly feel a large difference between the two. Does the 2.5" get as much traction as the 3", no. I know some love the 3" and swear by it....that's great, but I sometimes think people were so caught up in the fact that they just spent 1500-2000 to put a new track on and "wanted" it to work. I want a track that works for me....I don't care if I loose money in the process. I hope this helps some of you. Like I said, this was just my experience and maybe there are regions with different snow types that the 3" works better. Good luck!

do you think the experience would be the same comparing the 2.5 CE 3.0 pitch to the 2.5 CE 2.86 pitch? I know they are a bit different. thanks

 

[Anthony Oberti]

do you think the experience would be the same comparing the 2.5 CE 3.0 pitch to the 2.5 CE 2.86 pitch? I know they are a bit different. thanks

The 2.86 is a completely different track so I dont think the comparison would be the same.

 

[Snowmow]

do you think the experience would be the same comparing the 2.5 CE 3.0 pitch to the 2.5 CE 2.86 pitch? I know they are a bit different. thanks

That track is called "peak" right?

 

[richracer1]

That track is called "peak" right?

Nope, that's a completely different track than the Challenger Extreme tracks.

 

[Snowmow]

But they do make a 2.5 camo extreme in a 2.86 pitch?

 

[Anthony Oberti]

Correct, but its the old design.

 

[4Z]

Correct, but its the old design.

Which was a good "all-around" track in it's day...

I took my 3" off for the 2.5 as well, same reasons as Anthony posted...

 

[boondocker155]

I loved my x3 on my 12 155 with a stock skid and shocks. It does run a little hotter on the trail but I only noticed an increase in performance all around in normal pow conditions. That's just me though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skibreeze]

I put the 3" on my 13 turbo Pro with Exit shocks and loved the difference vs the stock track in Colorado's fluffy pow. I also got to ride it without the turbo and the 3" makes the sled a dog. I may have to a CE 2.5 on my '14 so I can get a side by side comparison.

 

[MTN Powderhound]

Would like to hear about the X3 and the 2.5 CE side by side this season.

 

[keithw]

It would seem given the lack of replies from people running an x3 on a stock sled that a CE 2.5 with the TRS mod would be the ticket on a stock 155 if I get a new track for my sled.

 

[kylant]

what would be the best track to run without changing drivers, trimming rails, putting an anti-stab kit on, and all the changes needed to run a 3.0 pitch track?
something for us guys that don’t want to do all of that?

thanks

 

[Sheetmetalfab]

what would be the best track to run without changing drivers, trimming rails, putting an anti-stab kit on, and all the changes needed to run a 3.0 pitch track?
something for us guys that don’t want to do all of that?

thanks

The old style camo extreme.
2.86 pitch.
Just put it in.
5/16-3/8" of clearance between the tunnel coolers and lug tips, at the tightest spot.

 

[bradburck]

I recognize this isn't apples to apples... but I went from the 2.6 on a turbo'd cat to the 3" on a big bore... my take at least between those two tracks..

Overall, all around, I think the 2.6 is a better track. With that being said, I'm not going back from my X3. I know its not stock power from my 925, but the X3 is just a deadly weapon in the snow we have here in Colorado. It just flat our works.

It does push more than the stock track which is only an issue when you are at a dead stop and need to get the sled up on edge immediately with the downhill ski away. Those can be a bit more difficult to manage because the sled wants to propel forward as soon as the track starts spinning, rather then spin and let you set the edge that way.

Otherwise the track just flat out rips in the deep soft snow we have here. Keeps digging and with proper clutching and gearing I think would be a welcome addition to any sled. I would totally treat the 3" as a purpose track.. it's made for DEEP snow... it works just fine in other conditions, and as has been said before, sled runs hotter down the trail, but great in off trail conditions. The down-hill breaking is also a strong suit of this track, but again I'm comparing to the 2.25 and 2.6 PowerClaw which are some of the worst down-hill stopping tracks of all time. I have plenty of seat time on pro's, with days at a time on both the 155-163 and I think this sled would benefit from the 3", all the factors that would go into that I don't know (might need gearing for sure).

I wouldn't shy away from it, but be aware of it's purpose built job. The 2.5-2.6" tracks are more versatile no doubt. Best of luck gentleman, don't think you can go wrong either way. It was a cheap upgrade on the PC, if I was on the Pro I might think twice about it because of changing drivers, etc. I was able to literally sell my 2.6 and go to the 3" for under 300$.