174” opinion pros and cons

Dogmeat · Oct 7, 2018

Matte Murder said:
I wonder if any of the guys who have a strong negative opinion of the 174/175 and strong positive opinion of the 154/155 have ever even ridden a 174/175???
Only place the 174/175(I had both last year) is “worse” is on the road ride in and really tight packed down trails thru the trees and I’ll live with that minor negative for the advantage on the deep, deeper and deepest days.
Btw the Doo 850 175 is way more “nimble” than the 800 174.

I'm kind of weird ... I went from a 144" to a 151", then to the 162" sleds, ran a few 162 (or 163) sleds, then last year decided to totally split the difference with the Axys sleds and went with a 144" and a 174" .... LoL. So its kinda like I'm covered on all the days we have low snow and aren't tree riding, then I'm covered on the super deep days when we're doing anything .... but on the "kinda" deep days when we're tree riding I'm SOL.....Guess maybe I need a 155" 850?

WestWAsleder · Oct 21, 2018

Matte Murder said:
I wonder if any of the guys who have a strong negative opinion of the 174/175 and strong positive opinion of the 154/155 have ever even ridden a 174/175???
Only place the 174/175(I had both last year) is “worse” is on the road ride in and really tight packed down trails thru the trees and I’ll live with that minor negative for the advantage on the deep, deeper and deepest days.
Btw the Doo 850 175 is way more “nimble” than the 800 174.

Agree with all of this. I went from a 163 pro to g4 175 last year. I would not go back unless I was interested in riding trails.

XFIRE800 · Nov 6, 2018

Didn't read through the thread so my two points may have already been mentioned:

1. Riding a 174 is about as fun as ****ing a fat chick and your buddies find out about it.

2. If room in your trailer is already tight the 174 isn't going to help the issue

I say that first comment with all due respect which means i can say whatever the hell I want.

Blk88GT · Nov 6, 2018

I'm a 154 guy and I had the chance to try the 175 last year. It was nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be. It wasn't a tips up ski puller but it WENT everywhere and without breaking the sound barrier.

If I could have two sleds, I'd have a 154 and a 175.

bnorth · Nov 6, 2018

Biggest downside is that they're boring as **** in the spring. So much traction they just go anywhere at part throttle in hero snow. Tougher to sidehill in hero too as the long track and 3" lug don't like to spin and cut that notch to sit in. I am thinking of getting a 146 for spring to make it more lively again.

Matte Murder · Nov 20, 2018

catnuts said:
i put at least 2500 mi on a 174 and its great i ride with one arm and 67 yr old, 90 % of time in trees, with body maneuvering and snapping the throttle its works,as for getting stuck wouldnt be without a snow jack

67 and one arm! Sir you are my hero. I pledge to bitch half as much this season about my aches and pains.

Devilmanak · Nov 21, 2018

They have their place. In their element, they are amazing. I love that I can go SLOW and not ride like a moron 19 year old on a 155, WFO and bouncing off trees. If I had to buy one sled a year, it would be a 165. But I ride everything, deep to spring. If all I rode was deep, it would be the 175.

skidawg · Nov 22, 2018

Ten thousand opinions on the 175" debate and really, no one is wright or wrong. Everyone rides what suits them for the conditions that they ride in. If I lived in Revy, I would absolutely have a 175" sled. If all I did was ride the Sierra cement, it would be a 156" or less. I personally have a 165" and debated long and hard whether or not to get a 175". I love to climb, but also like to play in the trees and jump creek bottoms, so I compromised. Living in the Midwest and planning trips in the fall is a crapshoot on whether we hit good powder or not. I'm climbing stuff now that I never dreamed of just ten years ago. Sometimes I wonder, if we shouldn't carry a shorty in the trailer, just for those setup days?:face-icon-small-con

kanedog · Nov 22, 2018

XFIRE800 said:
Didn't read through the thread so my two points may have already been mentioned:

1. Riding a 174 is about as fun as ****ing a fat chick and your buddies find out about it.

2. If room in your trailer is already tight the 174 isn't going to help the issue

I say that first comment with all due respect which means i can say whatever the hell I want.

Fat chicks are awesome. They do everything and are enthusiastic about it.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

tswan · Nov 22, 2018

If you have to ask someone on snowest if you need one or not....you probably don't need one.

Dogmeat · Nov 22, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgY...CPwFIp4Oxeu3yW0DOLHOZzBtUNZ42_hnWPqO4KYo_T4eM

That pretty much sums the whole thing up.

Superduty348 · Jan 20, 2019

kanedog said:
Fat chicks are awesome. They do everything and are enthusiastic about it.

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

HA HA

AdrenalineAddict · Jan 21, 2019

I'm not being negative to any degree about a 174", just stating the obvious. Pretty much anyone I've ever asked who made the switch stated they require a whole lot more effort when a turn or change in direction is involved. I went from a 155 to 163 a couple years ago and the extra input required to change direction was very noticeable. A 155 will carry the ski's 8" off the snow, a 163 will carry the ski's 3" off the snow, a 174 carries the ski's 1" off the snow no matter how they are set-up. If you climb rocky, stumpy terrain all day and need to wheelie over the obstacles and cliff edges day after day you positively don't want to place yourself on a planted 174.

ak · Jan 22, 2019

AdrenalineAddict said:
I'm not being negative to any degree about a 174", just stating the obvious. Pretty much anyone I've ever asked who made the switch stated they require a whole lot more effort when a turn or change in direction is involved. I went from a 155 to 163 a couple years ago and the extra input required to change direction was very noticeable. A 155 will carry the ski's 8" off the snow, a 163 will carry the ski's 3" off the snow, a 174 carries the ski's 1" off the snow no matter how they are set-up. If you climb rocky, stumpy terrain all day and need to wheelie over the obstacles and cliff edges day after day you positively don't want to place yourself on a planted 174.

