T3 174? Bigdeal !!!

[ferniesnow]

guess the question is 163 or 174

and the answer might be found where one lives and how many powder days one actually rides, eh!

 

[imdoo'n]

and the answer might be found where one lives and how many powder days one actually rides, eh!

and another hundred bites the dust!!!!!

 

[ferniesnow]

and another hundred bites the dust!!!!!

Hahahahaha, I totally missed that one. Sweet grab Larry!

 

[FranktheTank]

67kmh for track speed?? How deep was the snow. 42mph sounds pretty good considering the size of track.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Snow was setup maybe 6-8"of fresh. 67km was top speed seen while climbing fell off from there. The sled felt slow but it never quit climbing. Any climbs you would crest at a turtles pace thats for sure. 156x3 was easily going everywhere the 174 did and it did it with more finesse

 

[Caper11]

Snow was setup maybe 6-8"of fresh. 67km was top speed seen while climbing fell off from there. The sled felt slow but it never quit climbing. Any climbs you would crest at a turtles pace thats for sure. 156x3 was easily going everywhere the 174 did and it did it with more finesse

Hummm something sounds off in the setup of the sled. Pretty slow track speed and it feeling slow puzzles me. Not what I experience in the past riding 3" tracked sleds.


Thanks for the reply


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[FranktheTank]

Hummm something sounds off in the setup of the sled. Pretty slow track speed and it feeling slow puzzles me. Not what I experience in the past riding 3" tracked sleds.


Thanks for the reply


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Could of been something setup wrong was a dealer off the island that had it as far as i know it was right out of the box there wasent a whole pile of miles on it either could of still been in break in mode? maybe? not sure.

Not sure if you rode naturally aspirated 174x3 i had one last year in a BB860 it felt okay but never good. I finished last year off knowing it takes big hp to turn that track efficently (turbo). T3 felt the same as my sled last year slow and tractored over everything. Even a 163x3 is a lot better with an 880 thats properly setup for turning that 3", sure a stocker can turn that track but not well. It takes a solid 180+hp to make that 3" fun and exciting. The only 3" track that felt good to me with stock power is a 156. Hmmmmm 880 with a 156x3" that sounds like a fun tree sled.

 

[Caper11]

My buddy built a ptek 174 3" in 2011, he added a ET head and a pipe. Had the clutching and gearing (23/51) figured out and it actually worked very well. Ground speed going over the hills was faster than my stocker.
I helped out a fellow last year with clutching on his 162 3" and when I rode his the ground speed was faster up the hill compared to my xm and he was a lot happier with his sled with better clutching in it.

My 2011 3" worked like crap till I figured out the clutching and gearing, I wasn't happy till I saw over 50 mph on the speedo but the engine wouldn't maintain that for long, turnout track speed was about 41-42 on the speedo.
It took 3/4 of the season to get it clutched right to get the track whipping fast enough to make a differance. A 3" will exploit a poor clutch setup on a lower hp engine. The more expensive alternative was to add more hp.

The biggest thing I noticed with my 3" was the trenching and the sleds inability to get up on top of the snow quick enough. I tried tightening up the limiter strap to gain my attack angle back but the negative to that was a loss in ride height, I ended up drilling a new hole between the predrilled holes on the limiter strap, which gained back my ride height.

I agree with the 156 3" I see them being a solid choice, I know two guys running them and they work very well!

Truthfully after I did my last 3" I said to myself never again!! It is a expensive mod and not worth the hassle. The 2.5 works quite well and does well in all conditions and the fun factor remains in all conditions. You say 42mph in 8" of snow? I say that's no where near good enough not for me anyway!! I'd be mid 50's on my 163.

Could be me overthinking things again, but my gut is telling me that doo threw the T3 in this year to get another season on it to prepare for something else, I know the etec2 system is out on the outboards already and I'm wondering if 2016 we will see a power increase.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CanDoo]

I was lucky enough to have had the opportunity to ride the 174 T3 in Revy. The snow in the trees was still deep and fresh and the that is where I headed. I found the sled to be very responsive in the tight twisty trees, the sled would hold any sidehill like a tractor on roids and the good thing is the length was never an issue. You could tell at times that you had a track behind you but I didn't mind that when it was deep and tight in the trees. I presently ride a 2013 XM 154 and was contemplating a T3 163, however after riding and discussing with a friend connected into the Kuster camp (he rode both 174 and 163 extensively in various snow conditions) I put $$ down on a 174. I was told from his experience that the 174 handles like the 2014 163 but destroys the 163 X and T3 163 in all categories and terrain.

 

[moto.racerx]

A 174 that can slay the trees... Who woulda thought

 

[Summitric]

Will be testing them out this weekend at kuster's mountin park


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[FranktheTank]

I was lucky enough to have had the opportunity to ride the 174 T3 in Revy. The snow in the trees was still deep and fresh and the that is where I headed. I found the sled to be very responsive in the tight twisty trees, the sled would hold any sidehill like a tractor on roids and the good thing is the length was never an issue. You could tell at times that you had a track behind you but I didn't mind that when it was deep and tight in the trees. I presently ride a 2013 XM 154 and was contemplating a T3 163, however after riding and discussing with a friend connected into the Kuster camp (he rode both 174 and 163 extensively in various snow conditions) I put $$ down on a 174. I was told from his experience that the 174 handles like the 2014 163 but destroys the 163 X and T3 163 in all categories and terrain.

