• 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.

Alpha one 154” vs 165”

boondocker97

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 30, 2008
4,074
2,792
113
Billings MT
A lot of people say the 165 feels as agile as a 153. The one thing that no one has mentioned yet, bigger drivers and bigger wheels will make less track be on the ground.

In our experience, switching to a 10” wheel leaves 2” less track on the ground. So, going to bigger drivers and bigger wheels could make the sled feel 4” shorter. That’s almost the difference of track on the ground between a 165 and a 154.

I may be wrong, but I’d love to have a 18’ and 19’ Mountain cat and alpha sitting next to each other and measure them up to see what the difference is.

Cat went from a 162 to a 165 with the 3.5" pitch so the foot print is probably pretty close to the same there. The 153 to 154 might have lost a little. The flex of the track might makeup for lost footprint in some situations.
 

summ8rmk

Most handsome
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Feb 16, 2008
12,368
6,039
113
yakima, wa.
A lot of people say the 165 feels as agile as a 153. The one thing that no one has mentioned yet, bigger drivers and bigger wheels will make less track be on the ground.

In our experience, switching to a 10” wheel leaves 2” less track on the ground. So, going to bigger drivers and bigger wheels could make the sled feel 4” shorter. That’s almost the difference of track on the ground between a 165 and a 154.

I may be wrong, but I’d love to have a 18’ and 19’ Mountain cat and alpha sitting next to each other and measure them up to see what the difference is.
Ill have an 18 and 19 next to each other in a couple weeks. Ill make a note to check out track and geometry.

 

Snow4life

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Sep 30, 2012
354
165
43
Aberdeen, South Dakota
Almost looks like they use the same length tunnel (165) for both the 154/165, if so I wouldn't get the 154 IMO, but as far as that goes I would get the 165 either way.
 

Chewy22

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 17, 2009
1,993
1,369
113
Montana
Almost looks like they use the same length tunnel (165) for both the 154/165, if so I wouldn't get the 154 IMO, but as far as that goes I would get the 165 either way.

Cat's marketing team at it's finest. The 154 and 165 will not have the same tunnel length; they just got lazy with their photo shopping on the web images.

They still need to fix the weights on the Hard Core also - hard to believe those are only 1 lb heavier then the Alpha.
 

Sled208

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Sep 13, 2010
434
205
43
I rode the 165 Alpha back to back with my 153 MC. I thought they were very close on handling. When trying to pull them both on edge, I would typically punch the throttle on my MC and it would spin a little. The Alpha had a better bite and so it seemed like it would just take off and go instead of that little spin I was used to. It just needs less throttle input and I would get used to it. I'm far from a professional rider but my MC makes me feel like one :)


I'm not sure which one I would choose if I were spring checkin one right now. That's tough. It was impressive watching that Alpha 165 go 50' higher up the hill than what my 153 MC could muster
 

ndfb35

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 15, 2014
671
343
63
MT
I went and saw a Alpha today, and got a brochure from the dealer. I'm looking at the specs in the back and I see the Alpha, hardcore, and MTN cat have 12.5 gallon capacity for the fuel tanks, and the Sno Pro and SE still have 11.7. I'm hoping this means we finally get the tank they said the 18s were supposed to have and if so means we get even more weight savings.
 

summ8rmk

Most handsome
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Feb 16, 2008
12,368
6,039
113
yakima, wa.
Thats good cause this new 800 drinks some fuel!
That extra .8 gallons means i could comfortably go up to 55miles in a day!

 

ndfb35

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 15, 2014
671
343
63
MT
Thats good cause this new 800 drinks some fuel!
That extra .8 gallons means i could comfortably go up to 55miles in a day!


Tuesday when I rode I had well over 70 with just under half a tank to go.
 

sno*jet

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 13, 2007
2,826
1,298
113
its bad news for guys who fill them up all the way, accessory bags with water bottles, pizza pocket in the muff pot, "RTR is the only weight we care about":face-icon-small-con and then compare weights with less capacity sleds.
 

89sandman

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 16, 2004
4,897
2,072
113
southern oregon
RTR is a joke, start worrying about that and you will get a 5 gallon tank so manufacturers can say their sled is lighter RTR.
 
Last edited:

powder pounder

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 1, 2007
508
178
43
53
I went and saw a Alpha today, and got a brochure from the dealer. I'm looking at the specs in the back and I see the Alpha, hardcore, and MTN cat have 12.5 gallon capacity for the fuel tanks, and the Sno Pro and SE still have 11.7. I'm hoping this means we finally get the tank they said the 18s were supposed to have and if so means we get even more weight savings.
Was told the light weight tank never met Vapour leak standards and the engineers were lied to bye the manufacture so we will not see the new light weight tanks
 

powder pounder

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 1, 2007
508
178
43
53
Was told bye engineers that there was a magazine test on the mountain sleds that weighed them in the mountains and the cat was the lightest. Should be out soon . Anyone have knowledge of this? I know cat did this a few years ago but this was on the 18's
 

madmax

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
4,489
3,145
113
Salt lake city
It won’t be lighter than the axys 2.6 with the belt drive. The 3” Polaris with a chsincase I bet it’s very close. The has been within 10ish lbs of the 3” Polaris for a couple years RTR
 

summ8rmk

Most handsome
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Feb 16, 2008
12,368
6,039
113
yakima, wa.
Tuesday when I rode I had well over 70 with just under half a tank to go.
Depends on snow and riding style.
I avg 5-5.5mpg. Less if its deep and lots of hills involved.

I went 75 miles and used 7.3 gallons one time, it was a trail ride with my mom, my Girlfriend and i were riding double on my 18.

 

powder pounder

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 1, 2007
508
178
43
53
It won’t be lighter than the axys 2.6 with the belt drive. The 3” Polaris with a chsincase I bet it’s very close. The has been within 10ish lbs of the 3” Polaris for a couple years RTR
I agree dry weight but they were saying the magazine weighed them in the mountains with the snow build up in them and the cat held less snow so less real world weight. also the alpha is 11 lbs lighter and the popo is 7lbs heavier so that is a 18lb swing. also Polaris is light but there marketing is great. they advertise dry weight of there base model. light (cheap shocks) no paint ( paint on tunnel and rails adds up believe it) no bumper or bag. They are light but they do great on making that look even better than it is. If you click on the 3 inch chaincase version it wont tell you dry weight
 
7
Mar 7, 2017
177
26
28
34
West Bend, WI
I agree dry weight but they were saying the magazine weighed them in the mountains with the snow build up in them and the cat held less snow so less real world weight. also the alpha is 11 lbs lighter and the popo is 7lbs heavier so that is a 18lb swing. also Polaris is light but there marketing is great. they advertise dry weight of there base model. light (cheap shocks) no paint ( paint on tunnel and rails adds up believe it) no bumper or bag. They are light but they do great on making that look even better than it is. If you click on the 3 inch chaincase version it wont tell you dry weight

That’s funny cause I just was looking/curious myself today and noticed the same thing. Polaris doesn’t give a weight for chaincase model.
 
Premium Features