That's what I was thinking.....Guess common sense isn't so common.
Edit: As stated below, the OEM Polaris driver setup doesn't touch any of the clips, so that argument is not valid.....
Last edited:
Belt vs Chaincase
- Thread starter Dootimes2
- Start date
That's what I was thinking.....Guess common sense isn't so common.
Edit: As stated below, the OEM Polaris driver setup doesn't touch any of the clips, so that argument is not valid.....
But the polaris uses involute drivers so skipping a clip every other doesn't hurt.
My thoughts on the belt drive.
Worry about the belt/bolts/driveshaft.
Buy the happy face clamp for the drive end and move the poo clanp to the idler end.
Carry a spare belt/ dont kink it.
Don't land on the throttle or grab too much brake.
Chaincase.
Check the tension often.
Two years to a chain.
Bulletproof driveshaft.
Ride it like a stolen mule without worry.
I ordered the 3" 163 orange and black.
Chaincase was just icing on the cake.
It makes you wonder if the belt drive had been the standard for the past twenty years and then the chain case came along as the new greatest invention, would people think it was the better drive? Polaris would hype it up as " a new stronger, more reliable drive, that weighs only slightly more, no more melted or failing belts". I do believe that the belt is fine for most riders that maintain their sleds well and are conscientious of there riding style, no 80 mile an hour runs down the trail. Not my choice for a rental sled, nor would I recommend it to the guy who is a bit abusive to his equipment. It also is a bit irritating that if you break your chain/case under warranty it will get replaced no questions asked, yet you break a drive belt, I believe Polaris will warranty one in the life of the sled, if you are lucky. My opinion, if the belt drive was put on a sled to replace the chaincase, it should function in all ways that the chaincase does. If it does not, then Polaris should warranty an infinite number of belts if that is what it takes to keep your sled running.
J
Jaynelson
Well-known member
That is a really good point
Exactly my thoughts too!
The key statement being "function in all ways that the chaincase does".
As it is replacing the chain case it should expected to tolerate the same type of usage, break in procedures aside.
Keep sending the engineers back to the drawing board until the failure rate drops to that of the chain case. Not unlike the 800 CFI-2 cylinder skirt failures...............Success is possible.
As consumers we all should expect nothing less!
My thoughts exactly. Except I went with voodoo blue.
Pretty simple what is more robust. Polaris after 3 years of belt drive is only offering the 3" track with the chaincase. I had belt on my 14 163 and now chaincase on my 15 RMK 163. The 15 RMK flat out rips. I don't miss the belt I think it's somewhat of a gimmick.
Have you not read/heard the reason for the chaincase on the 3". It wasn't durability. It was the fact that there wasn't enough room for the correct gearing on the belt drive to match to the 3". Could polaris have come up with something different to put the belt drive on a 3'? Sure they could've. But they would have to have a whole new design. This to me is more of a push from polaris to tell us the 2.6 is the better track for this chassis.
Thats what they say. I have three friends who have had belt drive problems (174x3"), they are aftermarket units. I know a few who have polaris belt drive problems too but i have not laid my physical eyes on them.
Its not isolated to just polaris belt drives, aftermarket drives have problems staying together aswell.
Its not isolated to just polaris belt drives, aftermarket drives have problems staying together aswell.
Last edited:
That's funny. You really believe what Polaris says. This is marketing. What do you mean they would have had a whole new design, it is a whole new design. Polaris can figure out how to create a snowmobile as advanced as the Axys yet can't figure out a problem as simple as gearing through the QD or the drivers? Of course they could. The chain case is stronger and a better fit for the 3". It is not Polaris's job to tell me what my opinion is about whether a 2.6 or 3" track is better. This reminds me of when in the early 2000's Dodge came out with a high output Diesel but only offers it in a standard transmission. Of course they weren't going to tell the consumer that the automatic transmission was junk, but we all knew it was. In my opinion, Polaris's actions speak louder than there words.
I never said they couldn't. I said they could but it wasn't worth changing anything from the base design because they are pushing the 2.6 track.
In fact, you would have less force transmitting through the belt with the lower gearing than you do on the higher gearing of the 2.6.
if the load spins easier, then the clutches shift further out. same load on belt. gearing down a chaincase never made chains last longer. maybe shorter actually.
Point taken. I wasn't thinking about that right.
Regardless, i don't think they did a chaincase for durability issues. Just my opinion
i absolutely think they did. the "we cant achieve the right gearing" thing is how they decided they could feed it to ya. them cheap little stamped wheels is probably cheaper to make than the solid gears in a case. jmo
You are technically right, Doo track is 154 but it is the similar 154.5" track that Poo calls a 155.
Can't gear it down with the QD is BS. They can gear up the 16 QD from the 15 but can't gear it back down for a 3"?
They've taken the lighter Axys chassis and series 6 track with the more powerful 800ho and put lower final gearing on it than the Pro series 5.1 - so they clearly recognized the Pro was geared too high for high altitude. With the 16 series 7 and chaincase, at least you have the option to regear if poo overcorrected - that's a 2:53 final gear now. Got a hunch some peeps in AK starting at sea level will be gearing that up. Plus, you have the option to easily take the series 7 off, and put any 3" pitch track on it you like, powerclaw (3.0 or 2.6), camoX, etc. and gear accordingly. I think the series 7 3" with the chaincase is actually a huge win, not a detriment because it doesn't have the QD. Take my money, please!
They've taken the lighter Axys chassis and series 6 track with the more powerful 800ho and put lower final gearing on it than the Pro series 5.1 - so they clearly recognized the Pro was geared too high for high altitude. With the 16 series 7 and chaincase, at least you have the option to regear if poo overcorrected - that's a 2:53 final gear now. Got a hunch some peeps in AK starting at sea level will be gearing that up. Plus, you have the option to easily take the series 7 off, and put any 3" pitch track on it you like, powerclaw (3.0 or 2.6), camoX, etc. and gear accordingly. I think the series 7 3" with the chaincase is actually a huge win, not a detriment because it doesn't have the QD. Take my money, please!
When a beltdrive fails, you have to replace a belt. Generally when a chaincase fails you have massive issues with drive shafts, jackshafts, the case being ruined, bearings, etc, etc. When the chaincase fails it pretty much locks everything up.
Sure the chaincase is proven but with the belt drive how many had failures on the updated belt from Polaris? This new system has a different ratio and has more teeth grabbing on the top which is where most belt failures happened when you inspected the belts.
I'm going with the 2.6" and belt drive. I don't have any intentions of going with a turbo (mostly because of budget). If you are going to go with a turbo, I may consider the 3" option and the chaincase. I think the extra torque the turbo creates will be hard on the belt drive. In stock or near stock form I think the belt drive will be fine.
Sure the chaincase is proven but with the belt drive how many had failures on the updated belt from Polaris? This new system has a different ratio and has more teeth grabbing on the top which is where most belt failures happened when you inspected the belts.
I'm going with the 2.6" and belt drive. I don't have any intentions of going with a turbo (mostly because of budget). If you are going to go with a turbo, I may consider the 3" option and the chaincase. I think the extra torque the turbo creates will be hard on the belt drive. In stock or near stock form I think the belt drive will be fine.
1500 miles on my 2013 Turbo pro, 10psi, 2.5" camo track. Previous owner had a belt fail in the first 50 miles. Put new one on, took a lil time to break it in right and still has that belt on it! so 1450 miles on the same belt. Looks brand new!
950 of Them miles without a tensioner either. I installed a tki tensioner beginning of this season. I'm 300lbs and honestly thought I'd have issues with the belt drive but Havnt had a single one.
Similar threads
