After nearly a full season of riding. Is a 153-154"" or a 162"-163" preferable?

Frostbite · Feb 15, 2009

After nearly a full season of riding. Is a 153-154"" or a 162"-163" preferable?

I'm so close to pulling the trigger on a new sled. I think I have an 800cc sled picked out but I'm really hung up on track length.

I am 5'10" and weight 170 lbs without gear and ride in northern Idaho and eastern Washington. There will be the ocassional trip to Canada or Cooke City too. I want a boondocker more than a climber this time around. I know there will be days in the early season when the 162-163"" will shine and days in the spring where the 153-154" will be more than enough track.

What are you guys finding from your experiences this season?

I love to hear your Recommendation.

Dam Dave · Feb 15, 2009

Never bring a knife to a gun fight

Woody67 · Feb 15, 2009

Frosty that is a tough one. I wish my sled was a 153" this year but I would not have wanted it that way last year. Following your posts; my opinion is you would be happier with the 153" especailly since they go so good now. The 153" is better in all but the deepest of snow but that is what I ride for. And I can recall season after season threating to choose the shorter one but I never do. But I think I will for 2010 lol.

Steve W.

Wyoming T/A · Feb 15, 2009

i prefer the 154 and donny[VE] prefers the 163

polarblu · Feb 15, 2009

136-144 let those guys break the trail then have a ball in the big powder rolling hits and dips!!!

Coldfinger · Feb 15, 2009

I think it all depends upon what your goal is. If you're always getting stuck following people on longer tracks, you best go that route.

If your goal is to never get stuck, buy the longest track you can get.

If your goal is to ride into and out of places that only a longer track will do, go for the long one.

For my use, I prefer the 151-155 range. Various reasons - I only ride 8-10 days a year. This range still leaves plenty of challenging terrain. I may be lucky enough to ride in truly deep powder once every season.

Frostbite · Feb 15, 2009

I don't intentionally follow anyone. I like to break the trail but oftentimes no one follows because I'm boondocking.

If I'm not busting fresh powder under my sled I'm disapointed.

An awful lot of the riding is picking through trees with some sidehilling and any necessary climbing.

I love the feel of a sled with a nice light front end that can easily be roosted into the air when a log, stump or creek blocks the path.

Straight up point and shoot riding really doesn't do much for me.

Does this help?

KMMAC · Feb 15, 2009

156 3" is it out yet???

powderpro · Feb 15, 2009

Frost- When I was on a 136 in 1999, I thought it was awesome. When I was on a 151 in 2003, I thought it was way more awesome (but still got stuck). In 2006 I was on a 162 Cat and loved it and would never get anything shorter. I can go through trees, boondock, and explore a lot better with the 162. With a 162 you go in with confidence even when the snow is deep and fluffy. I do very little hillclimbing, I prefer exploring and boondocking, and for me, the 162 on the M Cat is the ticket. I love my M7, and even though the 09's are awesome, I don't feel like my M7 162 is outdated in the least. If it were me, I'd go for a new M8 with a 162. You may not need the long track all the time, but when it's deep (I hate crusty snow) there is nothing like the big track. Just my opinion, good luck.

mtn_extreme · Feb 15, 2009

Agree with powderpro, the 162 will boondock just as good as a 153 and will give you the confidence not to hesitate. Plus you will have it "when" you need it.

I run a 174" turbo and boondock with all my riding buddys without any problems.

MTm7 · Feb 15, 2009

162 all the way!!

i just recently had my m7 stretched to a 162... i will never go back to anything shorter!!! i love it... its a different sled and for the BETTER!

