xtra 10 swap and setback into 94 wedge

smashed600 · Mar 28, 2012

So my old indy suspension just cant take the abuse anymore. Seems like every time a ride a rough trail something comes back broken, and I come back very sore. Well after my last ride I decided to start looking for an xtra 10 or xtra lite. I bought an xtra 10 today that looks to be in good shape for 50 bucks and the guy gave me a xc 100 or 101 too. Although Im not sure I wanted it there are some good parts on it. So I'm thinking I will just set the skid back 2.5" to make it fit my 141. I'm hoping it wont mess with the geometry to much. Cheaper for me is better but if this is something people think will have a greatly adverse effect please let me know your opinions.
Thank You

sled_guy · Mar 29, 2012

Use extensions, don't set it back. Setting the rear suspension back on a Polaris or any sled for that matter will make it hard to steer, not transfer weight, and generally ride crappy.

Just invest in the small set of extensions, you'll be much happier with it.

sled_guy

smashed600 · Mar 29, 2012

Thanks thats pretty much what I was thinking. So far though my search results for a 136 to 141 extension is coming up short. Anyone know who I could get those from?

wrtmani · Mar 29, 2012

Are you sure its a 136? The extensions for a 133-141 are the same as a 136-144. Xtra 10 in my 97 XLT is 133. 97 700 had 136 xtra-10 wasn't until 98 or 99 xtra 10 went 136 in other models I believe?

See Western Power Sports For Extensions (sold thru WPS dealers)

http://catalog.wps-inc.com/wpsonlin...ID=SM&PRVCID=SM&PAGE=641&Rnd=7934456621499909

smashed600 · Mar 30, 2012

OK I see wps has that short of extensions. The xtra 10 is out of a 99 600 rmk. My sled currently has 133 rails (not xtra 10) with extensions to get to 141. I don't know though 100 $ bucks for the extension or the guy I got the skid from had an xtra-lite 144 with fox's he said he would sell for 100. I prbly would have taken it home that day with the intention of putting it in my wifes gen 2 136 600, but it was still on his parts sled. Didnt talk about the price on the track... I don't know though I notice if I google set backs alot of the skidoo guys seem happy with them, and I am running a 670 doo. Just my stubborn / cheap side.

smashed600 · Apr 16, 2012

Well the suspension is a definite improved ride over the whoops. Rode a very tight trail through the trees this weekend and it did great. However the xtra 10's lack of weight transfer will take some getting used to I think. It kinda got me into trouble a couple times thinking I would be able to stand it up and spin around on the track, when instead the skis stayed down and I got stuck. Not as much fun.BTW did the setback.

Anthony

retiredpop · Apr 16, 2012

smashed600 said:
Well the suspension is a definite improved ride over the whoops. Rode a very tight trail through the trees this weekend and it did great. However the xtra 10's lack of weight transfer will take some getting used to I think. It kinda got me into trouble a couple times thinking I would be able to stand it up and spin around on the track, when instead the skis stayed down and I got stuck. Not as much fun.BTW did the setback.

Anthony

Did you take out the coupling blocks on the xtra 10?

smashed600 · Apr 17, 2012

yes and limiter straps are all the way out

sled_guy · Apr 18, 2012

Yup, you did the setback and now it doesn't transfer weight as it should. An xtra10 with the blocks out and mounted in the stock position will transfer weight more than just about any other suspension there is.

sled_guy

smashed600 said:
Well the suspension is a definite improved ride over the whoops. Rode a very tight trail through the trees this weekend and it did great. However the xtra 10's lack of weight transfer will take some getting used to I think. It kinda got me into trouble a couple times thinking I would be able to stand it up and spin around on the track, when instead the skis stayed down and I got stuck. Not as much fun.BTW did the setback.

Anthony

smashed600 · Apr 19, 2012

oh well nothing ventured nothing gained. I think I will swap in an extra lite from another sled of mine. To see if there is any improvement.

sweet700 · Feb 9, 2013

As the owner of a 02 700 sks which has a 136 xtra 10 skid, I can tell you it doesn't transfer very well at all. If you're thinking you can throttle the skis into the air it's not going to happen, just something with the 136 skid. I also own a 98 700 xc with a 121 xtra 10 and that skid would let me keep the skis in the air all day if I set it up with the rrss blocks on low or removed, the 136 just bottoms easier if I try anything similar.

I'm also looking to do a setback on my sks to 141 just with a 136 pro xr skid so i'm also curious about 2.5" causing too much ski pressure.

sno*jet · Feb 10, 2013

sweet700 said:
As the owner of a 02 700 sks which has a 136 xtra 10 skid, I can tell you it doesn't transfer very well at all. If you're thinking you can throttle the skis into the air it's not going to happen, just something with the 136 skid. I also own a 98 700 xc with a 121 xtra 10 and that skid would let me keep the skis in the air all day if I set it up with the rrss blocks on low or removed, the 136 just bottoms easier if I try anything similar.

a 121 will lift the skis easier than a 136 because there isnt any track behind the rider position to keep the chassis flat. if you dont like it as much, you will hate it set-back.

sweet700 · Feb 12, 2013

sno*jet said:
a 121 will lift the skis easier than a 136 because there isnt any track behind the rider position to keep the chassis flat. if you dont like it as much, you will hate it set-back.

My xc wasn't standing on it's tail, the track would still be flat on the snow but the rear torque arm would collapse much easier kinda like a see-saw and the skis would easily come off the snow.

sno*jet · Feb 13, 2013

sweet700 said:
My xc wasn't standing on it's tail, the track would still be flat on the snow but the rear torque arm would collapse much easier kinda like a see-saw and the skis would easily come off the snow.

what parts are different in the skids, besides rail length, that would support this observation? i dont see it in the diagrams.

sweet700 · Feb 13, 2013

sno*jet said:
what parts are different in the skids, besides rail length, that would support this observation? i dont see it in the diagrams.

The rear shock on the xc is linked to the front torque arm via a "c" shaped link, on the sks the rear torque arm is mounted back about 5" and isn't linked at all to the front.
Just check out the rear shock lower mounting points on each.
On Babbitts I found it under front torque arm for the '98 xc.

sno*jet · Feb 13, 2013

youre right i see it now. i like the sks way for steep hills, but wonder if you could simply convert yours to the setup you prefer.
i did notice the springs on the sks were smaller diameter, so i was like wtf? .. :face-icon-small-con

steepndeeper · Feb 17, 2013

Xtra 10 front mounting postion is further forward tahn the stock 94 location and rear mouts are back. I've done both the 133 and 136 swaps and they aren't even the same. You should measure the donor sled to get the exact dimensions. JB Shocks has a tempplate but I found that the donor sleds that I had were different from the measurements that they had posted. I ended up moving mounting brackets in both machines that I did.

Search

xtra 10 swap and setback into 94 wedge

smashed600

Free Member

sled_guy

Well-known member

smashed600

Free Member

wrtmani

Well-known member

smashed600

Free Member

smashed600

Free Member

retiredpop

Well-known member

smashed600

Free Member

sled_guy

Well-known member

smashed600

Free Member

sweet700

Free Member

sno*jet

Well-known member

sweet700

Free Member

sno*jet

Well-known member

sweet700

Free Member

sno*jet

Well-known member

steepndeeper

Free Member

Similar threads