Track length

[vanislerev]

Hey guys,
This has probably beat to death a bit but ive been out of the game for a good 6 years now, looking to get another sled this year. Due to budget constraints i am primarily leaning toward a T3 XM, possibly a Gen4 if the price is right.
Last sled was a 09 154 XP. Was leaning toward a 163 but seeing alot of 174 models for sale as well. I generally play in trees/meadows etc. dont do alot of chutes or anything like that. What do you guys figure? will the 174 be more work in the trees?

 

[Rene G]

I’m on a Polaris, but I recently went to a 163 from a 155 and the difference is substantial, I love it!

 

[longtrack 156]

When I was picking a path through the bush I did some stopping to choose my way through, I found the longer the track the less stuck I got !!

 

[ABMax24]

My current sled is turbo 162. If I was to go back to stock motor I'd be getting a 155. To me a 174 takes the fun out of it, sure it might get stuck less often but that's half the fun of riding.

 

[Teth-Air]

If you get a T3 get the 16+ as I heard many complaints about overheating with the 15 without the extra heat exchanger. Other than that most guys that had them loved them and they are cheap since the G4 came out.

 

[Bnorth]

The 16 T3 163 is a great sled the 15's were good too but can overheat easier. I had a 174 T3 and it was no fun, hated that sled. If budget is a concern stay with the XM, the G4 especially in 2017 is a pricey sled to maintain compared to the XM.

 

[oler1234]

been riding 162/63 for a while now and wouldn't go any shorter.

rode my cousins 174 a bit this season, love it. personally if it was in my budget my next sled would be a 174/75

 

[adamg]

I've been of the opinion for years now that 174 is the right answer. Simply put, you can learn to ride faster by riding a 174.

Each time you get stuck you spend 3-30 minutes dealing with that and expending the physical effort involved. That time and effort would be far more productive in the long run if you had spent it riding, which is what teaches you to ride.

Another factor is that shorter track sleds have to tackle certain terrain features and obstacles at higher speed. Higher speed means more damage to the sled and body if something goes wrong. Plus the cost and lost riding time that comes with that damage, again costing your self time riding and learning how to ride.

And as a bonus, longer sleds can get to a few more places. Getting to those tricky places is one of the best parts of riding.

 

[LID]

T3’s have been super reliable. Hardly any problems with all the fellas that I ride with
My 15 is 7500+km with a top end at 6200 or so. Runs awesome.
Overheats real quick on melt-freeze bumpy trails and goes through sliders quick if you have lots of long access or low powder riding

In the trees the sled works awesome. Great traction and float. Turns quick enough in the deep, slow to turn in hard snow or shallow pow
I’d rather the 174 than a shorter sled for sure when deep in the trees

If I had long access trails and wasn’t lucky enough to ride deep most of the time I’d have a 165 2.5” though

 

[tex78]

I have a 16 t3174, has 8000 km original engine

I find I burn less fuel and oil to a 163, cause it's having to be road harder to do same thing, also easier on parts not balls to the wall all the time

Some times it a bit much and too easy, but then on deeps days or hard tree lines it shines, you can slow down and choose a line before committing to it

 

[bayman]

got over 10000km on my 174 T3 and i love it. the garret 2860 exhaust makes it a demon in the trees. i chase oler1234 around all winter, i need all the help i can get.

 

[0neoldfart]

I’m personally not a fan of anything over 156” on a N/A sled, to me the longer rides feel too planted and not as much fun. But boosted, I’d rather be on a 162” sled. This is a matter of personal preference, I’m not a logger and don’t ride tight trees cause I’m not interested in fixing a-arms and plastic every ride due to my lack of skill / reflexes as I get older. Yes, the longer sleds are more forgiving in the deep and trees, but the ability to turn tight in technical terrain that also requires higher ground speeds and track speeds makes the 150-156” sleds my preference. Until I started riding boosted iron, I hated longer sleds. Cause for every deep day I got to ride, here we’re 3 where the snow was set up...

 

[snopro]

If riding a T3 you can get away with a 163 but because the G4 has a tendency to wheelie the 175 is the ticket in the steep and deep. I have rode big tracks since the late 90's. Wouldnt ride a shorter track anymore

 

[MP Kid]

Soooo.... here’s the real deal...

Track length is:
Directly proportional to your weight. Greater the mass = longer track length required
Inversely proportional to your skill and power. The higher each of these are, the less track you can get away with.

But really.... just ride what you want (or can find a screaming deal on)

 

[brian h]

imo even if you say you generally ride trees the area and snow can be different for the different areas. sicamous area i can see why tex likes the 174, but if in the vale area most run the 165 size. what are the guys you ride with run? I would stick to what others riding in your goup are running. I have seen guys that had the 174 drop back to the 154 just for the fun factor, but i feel the 165 length is a good all around size. rider skill will be a big difference to what these sleds can do. same sled and 2 different riders can make a big difference to what the sled can do. lug length is also a big factor. imo buy what you find at a good price and also to what your riding partners have and enjoy

 

[Oilboy]

I’m a 174/175 fan Always ride trees and it helps a lot trying to get up and into new areas/ or when super deep when you have to find/follow your google maps path, if we rode differently I’d have a 154/63, the guys I ride with the most are all on 165/175 sleds, if all my buddies had 154 I’d be more inclined to have a shorter sled too
for a t3 I’d take a 174 sled as the 163 without a good skid is a wheelie monster like the g4 154

 

[vanislerev]

Thanks for the input guys. I know i was left looking for more with my 154, but either way things have come along way from the boat anchor XP's with 2.25 tracks. I think i will let the best deal decide this fall

 

[smc]

I think track length is a direct correlation to age. If you’re under 22 a 146 “is awesome”, 22-35 “154 is so much fun”, 35-45 “163 is the perfect length” 45+ “On the 174 I can go slow and be in control” I’ll be maturing to a 163 in a couple years.

 

[longtrack 156]

Been riding, (long,?) track since 1968, I remember when we had 550lb sleds and 136" came out and lots of guys said they would stick with the 119-121 track, 136 too long !!

 

[Shredder]

I think track length is a direct correlation to age. If you’re under 22 a 146 “is awesome”, 22-35 “154 is so much fun”, 35-45 “163 is the perfect length” 45+ “On the 174 I can go slow and be in control” I’ll be maturing to a 163 in a couple years.

I'm well into my 175 years.