• 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.

2018 cat

0

03Firecatguy

Well-known member
Mar 12, 2011
369
79
28
Aberdeen SD
Be watching for real ride feed back. Wish we had a dealer here for a test ride:face-icon-small-sad

How are the 17 mountain cats performing? MC is the
only one I am curious to hear, plenty of limiteds, but not the same..

Mountain Cats are amazing themselves. I absolutely love mine but its going up for sale after the next trip so I can give an 18 a try for next year.
 

Chewy22

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 17, 2009
1,993
1,369
113
Montana
I heard (after a bunch of mumbling) the 18 is 6lbs lighter than the 17 mtn cat in that video.


I think there will be more on this soon. They can't let everything out of the bag yet, which is why there was some hesitation in the response. Pure speculation on my part of course.....
 

d1100t

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 30, 2011
1,814
400
83
Saskatchewan Canada
I think there will be more on this soon. They can't let everything out of the bag yet, which is why there was some hesitation in the response. Pure speculation on my part of course.....

It sounded like to me he wasn't sure what to say and was scared to say to much
 

sno*jet

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 13, 2007
2,826
1,298
113
listed weight on a 17 MC 153 is 466.
so 460 based on that vid.
just cats listed spec, who knows.
i think the hesitation was because thts not a mountain cat, and the MC will be lighter.

polaris guys can laugh at that, as they remove their sharp carbides, lol :face-icon-small-hap
 
Last edited:
0

03Firecatguy

Well-known member
Mar 12, 2011
369
79
28
Aberdeen SD
listed weight on a 17 MC 153 is 466.
so 460 based on that vid.
just cats listed spec, who knows.
i think the hesitation was because thts not a mountain cat, and the MC will be lighter.

polaris guys can laugh at that, as they remove their sharp carbides, lol :face-icon-small-hap

474 is 17 Mountain Cat 153, 553 topped off
 

sno*jet

Well-known member
Premium Member
Dec 13, 2007
2,826
1,298
113
474 is 17 Mountain Cat 153, 553 topped off

i think cat ships them with some fluids in them no?

would be smart if they decreased the size of the oil res on these new ones, for the guys who fill everything to the top and compare weights.
 

89sandman

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 16, 2004
4,897
2,072
113
southern oregon
Is 466 the dry weight of the 17 MC? That's all I'm interested in, don't care about Rtr, just look at the poor doo boys with a 9.5 gallon tank just to make it seem lighter than it is. The only way a sled should be weighed is dry or soon we will have one gallon tanks:) These are the early release sleds, the in season models are likely to be slightly different.
 
B
Dec 12, 2014
76
19
8
30
Be watching for real ride feed back. Wish we had a dealer here for a test ride:face-icon-small-sad

How are the 17 mountain cats performing? MC is the
only one I am curious to hear, plenty of limiteds, but not the same..

I have a 162" MC and I am very impressed with the sled. The biggest thing I noticed is how it climbs right up on top of the snow. It is really easy to sidehill and holds lines really well, way more predictable than previous years. I am by no means an excellent rider but coming off a 2015 it is a world of difference.
 

89sandman

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 16, 2004
4,897
2,072
113
southern oregon
So the early release Snopro is 8-9lbs lighter than the 17 Mountain Cat. Saw a vid that said over 30% better bottom and 18% better midrange on the motor. Should be one awesome tree slayer:)
 
S

SnoPro1000

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
283
115
43
35
From the video he says that it's 18 pounds lighter then the snopro and 8-9 lighter then the mountain cat, stands to reason that the mountain cat should be lighter then the snopro again this year?:)
 

goridedoo

Well-known member
Premium Member
Feb 8, 2010
3,867
3,544
113
i think cat ships them with some fluids in them no?

would be smart if they decreased the size of the oil res on these new ones, for the guys who fill everything to the top and compare weights.

Or not. Decreasing tank sizes to look better on the wet weight scale is the stupidest effing thing ive ever heard of. If you want to save 6 pounds by not putting a gallon of fluid in then do that, but leave the door open for the rest of us to carry enough fluids into the backcountry without having to pack extras.

Publishing dry weights would be a better place to start.
 
Premium Features