• 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.

The old 14 still outclimbs the new.

WyoBoy1000

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
11,213
3,928
113
Red Lodge MT to North, CO
Just so happens I wound up with my old 14.
The 18 is a great sled and I am not trying to take away from what it is. I am however telling anyone wanting more how to get it.
The only place the 14 outperformed was when you really load the track in a climb or hard technical turns where you can plant the track and wheelie to maneuver.
Otherwise the 18 is pretty much what I've been shooting for since '12. Although now the boards need improved and raised, add steering, grippers, clutching and gears. I guess there is a lot to do.
Anyway, the new clutching works pretty good but not as good as the old if fixed.
The 18 primary is good.
The secondary works but doesn't work, the gearing is wrong.

The 14 has a ds can, 911 clutch cover,
stock weights (I ruined the Mds before I sold it because the clutch failed) the Mds actually pulled harder.
The 14 secondary machined by Tom @Mountain valley motor sports in Cody, wy (this is key)
Tki belt Drive with 2.42 gears, 8 tooth drivers with 3" pc.
Burandt boards and steering mod, otherwise stock.
No HP mods. In reality only about 20lb weight loss but i was packing 8-10lbs on the sled that the 18 wasn't.

CO2 and i compared his 16 to the 14 and without gear I'm 55lbs heavier. The 14 pulled on his 16. We switched and I couldn't even pull the hill on his 16 and he flat walked away. It was baffling.
The 18 was better but was also a 162, but it just didn't have the pull. Great all around but the 14 felt like a diesel compared to the others.

On the flat the 18 would walk .5-1.5 lengths right off, I had to lean forward and ease into it to stay within .5.
Then it pulled in the mid a length then ran even.
The pull in the mid wad the only thing that really impressed, but I outweighed the rider on the 18 by 60lbs.

18 is impressive but why is the 14 pulling away when loaded.
I believe it is mainly the diameter of the secondary inner circle.
As much as I would hate to do it, I would go back to the 14 Jack shaft and secondary with machine work and gear up. I just can't leave that much on the table.

Everything I've tried in 16 and 17 never felt right and I knew there was more, now it's proven.

But the 18 is still an animal but I don't like the 162. 153 is a better combo.

As for you turbo guys, it really needs the other clutching to use that boosted torque.

Btw, the 14 is for sale $5500 obo 1180 miles. Needs to go. I'll sell it for 4500 without mods. ($4400 worth of mods)
Or I'll trade someone the mods for stock parts and 2000 (tki, machined secondary, 911 cover, d's can, 3" track)
Also have a mountain fit hood to deal with.
 

WyoBoy1000

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
11,213
3,928
113
Red Lodge MT to North, CO
funny how your previous post on gearing have change.

Changed? Haven't really changed.

You have to factor the extent to how far a person goes, how much time, money and style changes as you go.

But I've always stated 2.4ish Is where you to be. But getting the 16+ secondary to agree with it is the challenge. Haven't had the time to figure it out yet.

The huge diameter of the cam creates aggressive back shift that reduces the slingshot style upshift that allows for maximum pull.
Maybe a reverse torsion setup would work.

I need about 10k worth of cnc'd clutch parts and a month to test, I'm pretty sure I could solve it.
Or just get a billet old secondary and roll.
 
R

roni87

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2011
513
213
43
I Falls, MN
Any gain felt from the drop chain case on the 18?
I have a 2.52 tki on supercharger, I could probably stand a bit more load.
Trying ibexx weights now.

Ran my 3"pc for 200 mi now...was rubbing the tunnel rivets and motor mount bolt.
Also didn't have the sidehill bite of the 2.6.

Not easy removing the driveshaft from that 3"pc I know.
 
K

knifedge

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2009
1,334
542
113
Colorado
Im going to order up a tortional secondary kit....BMP says reverse still works ok...has to do with spring rate i believe...
Not sure which kit yet, Cutler, BMP, STM, etc....need spring to work with reverse though...lol....
 

CO 2.0

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
4,470
2,994
113
44
Fort Collins, CO
Funny thing is we were both pulling the exact same track speed up the hill in 18" of pow. But his 14 was easily pulling away from my 16. We were thinking the 8 tooth on his might be some of it, but more than likely it is the clutch. On flats they were about even. I'm geared at 20/49 with 7 tooth. My 16 feels snappy and revy, but just doesn't feel like the torque is there compared to Macs 14.
 
Last edited:

sno*jet

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 13, 2007
2,826
1,298
113
Funny thing is we were both pulling the exact same track speed up the hill in 18" of pow. But his 14 was easily pulling away from my 16. We were thinking the 8 tooth on his might be some of it, but more than likely it is the clutch. On flats they were about even. I'm geared at 20/42 with 7 tooth. My 16 feels snappy and revy, but just doesn't feel like the torque is there compared to Macs 14.


youguys are the gurus, but i bet youre right on the 8 tooths. any besides the 18 have a dropped case?
I really am amazed how my 17MC climbs. bone stock clutching, many would weight it up where i ride but having it pull full rpm at the point where "clutched" sleds are turning out is key imo. wont win the short sprints tho.
 
K

knifedge

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2009
1,334
542
113
Colorado
Funny thing is we were both pulling the exact same track speed up the hill in 18" of pow. But his 14 was easily pulling away from my 16. We were thinking the 8 tooth on his might be some of it, but more than likely it is the clutch. On flats they were about even. I'm geared at 20/42 with 7 tooth. My 16 feels snappy and revy, but just doesn't feel like the torque is

---my 16 with mds and 122/285 h5 spring pulls low 40's track speed 10k alt...

