It looks like a damn frog! Through some ape hangers on it and you have a long track Yamaha inviter from the 80s.
Last edited:
Ski Doo just saved me $$$$$ they aren't going to make a 850cc 174"
- Thread starter 1500psi
- Start date
T
It might, will be cool if it does!!
We have our 174s working really well though..not sure!! Hard to beat that much traction. It covers up flaws when the bs goes away.
S
times have changed.no worries.gramma is making a video on how to change drivers and put a 174 on the 850 in your garage while ****faced on whiskey.LOL.$99.95
Have to use the old Tundra plastics somewhere!!
F
I'm thinking the 800etec 174 don't have the track speed it needs to be the bigger hp lighter 850cc..
First things I felt jumping on one in 2015 was the lack of track speed.. 47mph track speed is not what 55mph is on a shorter track..
First things I felt jumping on one in 2015 was the lack of track speed.. 47mph track speed is not what 55mph is on a shorter track..
You have to remember norona rides free sleds and is a tiny guy giving the thumbs for everything, no matter if it works or not.
I will wait for the paying riders comments to see what it really does.
Track design will play a huge part.
IMHO anyway. The farther the distance between the paddles should equate to better traction on powder snow, as there will be more pressure per paddle, and every "bite" will grab more snow. If you look at the powerclaw 3", there is significant spacing between the paddles, which in my mind is what makes the track work as well as it does. A lot of guys are removing the "fingers" on the 2.6 (copying the 3") and finding that the track does indeed work better in powder snow. With an 850 spinning the shorter track, track speed should definitely see an increase.
This is all pure speculation, we will know nothing about the new sled until it's on the snow in production form - a lot can happen between a few hand built prototypes and the end of the production line - I learned that in 2003/4 from the pre production rev (which I loved) vs. the 04 X package (which I sold halfway through the season)...
IMHO anyway. The farther the distance between the paddles should equate to better traction on powder snow, as there will be more pressure per paddle, and every "bite" will grab more snow. If you look at the powerclaw 3", there is significant spacing between the paddles, which in my mind is what makes the track work as well as it does. A lot of guys are removing the "fingers" on the 2.6 (copying the 3") and finding that the track does indeed work better in powder snow. With an 850 spinning the shorter track, track speed should definitely see an increase.
This is all pure speculation, we will know nothing about the new sled until it's on the snow in production form - a lot can happen between a few hand built prototypes and the end of the production line - I learned that in 2003/4 from the pre production rev (which I loved) vs. the 04 X package (which I sold halfway through the season)...
#1 - A longer track will always out-climb a shorter track of the same design when you point and shoot. Yes, there are a million scenarios where this isn't true. And if a guy on a 163 outclimbs a 174, the guy on the 174 sucks...all true. :face-icon-small-win
#2 - I'm pretty sure that anyone who wants to run a 174" will be able to accommodate that track length with modifications come next fall, if not summer.
#3 - Historically, modifying a sled from 163" to 174" is comparable, cost-wise, to upgrading to the longer track from the manufacturer.
#4 - To not buy a sled like this only based on track length...doesn't make sense...that's an easy fix.
#2 - I'm pretty sure that anyone who wants to run a 174" will be able to accommodate that track length with modifications come next fall, if not summer.
#3 - Historically, modifying a sled from 163" to 174" is comparable, cost-wise, to upgrading to the longer track from the manufacturer.
#4 - To not buy a sled like this only based on track length...doesn't make sense...that's an easy fix.
This could be true and I already thought about that and of course if a 850 174 was sitting there he would have out climbed the other 2. It's not even a debate that a xm 174 out climbs the same sled in a 163. They say they didn't sell enough 174s to justify it in the new 850 but who knows. Also a 174 isn't going to work with a 3.5 pitch so it'll be like a 175-176 if it actually does happen.
Last edited:
F
I think it's just the ten Extra hp with and 25 lbs lighter that is giving it the lead.. I know with the guys we ride it might be a different story thou.. Ralph is getting 12 extra hp out of the stock etec bore and it shows up huge when they compare against a stocker.. Extra track speed is big..
