R
I put 162,but with the power turbo sleds make i dont thank you can have to much track,ill be going with the 174 when i up grade next year.
Best Track length for Turbo's
- Thread starter GRINreeper
- Start date
Today I did the switch on my T Apex.I took off the stock track and put on a Challenger Extreme 174" 2.5.
I had never done one on a Apex and was a litle worried about dealing with the reverse case but it was a real easy job.
Wife called me home for supper so tomorrow I will finish installing the skid.
I bought a Holz skid with Yamaha rails with extensions off of a Snowest member.The guy that ran it before did so without limiter straps,I've never seen a setup like it.It uses 3 Fox air shocks.I can't wait to get out and pull the trigger.
I had never done one on a Apex and was a litle worried about dealing with the reverse case but it was a real easy job.
Wife called me home for supper so tomorrow I will finish installing the skid.
I bought a Holz skid with Yamaha rails with extensions off of a Snowest member.The guy that ran it before did so without limiter straps,I've never seen a setup like it.It uses 3 Fox air shocks.I can't wait to get out and pull the trigger.
R
cool looks good,will work even better. The stock mav track is like running slicks,your going to pull alot harder now.
M
I switched my T apex from 162 to a 174 and i will never look back, all around performance is the same but floatation and climbing is unreal.
I've had the opposite experience on my boosted apex's (2 mcx, 1 bd). First one (mcx) ran mav track then 15w camo extreme 162's both. Next turbo I put on 174 and it changed the handling completely. I didn't care for it at all. My current turbo has a 16w camo extreme and it's the solution for me. Has the float of the 174 (almost) but still boondocks. My 300+ hp spins it easily.
G
Has anyone heard rumors of a 200" Track ? I have heard of this twice now.
If it is true, Im sure it would be 200x16x3
If it is true, Im sure it would be 200x16x3
G
anyone ?
I've got that same skid on my TApex with 162 Cat straight rails. It works REALLY well for controlling wheelies. I run between 230 and 250psi in that rear shock. I do have limiter straps in mine though?
H
i vote 146"!
P
174 or 162
I ran a camo extreme 162 then changed to 174. The 162 is definetly better for boondocking when it comes to throttle control (i.e. in & out tight ****).
However, the 174 is absolutely better for all out climbing and a must for southern colorado crystal powder. I have found that the 174 definetly is way better in avoiding getting stuck (i.e. "floatation rules").
In addition, you will use less throttle to get around in the deep stuff compared to the other guys using shorter tracks and maxxing their RPMS. Basically the 174 acts like a mini snow cat. A little rough on the hard pack trial going up to the hills though:face-icon-small-win
The 174 gets my overall vote---but I wouldn't mind having both for different purposes.
I ran a camo extreme 162 then changed to 174. The 162 is definetly better for boondocking when it comes to throttle control (i.e. in & out tight ****).
However, the 174 is absolutely better for all out climbing and a must for southern colorado crystal powder. I have found that the 174 definetly is way better in avoiding getting stuck (i.e. "floatation rules").
In addition, you will use less throttle to get around in the deep stuff compared to the other guys using shorter tracks and maxxing their RPMS. Basically the 174 acts like a mini snow cat. A little rough on the hard pack trial going up to the hills though:face-icon-small-win
The 174 gets my overall vote---but I wouldn't mind having both for different purposes.
S
I have been running 162X16X2.5 on my last 2 Tnytros and have been very happy but, I hear lots of comments about the improved flotation and low speed tractability of the 174's. My son and I are building 2 new Tnytros and are going to try a 174X16X2.5 on one and a 174X16X3 on the other and find out for ourselves. The sleds are going to be pretty much identical except for the tracks so should be an interesting comparison.
P
All I can say is long tracks are boring like driving a tractor.
I have a RX1 wit a 151 running 16 to 18 pounds of boost Talk about fun.
The Apex has a 156 by 15 with 2.5 inch paddles and it just rips.
If all you ever do is climb crazy shoots fine.
In most cases the guys running 174 tracks are week-end warriors trying to
make up for lack of seat time and stamina with a bigger track that requires
less finesse.
Cheers.............
My Girlfriend is pissed at me now , she has a 162 by 2.25 under here Phazer:cheer2:
I have a RX1 wit a 151 running 16 to 18 pounds of boost Talk about fun.
The Apex has a 156 by 15 with 2.5 inch paddles and it just rips.
If all you ever do is climb crazy shoots fine.
In most cases the guys running 174 tracks are week-end warriors trying to
make up for lack of seat time and stamina with a bigger track that requires
less finesse.
Cheers.............
My Girlfriend is pissed at me now , she has a 162 by 2.25 under here Phazer:cheer2:
S
153 for the trees. 174 for the chutes
M
TNytro Track
I have ran the 162 x 2.5, then switched to a 174 x 2.5, I love the longer track. I believe in setting up your sled for your favorite days, not setting it up for what the average is, then being disappointed on the great days. It may be true, compensating track length for finesse. But when the powder is 4 ft plus, it sure is nice to be able to half throttle around to investigate new areas, rather than WFO trying to keep the track speed up and keep you moving.
