I'm not sure that track provides enough improvement over the stock track to justify the expense... IMO
9174M for me this year!
3" Camo vs. 2.5" CE
- Thread starter Anthony Oberti
- Start date
I'm not sure that track provides enough improvement over the stock track to justify the expense... IMO
9174M for me this year!
I'm not sure that track provides enough improvement over the stock track to justify the expense... IMO
9174M for me this year!
O yes it does! Night and day!!!!
the 9104m? its a whopping $10 less that the 9174m.
Why would you buy the 9104m over the 9174m? The 3" pitch provides a gear down effect and its a better track...
I have yet to see the 9104m on a stock sled do anything the stock track cant do... but i ride at 10k feet in the lightest snow on earth... maybe the coastal concrete is different...
He asked for a track that he could put right in, 2.86" Pitch.
I ran that track on my 11 163 Pro with only clutching and a little gearing and it was a better track than stock in every condition and we do not have concrete snow.
It dug more yes, but kept going as well.
Disclaimer: IMO
Last edited:
the stock track seems to be good, but is not as good as the 2.6 Powerclaw I had on my Cat. The Powerclaw had way better braking performance, especially coming downhill and seemed better in set-up snow.
I am looking for something that has better braking performance and works good in the Sierra Cement snow we have here.
thx
I am looking for something that has better braking performance and works good in the Sierra Cement snow we have here.
thx
I ride at 10,000 ft. Light powder. Worst track For downhill braking is the powerclaw for me. Almost non existent. 100% better braking with the 2.5 camo.
J
Jaynelson
Well-known member
I know people assume that everything stock sucks, but the stock Pol track at stock power levels is pretty solid in powder snow. It really keeps the trenching minimal. It totally sucks on hardpack....but riding hardpack sucks anyways.
This was actually quite noticeable for me. I would definitely say the 3" is a preference thing....I wouldn't buy one before riding it, as your riding style could really sway whether or not it's a worthwhile upgrade.
2.6 or the old 2.25? that 2.25 was horrible
Both. Braking was improved greatly with the camo
2.5" over any PC.
I put three X3's on last year. One on a stock 2013 Pro, one on a Stage 4 SLP Pro, and one on my BD turbo Pro. All three were 163's. We ride Eastern Idaho/Western Wyoming and in our soft snow, the 3" was amazing. They do require more feedback when sidehilling in the tight stuff. My buddy on the stocker is a little guy and he had to work harder in the tree's. My buddy on the Stage 4 is 6'3, 220 lbs and athletic. He loved his. I'm 6'2, 200 lbs and athletic and I wouldn't change a thing.
I especially like the 3" on the turbo. I personally think the 3" loads the turbo more, which I prefer.
I have no experience with the 2.5". I'd be willing to bet that coastal snow conditions would be better suited for the 2.5"
I especially like the 3" on the turbo. I personally think the 3" loads the turbo more, which I prefer.
I have no experience with the 2.5". I'd be willing to bet that coastal snow conditions would be better suited for the 2.5"
because in order to run the 9174, you have to replace the drivers ($260), trim the rails, add an anti-stab kit ($80), and it’s suggested to add another limiter strap. so it’s at least close to $400 more plus the labor to have the drivers installed (if you can’t do it yourself).
so of us may not want to spend the extra $400 and go through that hassle
i rode two different non-turbo pros last year with the 3". I really liked it on both sleds. its take for effort to turn no doubt, but boondocking it is amazing. got to do a test on a short steep hill with stock, stock 3", and stock track turbo all 155". The stock sled with 3" track was in the middle, actually closer to the turbo. I rode a turbo 163" 3" and thought it was too much. maybe on a DEEP day on big hills but in the trees it could go anywhere so easily it felt like cheating
M
MountainRider05
Well-known member
As stated in a previous thread would a 36in front end help with some of that push you guys are talking about?
A
Anthony Oberti
Well-known member
The Camo 2.5"(3.0 pitch) would be the answer. I loved it in our snow.....actually, I found it to work well in all conditions. I would NOT want a
3" here in Cali.
J
Jaynelson
Well-known member
Can't see it helping much with the "getting going from a stop on a sidehill" thing, as that feels like a product of the big paddles getting more traction from a stop.
Outside of that issue, I think that some of the loss of playful-ness is from 2 things;
1) With the 3" you need to run the FTS looser (or limiters tighter on other skids) to keep the wheelies and trenching in check - puts more weight on the skis.
2) Increased rotational mass of any type will make the sled want to keep going in the direction it's going.
None of this is catastrophic or even that pronounced - just observations and preferences. At the end of the day, it comes down to how much $$ you want to spend (or not spend) to make you sled slightly more this or that.
I absolutly love my 155 X3. 1200 miles last season and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I will say it has so much traction that it left me wishing for more power. But then again almost every sled once you get used to it leaves you wishing for a few more ponies. $ for $ it was the best upgrade I did.
My .02
G
geo
Well-known member
Hard to quantify track comparisons IMO. Especially after changing geometry and gearing and heading out on a completely different day or location.
Like MO of the new and old CE on a different sled is the new CE is better in set-up snow and the old CE is better in the soft. But that opinion is 3 yrs apart with a yr and a half of a PC in the middle.
Any current head to head comparisons-stories with old and new CE's 2.5" on the Pro. Or, either of the 2.5" CE's compared to stock (remember the new CE forces a gearing change which in itself is an obvious improvement for the Pro).
Can't use track speed really. Just two guys riding side by side and seeing something obvious.
You don't have to be a movie star or pro to chime in either Everyones opinion-observation is just that, another opinion-observation.
Like MO of the new and old CE on a different sled is the new CE is better in set-up snow and the old CE is better in the soft. But that opinion is 3 yrs apart with a yr and a half of a PC in the middle.
Any current head to head comparisons-stories with old and new CE's 2.5" on the Pro. Or, either of the 2.5" CE's compared to stock (remember the new CE forces a gearing change which in itself is an obvious improvement for the Pro).
Can't use track speed really. Just two guys riding side by side and seeing something obvious.
You don't have to be a movie star or pro to chime in either Everyones opinion-observation is just that, another opinion-observation.
Geo,
I generally don't replace my stock track until it starts to take a set. Here is an example of the stock track compared to the CE2.5. I was riding with a buddy at Blue Lakes, California. Overnight we got 4' of new snow
. That day He was stomping me big time. Went back to the trailer that night and replaced my stock track with the CE2.5, next day I was stomping him. Granted this was Sierra cement but the CE2.5 is my track of choice.
I generally don't replace my stock track until it starts to take a set. Here is an example of the stock track compared to the CE2.5. I was riding with a buddy at Blue Lakes, California. Overnight we got 4' of new snow
. That day He was stomping me big time. Went back to the trailer that night and replaced my stock track with the CE2.5, next day I was stomping him. Granted this was Sierra cement but the CE2.5 is my track of choice.
