Weight of a T3...

[Slick]

Poo guys are scared of the T3 and desperately reaching.next will be their poo engines run smoother than etecs when there shut off.LOL.

Nah, I think the reason they're seeming to avoid you isn't to protect their ego's, Being around a lot of you Doo Tards, It's more likely to protect their ears from the Doo drivel. . On the Internet you guys are spectacular. Lol.

 

[Ace Freely]

^^^^^^^^

.... ok, that was funny!

Ace

 

[seanc]

ok i have been following this thread for a while. Full of fuel, full of oil, full of coolant, out of the box what does a 2015 163" Pro weigh? and what does a 2015 163" T3 ski doo weigh? i have seen the ski doo but no pro weights.

 

[Slick]

ok i have been following this thread for a while. Full of fuel, full of oil, full of coolant, out of the box what does a 2015 163" Pro weigh? and what does a 2015 163" T3 ski doo weigh? i have seen the ski doo but no pro weights.

Hey I've been reading the Doo vs Poo debate for a long time, and from all i have read , the Doo guys say that you don't "feel" the extra weight and it makes it stronger, holds a line better cause of front end weight, only positives. So why now such an interest in if its lighter or same as a Pro ? What changed ?

 

[hobbes]

Hey I've been reading the Doo vs Poo debate for a long time, and from all i have read , the Doo guys say that you don't "feel" the extra weight and it makes it stronger, holds a line better cause of front end weight, only positives. So why now such an interest in if its lighter or same as a Pro ? What changed ?

Uh oh...

 

[mtncat]

Same thing will happen next year when Polaris puts the new HO engine in the PRO, They conquer the world on there claimed light weight and lack of equal HP, so next year when they have equal HP as the other two the PRO owners will think that they now have the advantage over the other two. So the one question I would have is the Pro has a narrower chassis that will only allow a 15 wide track, same as a cat. The DOO is wider to except a 16 wide track so for the humor of it all how about we take a Doo and cut 1 inch out of the center, front to back and put that in a pile and see what that weight is,I would venture to say that with that being done the weight of the Pro and the Doo are very close to each other. Have been Riding for 40+ years and have never let weight determine what I ride.

 

[turboless terry]

The Pro and doo will never be close in weight. Don't understand why people can't get over it. I bet the motor is 15 pounds lighter. Narrower plastic. 16 vs. 15. Rear suspension will be lighter.

 

[10003514]

The Pro and doo will never be close in weight. Don't understand why people can't get over it. I bet the motor is 15 pounds lighter. Narrower plastic. 16 vs. 15. Rear suspension will be lighter.

Don't know why you say never be close in weight 155 pro is 515lbs ready to ride. T3 163 is 541lbs ready to ride. Throw a 3 inch 163 on a Pro. I bet there is maybe a 10lbs difference. Who cares that the pro holds more fuel, Xm is a 16 wide so say those weights are a wash. Pro also has a can that is far lighter then the Xm's from factory. If ski-doo released there light weight can from factory like they planned I bet a 163 3 inch Pro would be only around 5lbs lighter then a T3 163.

 

[Jaynelson]

That's true the Pro is a 15" wide track. I hope the next one is 14" wide.

The gas thing is worth a note. Several threads on here since 2012 have shown the CFI and the E-tech to have similar fuel economy, so a larger fuel tank is a negative for RTR weight comparisons - but a positive in the real world.

It's all splitting hairs really - Pro's a little lighter, Doo has a little more power, one's a little wider, one's a little narrower....whatever.

 

[turboless terry]

Why compare a 155 to a 163. Doo is 16 poo is 15. 11.5 gallon tank vs. 10.6. Poo comes with lightweight muffler that can be lighter if you go aftermarket. 35.7 vs 39 in front end. I guess i dont believe they are close . Two different sleds . leave it at that. have both sleds so I don't care. The doo is a 174. The poo is a 155. Some of this sounds like Grubber spinning health care to sell it to everyone.

 

[mtncat]

The point of my post was the Pro crowd will bash the weight of the others, pulling 1 inch out of the Doo for the purpose of a 15 wide chassis would bring the weight more inline with the Pro. think about the weight, 1 inch out of the Bulkhead, tunnel, fuel tank, track, jack shaft, drive shaft, rear suspension arms, bumpers and plastic. so for one to say they will never be close is not entirely true. Plus when I walk in a Doo shop they don't have a half dozen sleds setting around waiting for engines. Again I never base my purchase on the weight but on the quality of the dealer and the product for which they sell.

 

[Jaynelson]

Agreed...other than the engine comment....that record is worn the F out lol. IF you took all that out of the T3, I think it would be pretty close. Not lighter, but pretty close. Now, that sled doesn't exist, and you still have the fuel capacity thing if you want to compare RTR, but w/e.

I wonder if Doo is completely committed to the 16" wide thing, or if they will reconsider for their next chassis. I know their answer with the current chassis would be that the flex track and suspension make up for it, but you could have those on a 15 wide too. I think Pol is proving that a 15 wide does all the same stuff, with weight and maneuverability benefits.

 

[snowmobiler]

doo 16 wide is mountain powder king.everything else comes in second place.and theres nothing wrong with stuck and second place.LOL

 

[DITCHBANGER]

now what about the rider weights... kinda have to take that into account

 

[Slick]

doo 16 wide is mountain powder king.everything else comes in second place.and theres nothing wrong with stuck and second place.LOL

Did 16 wide and 163 dominate that pesky underpowered Pro in the mountains in 2011, nope, 2012 , nope again, 2013 $hit still no, 2014 nope WTF. Hiw can that damn Pro keep growing in popularity ? Screw it lets try 16 wide and 174, if that doesn't finally make us a clear winner , next year we'll try 16 x 200. Lol.

 

[pfi572]

15 x 174 would be nice

 

[duffmannt]

Sorry but there is no way the Polaris is anywhere near as fuel efficient as the xm, not even close.

Sorry. Have to disagree. Ridden with quite a few XM's and my 2014 Pro was always more efficient than the XM's. In the end I believe they were close with Polaris having the advantage of packing more fuel. That being said I still upgraded to a 163 T3 this year. It will be interesting to see if any mapping changes were made this year and if they effect fuel efficiency.

 

[duffmannt]

Most of the guys on pros are spending most of the day trying to take cool instagram pictures so they can be the next Burandt. Fuel efficiency is absolutely stunning at idle for 6 hours…. In all reality, i've seen fairly close fuel usage out of all 3. Most of it depends on the rider.

At least Polaris didn't come out with a Burandt Edition graphic kit this year like a certain Kincaid/McClure manufacturer we all know. Can you imagine how many of those would be out on the hill this year!

 

[snowmobiler]

Pros must have a kirby vacuum edition because they both suckLOL.

 

[idahoskiguy]

It is a big time snow day here in Boise, ID, so I am reading this silly Doo vs Poo thread for giggles. Lots of passionate views from both sides of the fence over a much over rated issue. IMHO a few pounds one way or the other makes little or no difference on any sled.

The reality is that once the track is packed with snow, the rider with gear and equipment, fuel, oil, water, and the riding weight of the whole package is close to 800 lbs. Which makes a 10 or 15 lb difference less than 2% differential from one machine to the other.

However on my 174 T3 the stock can and chain drive are being replaced with a Super Q can and a C3 Belt Drive.