I have ran the 162 x 2.5, then switched to a 174 x 2.5, I love the longer track. I believe in setting up your sled for your favorite days, not setting it up for what the average is, then being disappointed on the great days. It may be true, compensating track length for finesse. But when the powder is 4 ft plus, it sure is nice to be able to half throttle around to investigate new areas, rather than WFO trying to keep the track speed up and keep you moving.
S
After riding the TNytro with a 174 X 16 X 2.5 I am surprised at the improvement in flotation and tractability, especially at lower speeds off trail. Rides a lot smoother as well. Can't say I really noticed any loss of manoeverability over the 162 on the same sled, the thing turns on a dime in the deep snow. I am itching to try a 3" version of the 174 on the same setup. Like Mudman I want my sled to shine when the powder is deep, I don't need any enhancement for setup snow.
Last edited:
S
The 3" makes a noticeable difference in deeper snow. I am finding it doesn't spin as much when taking off. It also seems to provide a lot more low speed traction, nice when put-putting through tighter treed areas when exploring. Under full power the difference is less noticeable.....both are beasts 
I installed a 162x16x2.5 a few weeks ago.
Have a couple rides on it now and really don't like the 16
Had a 162x15x2.25 earlier this year and really liked it.
I have a really hard time turning the sled around on side hills, or even side hilling down hill, with the 16.
Anyone else finding this?
Have a couple rides on it now and really don't like the 16
Had a 162x15x2.25 earlier this year and really liked it.
I have a really hard time turning the sled around on side hills, or even side hilling down hill, with the 16.
Anyone else finding this?
H
I run a 162 16 2.3 on my rx1 and real deep days it works great.stock 800s with 174 may spank it but I dont care. If you can get the track to spin right a way instead of moving forward instantly you can turn , side hill etc with less effort. Chris Burant doesn't ride a 174 but different strokes for different folks.
Awesome!!!
Wow, some real interesting info here. I think everyone has good points. I have run everything except a 174. My old fav was a 156. Nowadays it's comparable to the 155. At one time I would have stayed away from anything too long for the handling.
I am a light rider at 135-140lbs. These days I run a 162 x 16 x 2 1/2. It is growing to a 3" lug this season. I do not see a 174 on the sled I am running in the near future as I already have the CR tunnel and CR-M-10. Maybe the next one will try the 174.
I have found that after some seat time on my ride I have no real serious problems with the longer track. The wider track doesn't seem to bother me either. I will admit that the first season I had the sled I had problems. I can't even pinpoint what I had problems with because it seemed the whole package was trying to beat me to death. The fact is I learned to ride a big and heavy sled and now love it!!! Nothing compares to the big 4 stroker on boost.
I orderred a new Pro this year and got the big track... 162". If it had come with the 174 option I would have got it. Bigger is better!!! Go big or go home!!! Why waste time and $$$. Weekend warrior???? Maybe... but I have thousands and thousands of miles on sleds over the years.... maybe even hundreds of thousands... Some trail, lots of boon docking and mountain riding and some in between. I prefer to ride and not be stuck all day. I like to climb and tree ride. I like the tech stuff and I like those days of just blasting sh#$ hooks on lakes and ponds and generally just messing around. Sledding is sledding, it is all good. Short tracks are awesome for the terrain they are designed to run... The manufacturers wouldn't make longer versions if they didn't work.
Just my 2 cents....
Happy trails!!!
Wow, some real interesting info here. I think everyone has good points. I have run everything except a 174. My old fav was a 156. Nowadays it's comparable to the 155. At one time I would have stayed away from anything too long for the handling.
I am a light rider at 135-140lbs. These days I run a 162 x 16 x 2 1/2. It is growing to a 3" lug this season. I do not see a 174 on the sled I am running in the near future as I already have the CR tunnel and CR-M-10. Maybe the next one will try the 174.
I have found that after some seat time on my ride I have no real serious problems with the longer track. The wider track doesn't seem to bother me either. I will admit that the first season I had the sled I had problems. I can't even pinpoint what I had problems with because it seemed the whole package was trying to beat me to death. The fact is I learned to ride a big and heavy sled and now love it!!! Nothing compares to the big 4 stroker on boost.
I orderred a new Pro this year and got the big track... 162". If it had come with the 174 option I would have got it. Bigger is better!!! Go big or go home!!! Why waste time and $$$. Weekend warrior???? Maybe... but I have thousands and thousands of miles on sleds over the years.... maybe even hundreds of thousands... Some trail, lots of boon docking and mountain riding and some in between. I prefer to ride and not be stuck all day. I like to climb and tree ride. I like the tech stuff and I like those days of just blasting sh#$ hooks on lakes and ponds and generally just messing around. Sledding is sledding, it is all good. Short tracks are awesome for the terrain they are designed to run... The manufacturers wouldn't make longer versions if they didn't work.
Just my 2 cents....
Happy trails!!!
