Ported track poll

summitdude · Nov 3, 2009

seems like few people think that Doo went overboard with porting tracks on newer moutain sleds! they dont seem to water skip so well(which dont seem to concern most)...but may possibly lose some floatation on the snow as well...and/or other concerns!

it would be nice if Doo would offer track options again!

***no porting
***mildly porting
***full porting

what would be your choice and why??

.

fassteddie · Nov 4, 2009

doo did go off the deep end and so will you if your water skipping.after some real good powder riding to compare, there is a big advantage between ported and non ported side by side. sleds set up vary close and switching riders. farther up the hill and less skid frame build up. i ordered the non ported for the wifes 010 xp 154 track exchange program.i run 2.5 155 2.86 extreme on my 010 xp.worked great on my 09. ski doo should have gone with the 06 size porting. now i have the option to port if i want. the 06 track water skipped across lake callahan with no problems

summitdude · Nov 4, 2009

did this track exchange cost you anything??

i may look at this before i pickup my sled! if i can change the track for a comparable one without porting i'd probably do it... depending on the cost!

thanks for any info!!

fassteddie · Nov 5, 2009

it's suposed to be $200.some dealers charge and some don't. but with that said it also depends on what you paid for your sled call your dealer see what they will charge if anything.

Dock · Nov 5, 2009

I run my stock 09 XP beside my Buddies stock 06 and he goes way further, crazy thing is we both get the same track speed. ported...? never again just put my 2.5 Extreme 146 on

akpowrider · Nov 5, 2009

My ported xp track gets a ton of "ice dingleberries" due to all of the freying in the ports. If rotary mass is 7 times heavier, it makes it much worse. This only happens in the pow pow.

BankBuster · Nov 5, 2009

Don't know if this is related; but I use a small propane torch (like one you'ld use to solder copper pipes) to burn off any little pieces of rubber or string that is around the holes in the track (or the edges of track). This reduce the amount of ice balls going around with the track and cleans up the track so it looks better even when it's dry/out of the snow,,,

PJ-Hunter · Nov 5, 2009

Full porting. Fraying? That can be solved with a handheld propane torch and 10 minutes.

Buying a 11k sled and worrying about water skipping? Go find a cheap stand up jet ski.

summitdude · Nov 5, 2009

thanks for the info fassteddie!

if a solid track does better then a ported in the deep..then this is something Doo should look into. one of my big concerns is tearing the track catching something under the pow......these tracks are not so cheap to replace!

akpowrider · Nov 5, 2009

PJtheMunchkin said:
Full porting. Fraying? That can be solved with a handheld propane torch and 10 minutes.

Buying a 11k sled and worrying about water skipping? Go find a cheap stand up jet ski.

10 min? Not even close. Doo just bought me a new track for this season. Many areas we access have mandatory water crossings. I love my sled.

theultrarider · Nov 5, 2009

akpowrider said:
10 min? Not even close. Doo just bought me a new track for this season. Many areas we access have mandatory water crossings. I love my sled.

I did love the way that my ported track worked in the powder. Definetly alot less snow in the skid and you COULD feel the difference. But, with that said that is the last ported track for me. Not becasuse of durabilty as mine has held up just fine but because of water skipping. They do sink like a rock. We too cross just enough water that I will not be porting the camo extreme that is about to go under my sled. It is tempting to try just two down the center and see if there is a happy medium. I do like the benifits of the porting in the snow. but I don't want to go swimming either.

cabinman · Feb 13, 2011

you forgot to add who had the "track port mod", which i do and love it...no more 3' trenches

fredw · Feb 13, 2011

in our testing we seen no difference from ported to non ported, other than the weight savings, and the higher risk of damgeing the ported track and not receiving warrenty

i personally would take the ported over non ported, rotating mass losses hp and the ported helps keep the suspenion clean, and works in better track flexing around the drivers and wheels

i just put a 3 inch on and will be porting soon

Reeb · Feb 13, 2011

Here's a quick example.

Swapped tracks on my 1M mod. Both CE tracks, one a 150, the other a 156.
150 - single handed push the back of the seat on the sled and it starts rolling instantly on the concrete floor. The 150 is ported.

156 - two hands push sled and it skids for 10ft before rolling and barely rolls at that. The 156 is not ported.

That's all the proof I need right there. Little weight loss is a bonus, and I continue to swear that in 90% of my riding conditions, the ported track evacuates much more snow from the skidframe than a non-ported track.

MURDOCK · Feb 13, 2011

Ported does suck in water, one attribute I am willing to live with. Rotating mass is still way less even with ice balls, not that i even noticed there was. No hydro-locking between the drivers and tunnel, more snow evacuation in my riding conditions, less melted sliders and less rolling resistance for sure. All that said I would buy a non ported track and do mild ports. Non believers can spend money on plastic pieces and use steel rivets to fasten them, now lets talk about rotating mass.

fredw · Feb 13, 2011

for rotating mass i was always told, that 1 lb of rotating is equal to 7pounds of actual weight, so a track that is 8 lbs more, is like adding a rider who is 56 pounds more

back in the paddle day, i would shave every rib off a 136 inch track, then add my 2 inch paddles, it gave me a six pound savings or 5mph more track speed

so on a 163 track, i bet a fair weight savings of 5 lbs in rubber could be possible

9 Iron · Feb 13, 2011

fredw said:
for rotating mass i was always told, that 1 lb of rotating is equal to 7pounds of actual weight, so a track that is 8 lbs more, is like adding a rider who is 56 pounds more

back in the paddle day, i would shave every rib off a 136 inch track, then add my 2 inch paddles, it gave me a six pound savings or 5mph more track speed

so on a 163 track, i bet a fair weight savings of 5 lbs in rubber could be possible

we de-clipped and chopped the inner numbs off a 3" and was worth 8lbs. never ported it but it would help with the weight of the track as it take alot to roatate this thing.

As for water skipping... if sleds where meant to water skip, wouldnt we be doing that vs riding?? Water and snow are far from each other and share no fluid consistanties what so ever. Sitting here and saying how porting does not work cause you cannot water skip means nothing, we ride snow.

fredw · Feb 13, 2011

just took a look at my 3 inch and not sure what your saying(inner numbs), what is the intented job of the clips??

that is a big weight savings, back to stock track weight once again....

9 Iron said:
we de-clipped and chopped the inner numbs off a 3" and was worth 8lbs. never ported it but it would help with the weight of the track as it take alot to roatate this thing.

As for water skipping... if sleds where meant to water skip, wouldnt we be doing that vs riding?? Water and snow are far from each other and share no fluid consistanties what so ever. Sitting here and saying how porting does not work cause you cannot water skip means nothing, we ride snow.

xpbadonkadonk · Feb 14, 2011

anyone know how much a stock 154 Summit track weighs? the old ported vs. the new non-ported?

my 2011 Summit X Etec w/ non-ported track certainly retained a lot more snow in the skid than my buddy on his 09 Summit X with the ported factory track. conditions were bar deep 60-100cms fresh BC south coast pow. the porting seems to act like a cheese grater, grinding up and spitting out all the snow in the skid whereas my non-ported track seemed to just accumulated snow... we estimated we had 50-100lbs of snow stuck to our sleds...

Yella Belly · Feb 14, 2011

porting

I feel the 06 porting was best as it allowed more snow and ice to get outside the skid, and up to the heat exchanger. The size of the hole I don't think anyone could actually notice floatation problems in any snow conditions. The 09 porting was way over the top, and I don't know how many hours I spent burning off the cords after every 4 rides. Was starting to think nothing was going to be left.

I vote for the 06 porting to return..

I am Yella' Belly and I approve this post.....In my opinion. and what the smoke do I know anyway??

Ported track poll

what would be your choice of track

no ports

mildly ported

full porting

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Paid Premium Member

Well-known member

Member

Modding mini's

Well-known member

Similar threads