Sorry the new 2017 "165" does out climb the 2015/16 XM 174....I was disappointed to but after spending time on the 165 850 it does out do the 174. The 174 does not get the calibration, I know it is hard to imagine behind the keyboard but the work and testing that has gone into the new Gen4 is unbelievable. There was no time to calibrate the 174, that is all, nothing about sales, or anything else, so we will have to wait. a 174 850 Rev gene will out climb a 165, and guys will slap a track on the 850 i am sure which will be amazing but this 154 and 165 truly rip, due to all the things mentioned by people here. Lots of riding left on the amazing XM's so hopefully you get out riding! cheers dave
I too was totally bummed no 174 but Im gonna have to get over it...this new sled looks to be a game changer and I'm not gonna sit back and watch...I will be riding a 165 next season:face-icon-small-coo
I'm confused because you just sarcastically said the same exact thing I just said.
Umm.........I don't sense any sarcasm in his statement?? He just states that they didn't have the time to dial in a 174 in the new chassis so it will have to wait. What am I missing or are you just looking to argue??
LOL.......I think it is funny all the people cranked up about this or that.....the current XM is a blast I am sure the new one is great but I won't buy in until I ride one and see for myself if it is worth all the hype. I love all the technology they are incorporating but it will be nice to see how it all works in the real world next season.
People give Norona crap because he is a sponsored rider but having met him in person more than once he is a pretty cool, laid back and happy dude. He genuinely loves the sport of sledding (no matter what sled you ride ) and while he is paid by ski doo and has to stick up for his brand I don't think he does so at the expense of trying to feed people bull****. Just my 2 cents.....and what do I know except it's still winter here out west and we should all be out riding the heck out of our sleds and worrying about next year........well......next year!!!
Cheers!
Let BRP know we want a 174
I went to skidoo.com and selected contact and feedback and sent them a note complaining about no 850 - 174.
I got this back within a few minutes.
Let them know we want a 174 - 850!
http://www.ski-doo.com/form/contact-us.html
Thank you for taking the time to contact BRP.
In response to your request, I do apologize for the inconvenience. The new models are based on marketing, sales, and customer feedback. At this point nothing is set in stone, and they may make some changes before the final units are released. We won't know until a later date.
Should you have any other questions or comments, do not hesitate to reach us by replying to this email or at T + 888.272.9222.
Once again, thank you for contacting BRP,
Matthew Bourque
Customer Service Representative
I went to skidoo.com and selected contact and feedback and sent them a note complaining about no 850 - 174.
I got this back within a few minutes.
Let them know we want a 174 - 850!
http://www.ski-doo.com/form/contact-us.html
Thank you for taking the time to contact BRP.
In response to your request, I do apologize for the inconvenience. The new models are based on marketing, sales, and customer feedback. At this point nothing is set in stone, and they may make some changes before the final units are released. We won't know until a later date.
Should you have any other questions or comments, do not hesitate to reach us by replying to this email or at T + 888.272.9222.
Once again, thank you for contacting BRP,
Matthew Bourque
Customer Service Representative
F
With Dave on this..
Yes because doo never fined tuned the 174" 850 this last season, the never released it.. Makes sense to me
And like Dave says, there will be guys that put the 174 on the 850cc and it will hold skis down better and it will climb better when tuned over the 165.. No doubt about that
I also sent in a request about the 174 to doo.. I bet if they get a couple thousand request this could be put on the priorty yet this winter..
Yes because doo never fined tuned the 174" 850 this last season, the never released it.. Makes sense to me
And like Dave says, there will be guys that put the 174 on the 850cc and it will hold skis down better and it will climb better when tuned over the 165.. No doubt about that
I also sent in a request about the 174 to doo.. I bet if they get a couple thousand request this could be put on the priorty yet this winter..
B
So.... Obviously they sold more 154's then 174's. They obviously would have done 154/175 if that is what they sold more of. Or maybe the 165 does outperform the 174. Let's hope so. The 165 is only .9" less than the t3 174. If you really aren't going to buy because it doesn't say 175...sorry for your loss. The rest of us will enjoy more power and traction...oh and less weight. Thanks doo!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Oct 14, 2008
- 3,106
- 3,861
- 113
- 60
By your track length thoery of a 165" being .9" shorter than a 174", then a 154 should be 1.8" shorter than a 174.
Why would anybody get a 174 if a 165 is only .9" shorter?
He's talking about over all length.
Similar threads
