174 vs 163

[cattechsummitrider]

90% of what we do is trees and creeks and the 174 is the only way to go, have only found one when it was to long ( going through tight trees and had to turn wedged it) But in this situation a 136 would have been the only one that fit lol
we even do a lot of tight s#!t hooks and have no problems.

 

[Caper11]

I love my 174, it needs some suspension tuning but once yah get it figured out its a nice setup.
I dont get the softer track comments on the 174, the 174 and 163 are both the same durometer. The 163 will have more lug penetration due to the increased ground pressure of the shorter length.

The 3" is not the best all around track to begin with, but I have not had any issues on ice.

 

[etecheaven]

i dont think i would ever go 174....i had a 146 before i went 163, and even though i couldn't go everywhere and had to make my own paths, the fun factor was always there. Everything was a challenge. Im very much debating a 154 next time around to bring back the fun.

fyi its was a 146 with a 2.25 track...... everything was at full speed.

 

[Bnorth]

i dont think i would ever go 174....i had a 146 before i went 163, and even though i couldn't go everywhere and had to make my own paths, the fun factor was always there. Everything was a challenge. Im very much debating a 154 next time around to bring back the fun.

fyi its was a 146 with a 2.25 track...... everything was at full speed.

How much do you weigh?

 

[Diamondledinc]

146 is definitely too small- 154 2.5 was too small too for me ( 210 w/o gear ) 153 3" might be fun, but i'm doing 163 2.5 this year. Might go 3" if its not feasible.

 

[etecheaven]

How much do you weigh?

im 180 without gear. it was WOT all day but you would be surprised what a guy could do with proper momentum in the trees. All the guys i rode with had their doubts and laughed but i was never left behind.

Some poor guy bought that sled........ its was a 2011 etec xp buffalo.

 

[etecheaven]

146 is definitely too small- 154 2.5 was too small too for me ( 210 w/o gear ) 153 3" might be fun, but i'm doing 163 2.5 this year. Might go 3" if its not feasible.

i agree, i would never go 146 again as it is to short but i do remember having more fun always being on the edge of getting stuck and finding challenging terrain where with my 163 i have to go further to find the challenge. I am curious about the 154 with a 3"........ then again im curious about a snowbike and a sidewinder as well. lol

 

[thegeneral]

174" all the way! It does almost everything better, except when you go too far down a drainage and have to do a 50 point "Austin Powers" turn around at the bottom.

 

[Bnorth]

I'd like to try a 146 for spring conditions but I'd also like to try a snowbike for that too so I get where you're coming from lol

 

[catrutt]

If you look at the pics that Dave Norna posted I would like to see a short track do that.

 

[GregW]

I love my 174, it needs some suspension tuning but once yah get it figured out its a nice setup.
I dont get the softer track comments on the 174, the 174 and 163 are both the same durometer. The 163 will have more lug penetration due to the increased ground pressure of the shorter length.

The 3" is not the best all around track to begin with, but I have not had any issues on ice.

Hey there, I have absolutely loved my 174 and needed to make minimal set up changes to the suspension to make it fly. If you don’t mind sharing, what sort of set up things have you done to get the ride you sought?

 

[tex78]

im 180 without gear. it was WOT all day but you would be surprised what a guy could do with proper momentum in the trees. All the guys i rode with had their doubts and laughed but i was never left behind.

Some poor guy bought that sled........ its was a 2011 etec xp buffalo.

Oh ya, buffalo

There it is, I got ridiculed for calling my xp a buffalo, when I changed from a Rev chassis

But it sure as hell is lmfao