Lets start a poll on the new 2.6 track and the 3" track. Which is the best all around mountain track.
Time for a poll
- Thread starter Stroker Customs
- Start date
If only in the deep mountain snow I would probably do the 3".
I am in western Colorado and feel that a 3" track may have an advantage over a 2.6 track maybe 4 times a year. I feel that 90% of the time a 2.6 track will do just as good if not better than a 3" but was just curious as to what everyone else's opinion was on this. I mean its a little over 3/8 of an inch so does it really make that much difference
Last edited:
2.6" for the riding we get over here… Can count on two fingers how many times I wished I had a longer lugged track the last 10 years lol...
2.6 for me
Everyone read carfeully, if you do a 3" you are getting a chaincase, I was debating between the two but that made up my mind, 2.6 for me
YES! I saw that too. Looks like you cannot have the belt drive with the 3", but we need someone to confirm. I'm guessing that's because it rolled the chain case for the clearance. But I'd like to know if a 3" will fit the belt drive system in case I go to that someday.
2.6 for me. They made the decision much easier by making the 3" option use the old school chain case. In one of the sections it talks about the the 3" track using 12% lower gearing, maybe that is why but they could just as easy change the gearing with the belt drive. Eric
Noticed the same thing and wandered why they did this. Is it a strength issue or is the driveshaft actually in a different location on all chaincase sleds? I am really leaning toward the production cost of re gearing and belt length is the biggest reason as it's cheaper and easier to change hearing on chaincase sleds. Would be really nice to have gearing options for the QD. Maybe MH can enlighten us
Last edited:
Polaris' only response on FB was that it was a gear ratio issue.
Scott posted this in the 2016 line-up thread.
If you are looking for all around, the 2.6 would be the way to go according to this.
I thought the 2.6/3 inch track was going to be a harder decision for me. But with lack of belt drive on the 3 inch I think it made it easier.
If you are looking for all around, the 2.6 would be the way to go according to this.
I thought the 2.6/3 inch track was going to be a harder decision for me. But with lack of belt drive on the 3 inch I think it made it easier.
S
Said its cause its 12% lower ratio for the 3". So i guess they couldnt make the stock belt work or it couldnt handle the 3" yet pros seem fine.
Whatev. Same price for a tki chain conversion or a tki belt drive kit.
Funny.
The chaincase made me want the 3" even more.
The chaincase made me want the 3" even more.
2
What drivers are used with the 3inch and chain case
They give you a chaincase and still make you pay $600 more for the 3 inch track. $1,300 dollar jump in price for the 155 pro, makes it tough to even want to buy a current year sled anymore. Where are all the guys wanting the 3 inch? 2.6 gets my vote.
My thoughts.
$200 more to get the 3" and chaincase.
Spare qd belt and tools cost more than that and a geardown is substantially more.
Carrying spare belt and tools makes the wieght penalty about 10# instead of 13#.
I fall into the break an anvil in a sandbox catagory so the chaincase is a much preferred option for me.
Also if i did happen to want a beltdrive a c3 or tki would be bought regardless of if i had a stock qd or not.
So same cost either way.
The 3" is the same lug design as the 2.6" so if the 3" pushes too much i can just start cutting it down until it's optimized.
Hard to grow the 2.6" lugs for $200.
$200 more to get the 3" and chaincase.
Spare qd belt and tools cost more than that and a geardown is substantially more.
Carrying spare belt and tools makes the wieght penalty about 10# instead of 13#.
I fall into the break an anvil in a sandbox catagory so the chaincase is a much preferred option for me.
Also if i did happen to want a beltdrive a c3 or tki would be bought regardless of if i had a stock qd or not.
So same cost either way.
The 3" is the same lug design as the 2.6" so if the 3" pushes too much i can just start cutting it down until it's optimized.
Hard to grow the 2.6" lugs for $200.
Man, I am torn on this one. My initial thought was a 3" and now I am reconsidering heavily. I currently own a 14 Pro 155 and was on 12 Assault 155 with the 2.4". I was shocked at the difference in throttle response between the two and felt the Quik Drive played a good role in that. I have had zero problems with the sled or Quik Drive for that matter in the 1200 miles I have put on the sled (all mountain miles).
My next sled is gonna be a Axys 163" and I think the 2.6" is gonna be my choice. I will benefit from the extra length in track and lug that I never had before in the past along with several improvements on the entire sled. And at the end of the day, 13 pounds is 13 pounds. I supposed I could buy a sled with a chaincase shed 13 pounds off my own keister, but there is no way in hell that's gonna happen. I'm super excited about next winter. Should have a new Axys ordered by the end of the day.
My next sled is gonna be a Axys 163" and I think the 2.6" is gonna be my choice. I will benefit from the extra length in track and lug that I never had before in the past along with several improvements on the entire sled. And at the end of the day, 13 pounds is 13 pounds. I supposed I could buy a sled with a chaincase shed 13 pounds off my own keister, but there is no way in hell that's gonna happen. I'm super excited about next winter. Should have a new Axys ordered by the end of the day.
