I think you misunderstood my post; the Polaris by design has two coolers that run the full length of the tunnel (regardless of track length). There is no additional rear cooler on any of the standard or PRO RMK's.
3" Track for the Pro
- Thread starter FatDogX
- Start date
I think you misunderstood my post; the Polaris by design has two coolers that run the full length of the tunnel (regardless of track length). There is no additional rear cooler on any of the standard or PRO RMK's.
Oh. didnt they a couple years ago for one year only delete the full length cooler and just run one over the drivers on the 163?
Not to my knowledge, but I can look at the Fiche to be sure.
I went back ten years and no dice. I believe you are mistaken. The only years that sported a rear cooler were 2005-2006 and that was way before they started using a 163"track. Every production sled since then, whether 146", 155" or 163" has had the two full length tunnel coolers.
Back to topic
Last edited:
Yes i may be mistaken. What I recall is one year on 163 they did not have the cooler full tunnel length. it stopped under the tank.I thought it was the first year for the Pro, But I could be wrong,
Last edited:
Heres a pic of the cable scrathers I mounted on my skies. I welded a small peice of rod on them that rest on the ski to keep them from turning. They helped considerably in keeping the temps down on the trail ride up. Still runs warm 140ish but better than 180 plus. Have scratchers on the skid as well.
Last edited:
Quite a few of the Cats are that way the last couple of years, maybe thinking of the wrong brand? I do not recall which model is which.
He might be thinking about the 97-99 700 RMK's that had the coolers in the tunnel top and they only went under the fuel tank and seat so far. The tunnel top was open to the coolers as they actually stuck up into a recess that was built into the fuel tank/seat assembly. The 00-01 Gen II RMK's, 02-05 Edge RMK's and 05-06 IQ RMK's had the perimeter cooling with front and rear tunnel coolers, The 08 800 163 Dragons were the first sleds that they didn't use the front cooler that the 155's had in front of the drivers. That was the first year Polaris did that. They do the same thing on the Pro's now with no extra front cooler like the STD RMK's have. 07-10 RAW chassis and 2011 to current Pro's have all had the full tunnel coolers built into the tunnel tops with the tracks built in. Hope all of this helps someone. I've had a lot of RMK's lol.
Last edited:
Ahh , Thats it, They had no front cooler,,Thanks for the clarity .
I'll be riding again soon and will be able to compare two 2013 pros.
mine is stock with a 156, X3.
His is 162, stock track with dynoport pipe.
It wont even be close, The 156x3 absolutely destroys the sled with stock track and I have go pro of it rolling right by a Turbo pro with stock track in the deep,[880 full mod motor] The deeper the snow the more advantage the 3 in has.. That 3 inch puts a stock sled on par with a pump gas turbo no problem if shes deep.
couple of friends want to do the X3. in 156. they have stock 163' on. they don't want the X3 in 162. they think the 156( X3) will be the better choice. of the two sizes. not so much ski push,better track speed. ill just half to chop the tunnel and make the coolers smaller.
As the difference in tunnel length is only 3-3.5" I'm not sure that it is worth the trouble to shorten them, but that is your call.
Agree. However:
Given that the Pro tunnel is weaker than what we are used to running in the past, not shortening it and landing near tail first will buckle that thing in a heartbeat. I've seen it happen very easily.
The 163 3 inch is perfect. Buddies with stock 155"'s want a 163 3 inch.
And no offset axle needed on the 163's.
I presume that they do know that they are going to have to shorten their rails and do a lot of work to shorten their track and skid.
T
TracksCanada
Member
POL extended belt drive plate
We have had many requests and inquiries for guys running belt drive who like the idea of running 8 tooth drivers with 3" paddle track. We have installed extended chaincase with 8 tooth drivers in place of belt drive as experiment and we were very pleased with results. Not everyone buys the idea of 7 tooth drivers with 3" track. (I'm one)
So we decided to build our own extended belt drive plate using the success of extended chaincase as our platform. Just got our plate done, here are some pictures.
We have had many requests and inquiries for guys running belt drive who like the idea of running 8 tooth drivers with 3" paddle track. We have installed extended chaincase with 8 tooth drivers in place of belt drive as experiment and we were very pleased with results. Not everyone buys the idea of 7 tooth drivers with 3" track. (I'm one)
So we decided to build our own extended belt drive plate using the success of extended chaincase as our platform. Just got our plate done, here are some pictures.
there are different opinions bout the 7 vs 8 tooth, I have the extended case and C3 belt drive on a Mod Doo , running 156X3 .awesome track!. Anyway I ran her with 8 tooth and with 7 tooth, When i ran the 8,s the approach angle was almost too flat with very little ski lift, Too planted and nose would plow and the 8,s hung down so far they are exposed to every hit, the drivers were smacking everything instead of being tucked up and protected, The extended case and 8,s was not nearly a fun to ride, I put the 7,s back on. there was no performance change between the two with same track speeds. The extended case with 7,s works flawless especially with the belt drive.
Last edited:
