• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

2.6 vs 3.0 ......thoughts.

SRXSRULE

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Aug 25, 2002
2,512
1,592
113
So my thoughts on these 2 tracks have taken a 180 after riding the 2.6.
I currently have an 162 X3 on my pro and due to some of its downsides was going to go with the 2.6 163. After riding the 2.6 axys and the X3 on my pro back to back in the same snow I just was not impressed with how the 2.6 performed.
So today I went to one of the previews and got to compare the 2.6 and 3.0 side by side. Both tracks have exactly the same design and lug profile, PLUS they measure at the same durometer rating, 80-85 on my gauge. I also checked my X3 and it also tests at the same 80-85 rating.
After doing these comparisons I'm trying to understand how polaris can claim the 2.6 will cover 80% of snow conditions and the 3.0 only 20% of those super deep/soft powder days. The two tracks are exactly the same, except for the .400" increase in lug height. I just have a hard time believing that increasing the lug height 15% will result in a 60% reduction in its range of snow condition performance.
I almost feel like its more of a marketing stand point then true performance. For some reason they want to push the 2.6 over the 3.0. They also have all of their factory backed riders pushing the 2.6 when many of those same guys have none or little time on the 3.0 track

So thats my thoughts on the tracks. I'm now switching to the 3.0 track and hope next year will be a great snow year :) Eric
 
D
Oct 13, 2008
768
148
43
I think you are right about the marketing aspect of it. Most riders ( even in the mountains ) do not realize that even though the 2.6 will take them most everywhere they dare to go the 3" just makes it that much easier. These are some of the same people that will put 6-700 hp. and a 1000ft lb. of torque in there diesel trucks ( been there by the way ) and still want more. Is it always needed NO, but when you need it and it is there it is great. And if you need it and it is not there it just sucks. You can always cut it down for free if you do not like it, but you cannot add to it for free if you want more. Also it is a smaller market for the 3" so maybe Polaris gets a better deal ( buying in bulk ) and profits are better on the 2.6 than the 3". I could be wrong on that, but just a thought.
 

TRS

Life Member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 1, 2007
4,094
6,225
113
67
Cody, WY
Much cheaper to produce the belt drive over the chaincase and components. The steel drive shaft is also more spendy than the cheap aluminum extrusion.
 
A

ak

Well-known member
Dec 7, 2007
2,776
723
113
Srxrules In your other post you said you were able to ride a sks with a 5.1 how did it compare to the 2.6 track?
 

turboless terry

Well-known member
Premium Member
Jan 15, 2008
5,556
6,739
113
Big Timber, MT
Eric, what was it that you didn't like about the x3? The 3 does change things a bit. I was going to get the 2.6 but I have changed my mind and am now getting the 3. The chain case is awesome. It will be geared right where my 13 wasn't right for a 3 inch track. The drive shaft isn't a nickels worth of difference as far as weight due to their bandaid still being on the aluminum one. And the other fact is the 3 inch is better 80% of the time. Every time I ride we are in good snow. Even on the crappy days we always find decent snow in the trees. As far as the belt drive I like them better but it is not a huge deal. They aren't as big a difference as people think. Go for the 3.
 

SRXSRULE

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Aug 25, 2002
2,512
1,592
113
I did also ride the SKS, but they had the skis set wide on it and I really had no desire to go with that model due to the fact you cant get a 163. With the front end set wide it was noticeably harder to pull the sled over and didnt feel as stable once over. I did run that sled down the trail and it handled very good. Should be a great all around sled. The track was a 155 2.4 and with the slightly lower gearing then the axys with the 2.6 it did spin the track a bit easier and quicker but still performed well.

The issues I have with the X3 is my sled runs HOT in anything less then 6" of fresh snow. I run the scratchers all the time and always have even with the stock 2.4 track. My sled use to run about 140-150 riding our single track trail back to the riding area. With the x3 it will get up to 190* and I have to stop and pack snow on top of the tunnel. Once in good snow and normal back country riding it will still run 127* just like before.

The other issues are when riding in less then ideal snow conditions it hurts the handling of the sled, makes it want to push and just makes the sled harder to ride. It also wont hold a steep side hill as good as it use to, you just dont feel 100% that the back end wont wash out on you. You also get that feeling when marking a hard, tight, turn back up hill. Depending on snow conditions the tail of the sled will kick out and you might end up going over the bars.

I'm hoping the different lug pattern and profile of the Polaris 7.1 will fix these issues. I also think the redesigned snow flap will help with the cooling.
Eric
 

skibreeze

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 4, 2005
10,463
3,477
113
Colorado Springs
I have both, a 2.4" and a 3" with turbos and I leave the 3" in the trailer most of the time. The 3" doesn't have nearly the snap or track speed of the 2.4. I will say that the "Pin and wiggle" and low speed trees definitely works better with the 3"
 

MountainFanatic

Active member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 5, 2012
118
30
28
35
Wa
It's all marketing i bet

Honestly, i think they are just trying to down play the 3" on the polaris so that a T3 skidoo seems less attractive if you are in the market... by 3" being an option over at polaris that people are shying away from, more people will question the adequacy of the t3. I'm switching over from heavily modified yamaha's and cat's and this is the delema i've felt ever since the new sleds were unveiled this year. I'm also a business major :face-icon-small-win
 
Last edited:

sno*jet

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 13, 2007
2,820
1,283
113
The issues I have with the X3 is my sled runs HOT in anything less then 6" of fresh snow. I run the scratchers all the time and always have even with the stock 2.4 track. My sled use to run about 140-150 riding our single track trail back to the riding area. With the x3 it will get up to 190* and I have to stop and pack snow on top of the tunnel. Once in good snow and normal back country riding it will still run 127* just like before.

The other issues are when riding in less then ideal snow conditions it hurts the handling of the sled, makes it want to push and just makes the sled harder to ride. It also wont hold a steep side hill as good as it use to, you just dont feel 100% that the back end wont wash out on you. You also get that feeling when marking a hard, tight, turn back up hill. Depending on snow conditions the tail of the sled will kick out and you might end up going over the bars.

I'm hoping the different lug pattern and profile of the Polaris 7.1 will fix these issues. I also think the redesigned snow flap will help with the cooling.
Eric

i think you summed up why they are pushing the 2.6 more. i doubt a different paddle profile and longer flap is really going to cure all the differences you mention here.
its nice they made that option up to you if you want to deal with a bit more heating issues on the trail for a harder pull in the deep stuff.
 

Randman

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 21, 2010
253
170
43
Billings, MT
I would rather have the 3" track and I am keeping my 15 163 LE PRO, but I think the 3" is going to have cooling problems. I ride mainly Cooke and with this past crummy snow year my 15 would get hot running scratchers on the way to the goods...Mainly from Pilot Creek and up Lulu or Daisy.

Not sure what to snow check. Why don't they add a cooler to the 3"? We all have to ride some trail to get to the good stuff and it sucks having to stop and pack the tunnel and/or find snow to cool my 2.4 PRO.

Not sure what the heck to do. :present:
 

friscospices.com

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 30, 2007
835
416
63
61
Nebraska
www.friscospices.com
I have a T 3 and did notice you can really go slower in the trees and make better lines. However with the Pro I have 2 of them as well I really hate the cooling issues so I opted for the 2.6 thinking it may cool better. I wish I could have snowchecked the 3" snow flap as an option but I guess i can always get one after.So i guess for me its the cooling issue as well, not like I ride on the trail but when you get into some of those single tracks that lead you to the back bowls and your 4th in line it always gets hot no matter the snow conditions.
 

Reg2view

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Feb 1, 2010
2,392
1,600
113
Bet they would have sold a whole bunch of 163 3" SKS's if they had offered them.

Poo likely recognized they would just be cannibalizing sales of Pro RMK 163s. Doesn't mean the 163 3" SKS wouldn't make sense - it helps address the major operating issue with the 3" for poo and doo - heat. No compelling reason for them in 16, but could have been for customers.
 
Y

yooper 8

Well-known member
Apr 14, 2008
159
57
28
I have a 3" on my 155 Pro, and I am ordering a 163 2.6" Going to try it, and I hope I like it, but if not, I will sell it and put on a 3". I am not willing to give up the quik drive. I just like the snappiness and how easy it is to change a belt if it breaks compared to a chain.
 

Scott

Scott Stiegler
Staff member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 1, 1998
69,618
11,737
113
51
W Mont
After doing these comparisons I'm trying to understand how polaris can claim the 2.6 will cover 80% of snow conditions and the 3.0 only 20% of those super deep/soft powder days. The two tracks are exactly the same, except for the .400" increase in lug height. I just have a hard time believing that increasing the lug height 15% will result in a 60% reduction in its range of snow condition performance.

Eric, what I take from them on that is about the market percentage and/or WHERE it's best suited.
I think they are talking about it's versatility.