We had a 156x3 stay with that 174x3 and was more fun. The 174 did hold a good sidehill it only failed when you tried to buttonhook back up the mtn. It just couldnt recover the track speed to do it well. Where the 156x3 got that track spinning fast enough to pull the hill. Sure in deep enough snow your going to see the advantages of the 174 over the shorter tracks. But there is more days where the shorter sled will hold up better. Never rode the 163 T3 cant say weather or not the 174 would DESTROY it like you say. But I do know my 163x3 880 would lay a beating on that poor T3 174. hahaha

They have a good sled they just need more hp's. Which hopefully are coming next year.

 

[birdie]

Sure hope you give us the report card when you get home Ric
birdie

 

[GRD]

Ride on! Looking forward to your report! Get to test them on Wenesday with Ken and crew!

Will be testing them out this weekend at kuster's mountin park


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TJ427]

Does anybody have any new ride updates on the T3 sleds? Still trying to figure out if I 'need' the 163 or 174... Final decision prior to April 22

 

[ferniesnow]

Does anybody have any new ride updates on the T3 sleds? Still trying to figure out if I 'need' the 163 or 174... Final decision prior to April 22

How much fresh doo you ride and how deep is it?

Living in the mountains with ready access to a fresh dump (like when I wake up and there is a foot of fresh in my driveway), I go for a rip! I know it will be deep up top and there would be no substitute for the longer track or the T3 174. That snow would be very rideable for a week and there would be a big chit-hook grin from ear to ear all week.

If I only occasionally rode the mountains and the fresh dumps were few and far between, I may be more inclined to go with the T3 163.

Take all that with a grain of salt because I have not rode any of the T3's but have lots of experience on the XM 163's.

 

[TJ427]

We typically only go when there are good conditions.. This last season typically at least 12 inches or more. Most trips varied from 1-3 feet soft snow depth from trees to open areas. Never had that massive dump with 3-4 feet depth in open areas after huge storm as timing wasn't perfect for that. Likely will keep my 13 XM so that have back-up sled and options for firm conditions with a much shorter track. That way I won't worry about getting the 174...

 

[Summitric]

AFTER RIDING THE T3, 174" AND 163" I POSTED MY PERSONAL FINDINGS ON ANOTHER THREAD.... I COMPARE ALL MY FINDINGS TO RIDING MY RT1000, REV800 AND XP800 AND XM800 .... I DON'T TRY TO COMPARE TO OTHER MANUFACTURERS



Click here to view the original image of 768x1024px.


There was a couple of arctic cat diehards riding with us as guest of 2 of the other riders.... They are switching to the t3, they are that impressed.

The 174 surprisingly had as good, if not better track speed than the 163 t3 .... Doubters no more about track speed.. After all the 174 is a lighter track than the 2014 163 summit.. Gearing and clutching are bang on... And love how you don't need a big run at a steep hill to poke at... They just dig and work.... With the extended chain case a better angle of attack is achieved and these things get up on top quickly.

The very deep keel on the ski works... And along with the better steering grometry, they really work. I'd have thought they would would've push steered badly, but not true. The tilted up rear skid section also helps,,,, they actually back up better than a regular summit in deep snow as well... The skiis worked flawless on slush, icey and packed trail, with much less darting than the summit x... Over the stutter bumps and mogul sized bumps the steering was good.

I was amazed at how the kyb shocks worked in the big bumps on the trails.... Trust me the trail down was rough, but the big174 definitely sucked up the bumps better than any sled I've ridden... And I've ridden a lot of different sleds... I have thought about the raptor upgrade, but might just go with the factory kyb for now, as they worked well... In general even with the biggest track available from any manufacturer, the ride was surprisingly light... The front end was almost "tippy", and really helped with the flick ability factor... The machine handles and maneuvers like it is a much smaller and lighter sled-- even though it's not a heavy sled to begin with. the tilted up rear rails worked well.

I rode the first half of the trail down on a 2014 with raptors on it and then the lower half of the trail on the 174 and I could see the 2014 sleds ahead were doin okay but the big 174 just soaked the bumps much better. I rode the raptor 2014 and the t3 with kyb's.... both worked good, but I think I'd give the nod to the raptor(slight). I'm a big guy and the suspensions were set up soft, and i pushed the 174 down the trail hard and fast and very bumpy, and i'm sure everyone that has driven these sleds are pushing them.... So far so good on them

Cooling wasn't an issue, and don't think it will be, because they put the coolers in the best possible positions for track spray. the tracks do have small windows to help disperse snow. scratchers worked awesome and were placed in best possible location from factory.

 

[bingo1010]

how much track clearance is there in the front of the tunnel where the track rolls around? is it typical of past skidoo's? thanks

 

[Summitric]

There is tons of room between the track and front heat exchanger... I seem to recall a good inch or maybe more


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[maxwell]

There is tons of room between the track and front heat exchanger... I seem to recall a good inch or maybe more


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

should be about an inch.

based on all my previous 3" track installs with 3" drivers having about 1/4" of clearance at the top of the tunnel this chaincase is 27mm longer so it should have about 34mm of clearance or 1-3/8 inch