Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

900 w/ 162" 0r 153"... im on the fence!

What track length you want on your 900 for "all-around" aggresive mtn riding?

  • 162"

    Votes: 27 61.4%

  • 153"

    Votes: 17 38.6%
  • Total voters
    44
PowderCrew

PowderCrew

Well-known member
Premium Member
ok... wrecked my 900 w/ a 153"... LOVE the sled! Im an all-around rider... climbing, cornice drops, jumping, boondocking the trees (hence the need to re-build:face-icon-small-sad) and the motor has mild performance mods. Ride in the 6,000 ft rolling hills up to 10,000 ft chute climbs. I've found two equally priced tunnel/bulkheads for both lengths... but have never owned a 162". oh... we really dont see much bottomless powder on average either. Just want to know how people like their lenghts and the why. Would you go longer if you have a 153", shorter if you own a 162"... just looking for some opinions!
 
The 162" track is the only way to go. For one when you do have good powder you have more track to get going with, second climbing is a huge difference on a 162" then the 153" but i guess it all depends on what you like riding. Just my .02 cents
 
Thanks... Im kinda thinkin the 162" will win out. But how much response do you lose carving the trees, especially say sidehilling and pulling a climb through the trees? What about dropping a 15'+ cornice with a 162"? I know the 162" outclimbs... the 153" outhandles... what about boondocking and chutes, all in the same ride... every ride?
 
switched from a 162 to a 153. havent had a chance to ride it in real snow yet....i was a big fan of my 162...it wasnt so bad in the trees. its a lot of sled to turn though. If you do stay with the 153 i would recommend the powerclaw, thats what i had on my 162 and it was an outstanding all around track. I bolted up a 09 M float skid on her so hopefully its a llittle better ride...if you do go with a 162 i would strongly urge you to go with an aftermarket skid. stock AC rails have a tendency to crack.
 
Picking your way through the trees can be easier if

You can slow down without getting stuck. That's why a 162'' is better in the trees.
I had a 151'' 900 for the 02-03 season. It isn't close to the King. I'm glad it's gone. I still ride the King even though I've had three M-sleds.

Owen
 
The 162" is still easy to boondock, sidehill, and go through the trees. I have my suspention set up really good so its take very little to get it over and keep it there
 
My dad and I have 3 975 1Ms and our 1500 triple. The 975s are one each of 153", 156" and 162". The triple is also a 162.

On most rides, we ride the 156" and the triple. The 153" hasn't been ridden yet this year, and the 162" has been twice. For most of what we do, the 153-156" tracks do just fine, and are a little nicer on the trails/tight stuff. That being said, the longer tracks are not an impediment.

The only thing you say you do that would make me shy away from a longer track would be the jumping. Some people have problems with rails cracking anyway, and the longer leverage of the 162 would exacerbate the problem. I would say if you don't see bottomless powder too often, the shorter track will do what you want.

But I pretty much never choose to ride one of the shorter sleds unless we're not planning on doing much off-trail.
 
I'd go for the 162. I never was a fan of the longer tracks until I go one and I like it alot. I honestly don't notice the difference between the 151 and 162, as far manuverability goes, but notice the difference in the deep and steep. I can turn my sled around on a dime in a chute, sidehills just as easy, and you don't get stuck as much, period. I think in the drops you'd be fine as long as you dont land on the end o fthe sled.

That being said, I did buy a 09 XP that was more for the wife, and got a 154",
but I have ridden it quite a bit, and I now wish I just would have gotten the 162. I ride a friends 162 and dont' notice a difference in manuverability.
 
I for one would go with a 156" It seems to be the best of both worlds and will still use either the 151 or 153 suspension! With a 2.5" track it will do what you want and your only loosing 3" of contact patch max! It all depends on what you want to do?

Mike
 
Oh , I'm sure you could bend a rail on a 162''

I never have because I don't jump anymore. Jumped at Cooke in '05 and after my back surgery. I never bend rails. Funny thing huh?

I rarely get stuck and rarely lift on any sled, but I still ride just fine.

Owen
 
Thanks for the input guys... honestly, I know the ups and downs of each and how I like to ride, but what I feel like I want (the 162") doesnt really seem to mesh 100% with "how I ride". But It seems im finding what im looking for in 162"... think thats how its gonna turn out.
 
Let us know what you think after you get a few rides in on it!

I am liking Mikes thoughts though on the 156" 2.5"

Now if I can just wear through my track faster to justify the upgrade now:D
 
for me it boils down to power and track speed. for us normal folks
the faster you can spin your track the better it will go in powder and while climbing.

now if your talking the insane 300+ sleds then they need the 174 to help keep the front end down.

I ride all conditions of snow, I live in norther utah and we get pretty good powder, and I'm a storm chaser, if it dumps I go the next day.

I weigh 250 + gear, currently I have a 162 x 15

I would like to go mid 150's x 16 and deep lugs like 3.0

so I guess I'm saying look at the 150's tracks in 16 wide....

spomey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Premium Features
Join Now Free!



Back
Top