Here is how I see it. The 2.6 is more versatile in most all conditions, which can be used in about 80% of all riding conditions. Which suits a MAJORITY of the owners.

The 3.0 is more of a niche track that's to be used primarily off trail, which should be about 80% or 90% of your riding miles with this track, which is going to be a FAR SMALLER market.
 
T

tkuss

Well-known member
Dec 12, 2007
446
297
63
Fort Collins, CO
spit balling here but maybe polaris is trying to cover there buts with possibly future warranty work? 3" possibly means more overheating on trails, therefore more engines blown? Maybe worried about the 3" folding over sooner and people complaining and trying to warranty the track?


I fully agree with the SRXSRULE first post, I agree it seems weird polaris is really pushing the 2.6 over the 3" track. Running my first 3" track on a sled this year and I love it, I have seen little to no downsides with it.
 

Solby

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
712
226
43
Colfax, WA
Eric, what I take from them on that is about the market percentage and/or WHERE it's best suited.
I think they are talking about it's versatility.

Here is how I see it. The 2.6 is more versatile in most all conditions, which can be used in about 80% of all riding conditions. Which suits a MAJORITY of the owners.

The 3.0 is more of a niche track that's to be used primarily off trail, which should be about 80% or 90% of your riding miles with this track, which is going to be a FAR SMALLER market.

I think Scott is right on the money. Just remember guys the series 7 polaris track IS NOT an X3. From reports the paddles are softer than the series 6 2.6. The new series 7 3" is deep powder only where as the X3 is more of an all around design.
 
A
Mar 14, 2011
510
124
43
Saskatoon, SK
I think Scott is right on the money. Just remember guys the series 7 polaris track IS NOT an X3. From reports the paddles are softer than the series 6 2.6. The new series 7 3" is deep powder only where as the X3 is more of an all around design.

And those reports were quickly disproved as bullcrap when a guy actually measured the durometer of the track.
 

CO 2.0

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
4,470
2,994
113
44
Fort Collins, CO
Don't think anyone really thought the 3" was a softer durometer, just folds over pretty easy. Just from the added length (which was miss written as "softer"). Which could deteriorate the track quicker over time. Go feel both tracks for yourself and you will see what some have been talking about. Even with that, Im still getting the 3"...
 

sledheader

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Feb 18, 2013
1,529
748
113
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
After seeing them yesterday and talking with the rep, I'm even more sold on the 2.6.

Feeling them in person, the 3" really feels softer than th e2.6. But that could be the extra length too. Also, the inside paddles on the 2.6 are softer than the outside paddles. Never heard that before but you can feel the difference. This was pointed out to my by a carls cycle rep.
 

TimG

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
245
146
43
Alberta
I've had a 163" X3 on my pro for the last two years. I see tremendous upside with very, very little downside. The sled just becomes way more capable in the mountains. It MAY be SLIGHTLY harder to pull over in BAD conditions (the kind where you wish you had stayed home).

The heating issue? It does heat up a little easier, but the sled will also heat up with the stock track quite easily in low snow conditions. The remedy I've found (on the trail) is to go faster. I've ridden in some pretty brutal conditions at home in Alberta where guys with the stock track have the scratchers down and are still overheating, and I've got my scratchers up- no problems! The reason? I'm ripping on it and they're going slow. I've put around 1200 miles on my X3 flatland riding around home, and I see very little downside there either. Top speed is down from around 90 to 81 on the gauge, and I see that 81 mph a lot. No signs of failure yet.

Honestly, I think 3" is the way of the future. Everyone that is worried about it- have you ridden an X3 (I know, it's not a series 7, but it's the closest thing to it that we can actually ride)? When I got mine and rode it for the first time, it was like the heavens opened and the angels started singing! After jumping on a Pro with the 2.4, I can't wait to get back on my X3. There are a zillion T3's around here, with their way higher price and all. That says something.

We Polaris riders can rant and rave all we want about how climbing is dead and boondocking is all that matters, but most guys will still do the odd climb here and there, and it is really demoralizing when the T3 slaughters the 2.4" Pro. Besides, any amount of boondocking is inevitably bound to involve a degree of climbing. The sled needs to do it all! That's where the 3" comes in.

None of us actually know what the series 7 is going to be like on the snow. Maybe I am wrong. However, it's silly to write the series 7 off before seeing it in the real world. Like some others have stated, it's easy to cut down if you think it's too tall.
 
Premium Features