I would say that’s more the case with the Polaris are older sleds that we’re converted to a 174.

I own a 175 gen4 it has a light feel when riding the sled and will pick the skis up no problem in a climb.

Dogmeat · Jan 22, 2019

ak said:
I would say that’s more the case with the Polaris are older sleds that we’re converted to a 174.

I own a 175 gen4 it has a light feel when riding the sled and will pick the skis up no problem in a climb.

I don't want my sled to pick the skis up on a climb, I want it to pick the skis up when I'm trying to navigate trees and need it to hook into a carve, or pick the front end up easing into a transition across a drainage, etc .... The Skidoo 175's don't do that any better than the Polaris 174's do even in deep snow. Boosting either of them helps in this regard, but they are still not as nimble as the 155's are by any stretch of the imagination.

JungleJim · Jan 22, 2019

I have the remote adjustable limiter strap on our two G4 175's and get the best of both worlds... easy to lift ski's for creeks on the Long setting and great for climbing on the Short setting. I find the 175 very nimble to weave through trees during tight technical climbs. Not quite as nimble as a 155 but then we ride mostly untouched BC powder where floatation and traction really count and can be the difference between making it and not... Never seen anybody say "we need a 155 up here to break trail in" but often get asked for the 175 to go first. I'd only get a 155 if I was into doing whips and jumps as this is not what the 175 is made for, or if I rode crappy set up snow most of the time.

Dogmeat · Jan 22, 2019

JungleJim said:
I have the remote adjustable limiter strap on our two G4 175's and get the best of both worlds... easy to lift ski's for creeks on the Long setting and great for climbing on the Short setting. I find the 175 very nimble to weave through trees during tight technical climbs. Not quite as nimble as a 155 but then we ride mostly untouched BC powder where floatation and traction really count and can be the difference between making it and not... Never seen anybody say "we need a 155 up here to break trail in" but often get asked for the 175 to go first. I'd only get a 155 if I was into doing whips and jumps as this is not what the 175 is made for, or if I rode crappy set up snow most of the time.

BC is a completely different snow situation than most other places on earth .... I happen to live in arguably the best spot in the lower 48 for snowmobiling, and even here I find my 174 isn't optimal on most days due to low snow conditions. Hence why I have a SBA 144" as well.....But, even living here, if I could only have one sled, it would probably be a 155 2.6", and I'm over 270-lbs ride weight.

*shrug*

turboless terry · Jan 22, 2019

I haven't rode the 175 but I did get my wife a xm 174 so she wasn't stuck all the time. She was always worrying about what people thought. Complete win for her. Hardly ever got stuck. She loved it. Hardly ever hindered her due to length. Pulled skis up fine. All in setup. Now I gave her my turboed gen 4 165.
For me they are fine if the snow is deep. Wouldn't want it for all around sled. 165 is a better all around and 154 is more fun than all of them.

imjustdave · Oct 3, 2020

Correct me if I'm wrong but 145 155 165 175. In terms of track were are talking about 5 inch on the ground for each jump in length assumeing the # isn't exaggerated or under reported. I have heared the term 1 lug worth.

If a rider wasn't allowed to see the track or knew the length I wonder how an opinion would result. In back to back rides on the same sled.

The other issue I see is location, real mountain sledding vs big hills, temperatures, experience, motor size, lug depth, ice vs powder vs crusty, how much grooming in the area. Stock setup vs not. Even clutching if you think about it impacts the ride and some sleds have different final drives for the 174/175 track.

Honest 165 to 175 and 145 155. Are natural 2 groupings of length.

Myself... thinking longer for me is better im a big guy and I enjoy off trail to much. But if I was just a tail guy be looking at the shorter sled

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Darrell262 · Oct 4, 2020

Have a 2016 Xm 174. I am over 300 pounds.
Its a great starter sled as you can go slow everywhere and it will keep going. You can follow the 165 and 155 tracks in trees, but when they do a **** hook turn it can be a deal to turn almost 12 feet of sled as tight, in pow its not too bad but if there is a crust becomes a lot more challenging

My sled I found just doesn't have the track speed and half the problem besides my weight is it just doesn't get on top of the snow that quick to gain speed to hit a hill. Tractor yes. I do belive it is the 3 inch track that is the problem and I often thought about cutting the track down to 2.7 inch or something, as it isn't always 4 feet of snow. And track speed is your friend.

I find it is hard to wheelie over stuff when u need to, if you loosen the limiter strap then its a pain elsewhere.

Also with the track being so long on the trail and just in general I feel that the rear end is always pushing me forward towards the bars as the rear end is higher then the front and doo had the running boards going down towards the front.

I snow checked a 850 turbo 165 this year. Just think for my riding the 165 will be more fun and easier to move around.

I still think cutting the track down on my old 174 would do wonders for less trenching on take off and generally more track speed.

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

174” opinion pros and cons

Well-known member

Well-known member

Westbound and down

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Undefeated mountain clutching champ of the world.

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads