G
just looking to see what people thoughts are on 2.6 vs 3.
snowcking in couple of hrs ...going back and forth
snowcking in couple of hrs ...going back and forth
2.6 vs 3 inch track- feed back
- Thread starter gonriggen
- Start date
2.6.
If you descide you want more and upgrade to a 3" there are better options then the OEM unit and building off a beltdrive sled is lighter and works better overall.
If you descide you want more and upgrade to a 3" there are better options then the OEM unit and building off a beltdrive sled is lighter and works better overall.
G
thanks,
I also found the link with a bunch of info...
sticking to 2.6.
some people were right on in there assessments,
I also found the link with a bunch of info...
sticking to 2.6.
some people were right on in there assessments,
I still prefer the 3.0 over the 2.6, in the 163 length.
Ive had them with the chaincase and with the belt drive, I like the lower gearing of the chaincase and feel its a good combination with the 3" track for my style of riding.
Ive had them with the chaincase and with the belt drive, I like the lower gearing of the chaincase and feel its a good combination with the 3" track for my style of riding.
The AXYS chassis doesn’t have enough tunnel/bulkhead clearance to effectively utilize a 3.2” track. The clearance issue is very parasitic. Most users I have talked to are having clutching and belt issues. The track balloons under power.
The AXYS has barely enough clearance to utilize a 3”. The track must be ran on the tight side or it scrubs the tunnel and bulkhead under load.
We have been cutting down the X3” for a few years now. Trimming them to 2.7-2.8”. This has been one of the best mods you can do. You’ll witness tunnel/bulkhead clearance, better snow evacuation, and definitely climbs better. A turbo AXYS sled benefits more than a NA sled from the trimmed track.
Tracks USA just saved us over $300 a track with the X2.7 over the X3 offering. Ordered 2 more this week.
The AXYS has barely enough clearance to utilize a 3”. The track must be ran on the tight side or it scrubs the tunnel and bulkhead under load.
We have been cutting down the X3” for a few years now. Trimming them to 2.7-2.8”. This has been one of the best mods you can do. You’ll witness tunnel/bulkhead clearance, better snow evacuation, and definitely climbs better. A turbo AXYS sled benefits more than a NA sled from the trimmed track.
Tracks USA just saved us over $300 a track with the X2.7 over the X3 offering. Ordered 2 more this week.
Yes they are.
TracksUSA sold out of them in less than a week and just got a few more in stock.
Camso trimmed them.
M
How does the 2.7 compare to the 2.6 Polaris track in Wyoming snow?
Never seen or run a camso 2.7, but it’s hard to beat the Polaris 2.6 track
Hasn’t been an issue for 4 years, last year we had massive deep powder all season. Check my avatar.
M
So I ordered a Khaos and stretching to 163
What would be the best option for cost and performance Wy snow no spring riding.
2.5 challenger X, no driver change. $650
2.7 changer X will need driver change. $600 +$260 $860
2.6 Po track $1150 ish
2.8 epic. $950ish drivers $260. $1210.
Thoughts?
What would be the best option for cost and performance Wy snow no spring riding.
2.5 challenger X, no driver change. $650
2.7 changer X will need driver change. $600 +$260 $860
2.6 Po track $1150 ish
2.8 epic. $950ish drivers $260. $1210.
Thoughts?
I'm stretching my 155 Pro as well. Don't forget the cost of the rails. I figured it was going to be around 1700 for Ice Age rails powder coated to match the sled and a new 163 2.6. Hopefully I can sell the 155 rails and track to recover a bit of the cost.
2.7 or the 3" power claw-
- Oct 14, 2008
- 3,105
- 3,859
- 113
- 60
9104m saw tooth. The 5.9 Cummins of the track world.
Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
Anyone know why the 2.7 challenger is $300 cheaper than the 3” on the tracks USA website? Isn’t the 2.7” just a cut down 3”?