Dootimes2 · Feb 15, 2009

I rode a 162 for years until the 174 came out and there is no noticible diff in handling but, the 174 is more forgiving in deep powder and tight trees. Also ride with 154 and 163 xp's. The longer track sleds can boondock better in my opinion because they do not need to keep up so much ground speed to stay on top of snow. As any boondocker knows you cannot always keep it pinned while picking your way through tight trees. When it gets tight, steep and deep the longer you go the better. JMO.

chumbilly1 · Feb 15, 2009

I agree that the 163" is preferable for a boondocker. Another thing to consider is the improved braking and control on steep fast downhills which are a part of boondocking/exploring as well.

polarblu · Feb 15, 2009

powderpro said:
Frost- When I was on a 136 in 1999, I thought it was awesome. When I was on a 151 in 2003, I thought it was way more awesome (but still got stuck). In 2006 I was on a 162 Cat and loved it and would never get anything shorter. I can go through trees, boondock, and explore a lot better with the 162. With a 162 you go in with confidence even when the snow is deep and fluffy. I do very little hillclimbing, I prefer exploring and boondocking, and for me, the 162 on the M Cat is the ticket. I love my M7, and even though the 09's are awesome, I don't feel like my M7 162 is outdated in the least. If it were me, I'd go for a new M8 with a 162. You may not need the long track all the time, but when it's deep (I hate crusty snow) there is nothing like the big track. Just my opinion, good luck.

I agree the 136-151 jump was wicked but i hated that track dragging like a boat anchor when you launched it. Boon docking with a shorter track is challenging but not impossible the throttle is your friend!! If you need fresh tracks getting to the good stuff then is a no brainer. However if you wanna figure out a tail whip once up there you wont be riding the right sled!!

sledlvr · Feb 15, 2009

I hear guys talking all the time, how you can't turn sharp enough with a 162" or 163" track, I used to think that way, not anymore, the longer track plants the power, sometimes you need instant speed or need to pull the front end up quick, the longer track delivers, I jump and carve just as good , if not better than I did with the shorter tracks, it just took some seat time to get used to it, and its nice to " bridge " the moguls coming down off the hill after a long play in the powder !!!!

Frostbite · Feb 15, 2009

Wow! This is the best input I have seen on the subject.

The braking point is something that never even entered my mind.

So, a 162" would be better for climbing (if in deep powder) and better for boondocking (when the snow is deep). That makes sense.

The 153" is probably better for rat racing, jumping, trail work and spring snow.

If I can get nearly as good of a buy on the longer tracked sled similar to the deal they are giving on the shorter version, I'll go for the longer track.

The great buy is on the shorter 153" and 154" track sleds right now. They are a full $500 less than the longer sleds at this particular dealer because they have a bunch of a shorter track sleds to sell and only one longer one left. If I can get them to $200 difference the longer sled will be mine!

Maybe that explains it right there? Only one 162" - 163" left and a bunch of 153" - 154" sleds. Not that there's a darn thing wrong with the shorter sleds!

Thanks guys

zgrizz · Feb 15, 2009

Frostbite, Ive been asking this question for some tme now as well. Finally i would have to say we got some good replies. after jumping back and forth between the 154 and the 163, and deciding n the 154 this morning, I htink Im back to the 163! Final Answer!!!:beer;:beer;

Vertical Edge · Feb 15, 2009

zgrizz said:
Frostbite, Ive been asking this question for some tme now as well. Finally i would have to say we got some good replies. after jumping back and forth between the 154 and the 163, and deciding n the 154 this morning, I htink Im back to the 163! Final Answer!!!:beer;:beer;

Grizz,the 09 163s are a blast,I can put it anywhere I can my 154 but with more traction and floatation...........

zgrizz · Feb 15, 2009

NICE!!!! Heard one guy said the 163 pushes you around more? But still goin with the 163

CB.8 · Feb 15, 2009

I think over the years I have had almost every length 133, 136, 141, 151, 156, and 159 and now a 153. I am a big guy 6' 250lbs with riding gear. I feel like there is no compramises with 07m8 153 camo I have now. Climbing and boondocking it is great. Granted it does hook up on the hard pack like my 159 finger did but I don't like riding hard pack anyway.

I rode with a 09M8 162PC yesterday in 12+ inches of fresh. I saw almost no difference between the two. In fact on a uphill drag in fresh at Freezeout yesterday I took him out of the hole by 3 lengths. He caught me at the top by poaching a line and I weigh almost 100lbs more them him. My 153 was easier to manure in the trees.

Just my opinion.
Rob
I

After nearly a full season of riding. Is a 153-154"" or a 162"-163" preferable?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

ACCOUNT CLOSED

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Skidoo hill crew

Similar threads