155/3" vs 163/2.6"

frntflp · Jan 15, 2018

Looking at a new Axys and wondering about the track options above. My perceptions are below - Opinions needed -

155/3" - Easier to carve turns than a 163.... Added weight of a chaincase (10#?) but that allows gearing changes (value?) .....

163/2.6" - More floatation that a 155 due sq. in. on the snow. Longer track really likes to lay down flat when less than bumper deep (perhaps issue my own technique ?)

Other points to ponder ?

Thanks in advance !!

HCRRider · Jan 15, 2018

Never had the 3" Polaris but had it on my Summit. The 2.6 track seems to work great. Unless your running deep power all the time, I certainly wouldn't get a 3" track. I would think the 2.6 163 would be a better all round track IMO.

SRXSRULE · Jan 15, 2018

Ive had just about every combination of a 155/162 2.4,2.6,3.0
My personal favorite is the OEM polaris 162x3.0

We can get into lots of debates about each of these tracks but a couple key points are rider weight with all gear on.... If your under 200lbs get the 155, if your over that get the 163.
Riding style... All back country, all the time...get the 3". Ride some groomed (or hard pack un-groomed) trails to get from play area to play area get the 2.6"

The chaincase doesnt add 10lbs, I would bet its more like 5lbs diff. You also get a steel driveshaft with the chaincase sleds, which I personally like over the aluminum shaft.

User Name · Jan 15, 2018

SRXSRULE said:
The chaincase doesnt add 10lbs, I would bet its more like 5lbs diff. You also get a steel driveshaft with the chaincase sleds, which I personally like over the aluminum shaft.

Are you referring to dry/stationary weight? I was always under the impression that the weight savings from quickdrive come when the sled is moving (rotational inertia etc)

frntflp · Jan 15, 2018

User Name said:
Are you referring to dry/stationary weight? I was always under the impression that the weight savings from quickdrive come when the sled is moving (rotational inertia etc)

Yes, my orig reference was to stationary weight. But yes, rotating weight is what really counts (until stuck).

SRXSRULE · Jan 15, 2018

User Name said:
Are you referring to dry/stationary weight? I was always under the impression that the weight savings from quickdrive come when the sled is moving (rotational inertia etc)

I'm talking about actual weight difference between the 2 systems. The quick drive is lighter due to the fact it doesnt have a steel drive chain, or an outter chain case cover, and also uses a steel driveshaft.

Now, does one "feel" lighter riding it? Well I guess thats what polaris likes to talk about.

One more thing to mention... the 3" does also come with lower gearing then the 2.6

FatDogX · Jan 15, 2018

SRXSRULE said:
Ive had just about every combination of a 155/162 2.4,2.6,3.0
My personal favorite is the OEM polaris 162x3.0

We can get into lots of debates about each of these tracks but a couple key points are rider weight with all gear on.... If your under 200lbs get the 155, if your over that get the 163.
Riding style... All back country, all the time...get the 3". Ride some groomed (or hard pack un-groomed) trails to get from play area to play area get the 2.6"

The chaincase doesnt add 10lbs, I would bet its more like 5lbs diff. You also get a steel driveshaft with the chaincase sleds, which I personally like over the aluminum shaft.

Pretty much nailed it here.

I'm over 200 and had a 155 in the past and now run the 163 and wouldn't go back!! I love the extra flotation and I like the way the 163 sticks to a side hill.

Search

155/3" vs 163/2.6"

frntflp

Well-known member

HCRRider

Free Member

SRXSRULE

Well-known member

User Name

Free Member

frntflp

Well-known member

SRXSRULE

Well-known member

FatDogX

Well-known member

Similar threads