20/49 with 7 tooth ,,,2.65 gearing...43 helix ,, one stiffer secondary spring
(forgot which)

---torque feels good under load in powder and climbing but goes flat around 50 mph in the flats

--keep meaning to try 43 helix with softer stock oem spring ,,,, but stikl want to go with a tortional secondary setup

--my other 16 has same setup except 66 cat weights....pulls mid 30's track speed
 
Last edited:
K

knifedge

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2009
1,334
542
113
Colorado
I might also try sw h5 114/267 primary spring with mds , oem stock is 85/255....

--In both my 16's, the sw 120/310 primary spring worked ok,,,the
122/285 primary spring worked noticeably better,,, so
now i want to try the sw 114/267....although maybe too soft to hold rpm...

--what originally made the topend 45mph plus flat was installing the much stiffer primary and secondary springs....as i have gone softer on the primary side, topend has started to come back with better acceleration pull....pulling 8050 plus rpm at 10 k ft altitude....still running 43 helix and it backshifts good,,,we will see what happens with softer yet primary and / or secondary springs....

--still want to get the tortional setup

--wasnt this thread about comparing 14's, 16's, and 18's ?? sorry...
 
Last edited:
K

knifedge

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2009
1,334
542
113
Colorado
In comparing, maybe the lightweight hood on the front of the sled and slightly better track approach angle of the 14 made the difference compared to the 16.....as stated, track speed was the same .....if track speed was the same and backshift similar,,,, then logically it would be chassis setup that made the difference....
 

CO 2.0

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
4,470
2,994
113
44
Fort Collins, CO
He had the stock hood on his. I think he still has that belt drive on there though. Maybe just the combo of the secondary, belt drive, and 8 tooth getting power to the ground better. But I'd have to agree with Mac that there is something up with the 16 secondary. It just doesn't seem to put the power or the top speed to the ground compared to his machined older secondary. I can hardly get to 65mph on mine, but it's geared to go faster than that. I had a 43 helix in, and I think Mac does too unless he changed it before he originally sold that sled.
 

cpa

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Aug 28, 2001
806
539
93
Utah
Pretty impressive stock sled if "The only place the 14 outperformed was when you really load the track in a climb or hard technical turns where you can plant the track and wheelie to maneuver." Compared to a sled with $4400 in mods.
 
K

knifedge

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2009
1,334
542
113
Colorado
But its essentially the same secondary as 16, 17, and 18...(no adjuster on 18) but 18 shifts out??? Is that true?
 

WyoBoy1000

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
11,213
3,928
113
Red Lodge MT to North, CO
It's a 14 secondary with a 36 helix but it's the machined secondary.

I had a belt Drive on my 16 with multiple ratios, multiple helix s, springs etc .

The large diameter of the helix creates a massive amount of back shift.
So much that it overrides the up shift.

When i saw reverse torsional I mean a torsional that works backwards, one that actually helps up shift not back shift. It's never been done and wad kinda a joke, makes me curious though.

If you try a torsional, I've heard good about cutler. Also heard bmp just put the old clutch on there race sleds.
 

WyoBoy1000

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
11,213
3,928
113
Red Lodge MT to North, CO
8 tooth helps, but still no where close, drop case helps but still not enough.
Both together are a big improvement but still it's the secondary.

$4400 in mods aren't needed to beat it. ( that's including the 3") All you need is a jackshaft, gears and old secondary, machined on s 16 up. Could be done for 1-2k depending on new or used parts. Obviously a tki is preferable.

You just wouldn't think a 4 year old sled would pull on the new.
 

DDECKER

Well-known member
Premium Member
Nov 26, 2013
4,770
1,780
113
CRAIG COLORADO
It's a 14 secondary with a 36 helix but it's the machined secondary.


If you try a torsional, I've heard good about cutler. Also heard bmp just put the old clutch on there race sleds.

I know a few team cat guys that are running the old clutch on there race sleds....Maybe there's something to that, love reading your posts Mac!
 

F7arcticcat

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 26, 2007
523
75
28
8 tooth helps, but still no where close, drop case helps but still not enough.
Both together are a big improvement but still it's the secondary.

$4400 in mods aren't needed to beat it. ( that's including the 3") All you need is a jackshaft, gears and old secondary, machined on s 16 up. Could be done for 1-2k depending on new or used parts. Obviously a tki is preferable.

You just wouldn't think a 4 year old sled would pull on the new.


What springs are you running in the primary and secondary?
 

Vern

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Jun 14, 2004
2,454
1,285
113
hyrum utah
Heck, I don't have a fraction of the stuff done to my '14 that wyo does and it is the front runner in our group. Newest sled I ride with regularly is a '16 axys 163" which isn't hard to beat, but I spent most all of this season hurting the feelings of a buddy on a '15 pro with a twin piped 910 and a 163 conquer on my basically stock '14 153×2.6".

I think people really over think clutching sometimes, and they tend to always shoot for the stiffest set up they can find. As I said my sled performs great and I've done no more to the clutches than spring changes. I like to run the heaviest weights I can pull with the softest springs I can without slipping the belt. I've found the zukes like to be loaded pretty hard, and stiff springs just hit a wall. I also ride with a guy on a 13 cat with a bmp clutch kit with their torsional set up, and his sled feels more "zingy" than mine but mine pulls harder all the way through.
 
Premium Features