9105 or 9175 C/E for the pro 163???
- Thread starter scrubz
- Start date
I've had the little brother of the 9175 for two seasons... a 9174.... LOVE it... IMO, it is superior to the old style camo extreme in all aspects unless you are riding concrete spring snow... then the old one has a slight edge.
MoSldr (Brent) has been running a 9175 for two seasons and liked it enough to be ordering one for his 2013 PRO...
As a note... the 9174/75 is a 3" pitch track and will require 7 tooth avid drivers and the small chaincase mod on the 2011/12 Pros.... see Skadi's build in the Members Build sections for photos of this mod.
IMO...Very worth it... get it and dont look back.
With a slightly deeper lug... it works better than the series 5.1 from the factory in deep "blower" powder, and that is saying a lot.
I posted up some notes on the 9174/5/6 track with pics and description in the general forum.
For some reason... this track is not getting noticed like it should!
This track will not fit with 8 tooth 3" pitch drivers. (The drivers are taller than stock.. and so is the track)
http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234027
.
MoSldr (Brent) has been running a 9175 for two seasons and liked it enough to be ordering one for his 2013 PRO...
As a note... the 9174/75 is a 3" pitch track and will require 7 tooth avid drivers and the small chaincase mod on the 2011/12 Pros.... see Skadi's build in the Members Build sections for photos of this mod.
IMO...Very worth it... get it and dont look back.
With a slightly deeper lug... it works better than the series 5.1 from the factory in deep "blower" powder, and that is saying a lot.
I posted up some notes on the 9174/5/6 track with pics and description in the general forum.
For some reason... this track is not getting noticed like it should!
This track will not fit with 8 tooth 3" pitch drivers. (The drivers are taller than stock.. and so is the track)
http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=234027
.
Last edited:
P
pj8556
Active member
cool! thanks for the info, I have a 155" Pro on order and was going to swap out the 5.1 for a CE 9104, how would you say the CE 9174 compares?? what other modifications will i have to do to my '13 other than the 7 tooth avid drivers?? I see the 9174 is 153" not 155" is this a problem requiring rail mods? THANKS
PS, after comparing the 9105 and 9175, the weight of the new style CE is actually more according to tracksusa.com...????
PS, after comparing the 9105 and 9175, the weight of the new style CE is actually more according to tracksusa.com...????
T
Techsledder
New member
I'm confused, I see a 9104 on sled USA's page for the 2.86" pitch drivers on Polaris. Why wouldn't you just buy that and save some coin on driver swapping?
Sorry, I am going off a little bit of the 163" subject. Just wondering mountainhorse's 155" solution thoughts.
Last edited:
Tech... The 9104 is new to me...
Not sure if it is the new design as the 9174/75/76.
The reason for me... is to improve rather than decrease the clearance with this track that moves so much snow through the tunnel... a 7 tooth 3" pitch will allow this ... plus a 7tooth 2.86" pitch is smaller than the 3" pitch... which may bring it into contact with the top of the front swing arm.... HMMM....
Need more info/pics on the 9104??
From this .... it seems to be the 9104 is the original lug design.
http://www.camoplast.com/tracks/tracks/extreme.html
.
Not sure if it is the new design as the 9174/75/76.
The reason for me... is to improve rather than decrease the clearance with this track that moves so much snow through the tunnel... a 7 tooth 3" pitch will allow this ... plus a 7tooth 2.86" pitch is smaller than the 3" pitch... which may bring it into contact with the top of the front swing arm.... HMMM....
Need more info/pics on the 9104??
From this .... it seems to be the 9104 is the original lug design.
http://www.camoplast.com/tracks/tracks/extreme.html
.
Good info,
How would the diffrence in drivers effect the gear ratio? reason for the question is that i will be getting a 2013 and to the best of my knolage there is no changing the ratio at this point.
The second question is how does this track stack up to 162 PC?
How would the diffrence in drivers effect the gear ratio? reason for the question is that i will be getting a 2013 and to the best of my knolage there is no changing the ratio at this point.
The second question is how does this track stack up to 162 PC?
Smaller diameter drivers results in lower gearing/gearing down - one revolution of the driver = less revolution of the track, when compared to a complete single revolution with a larger driver. Just like running a smaller top sprocket, or larger bottom sprocket, in a chaincase (or, running your chain on the smaller front chain ring or larger rear sprocket on a bicycle).
E.g., dropping from a 8t driver to a 7t driver, same pitch, is a 12.5% lower gear (same effect as dropping from a 24t top sprocket to a 21t top sprocket). I think that was one of the questions you were asking.
Can't speak to the 162PC comparison. Only hands on in varying snow conditions can answer that.
E.g., dropping from a 8t driver to a 7t driver, same pitch, is a 12.5% lower gear (same effect as dropping from a 24t top sprocket to a 21t top sprocket). I think that was one of the questions you were asking.
Can't speak to the 162PC comparison. Only hands on in varying snow conditions can answer that.
Last edited:
M
modsledr
Well-known member
The 9104/05 is the old style lug, 2 ply CE.
The 9174/75 is the new style lug, single ply CE.
The single ply rolls easier, and the new lug seems to work extremely well in pretty much all conditions. Rode the last 2 seasons, everywhere from Washington cascade concrete, to McCall and Revy POW...this is the track I will be running on any NON-BOOSTED sled (for boosted sleds, I would still want the 2 ply track).
Not absolutely correct. This is how tracks USA lists them:
9104/9105 are for 2.86 pitch
9174/9175 are for 3.00 pitch
Last edited:
I think modsler is on it...
Tracks USA is pretty vague in the description.
As far as I've seen... 9174/5/6 are the only ones with the new design lug with no serrations... I believe the 9104/5 are the old style track with the change to 2.86" pitch...BUT... I believe it is a single ply now.
My 2 cents... I'll see if I can get the engineers at Camoplast to clear this one up.
.
Tracks USA is pretty vague in the description.
As far as I've seen... 9174/5/6 are the only ones with the new design lug with no serrations... I believe the 9104/5 are the old style track with the change to 2.86" pitch...BUT... I believe it is a single ply now.
My 2 cents... I'll see if I can get the engineers at Camoplast to clear this one up.
.
Last edited:
Just to throw in my 2 cents here, I trimmed my stock 155 track on my 08 D8, it greatly improved the downhill on hardpack / spring conditions issue, and did not seem to suffer in the pow, BUT it made the tops of the lugs flat all the way across like the new Camo Extreme, and the one place that really suffered was cornering on hardpack trails... it would wash out / slide out way easier than my wife's 08 D7 which has a 155 Camo Extreme "old-style". Trail-running back to the trailer, my wife had a lot easier time than I did. *L*
I now have an 08 Dragon with 163 Camo Extreme "old style", was great in spring riding for point and shoot, but I could not throw the sled around like I could my 08 155... but that is a different issue... need to have the rear shocks revalved / update kits by Fabcraft like my 155 had for starters...
I now have an 08 Dragon with 163 Camo Extreme "old style", was great in spring riding for point and shoot, but I could not throw the sled around like I could my 08 155... but that is a different issue... need to have the rear shocks revalved / update kits by Fabcraft like my 155 had for starters...
