Time for a poll

CO Powder · May 5, 2015

sledheader said:
Less weight, quickdrive, and not as hard on hi fax or as hard to keep cool. Those were my reasons. Plus it would be cheaper to go 3" than it would to go to quickdrive, if I think I need a 3"

I don't see any issues with cooling. The snow was so hard that you could see daylight under the 3" track. It never even ran warm with scratchers down for two days in 50 degree weather.

I think it was accurately posted earlier that is substantially cheaper to convert the chain case to a belt than it is to fit a 3" track. So :noidea:

sledheader · May 5, 2015

CO Powder said:
I don't see any issues with cooling. The snow was so hard that you could see daylight under the 3" track. It never even ran warm with scratchers down for two days in 50 degree weather.

I think it was accurately posted earlier that is substantially cheaper to convert the chain case to a belt than it is to fit a 3" track. So :noidea:

Shouldn't it be pretty much drop and go as the chassis and clearance to the bulkhead as well as driver size is all the same between the 2.6 and the 3? I'm not telling, more asking.

I doubt after being completely content on my 2004 edge for the last few years that I will be in any less than hog heaven on either the 2.6 or the 3. If they offered the 3 with a belt drive, I would have went that route.

CO Powder · May 5, 2015

sledheader said:
Shouldn't it be pretty much drop and go as the chassis and clearance to the bulkhead as well as driver size is all the same between the 2.6 and the 3? I'm not telling, more asking.

I doubt after being completely content on my 2004 edge for the last few years that I will be in any less than hog heaven on either the 2.6 or the 3. If they offered the 3 with a belt drive, I would have went that route.

I think the track itself is very expensive. If your dealer will credit you for the 2.6 it could be less than going from a chain case to belt. The cost info was in another thread, the belt drive 3" thread.

I do not think for one second you will be disappointed with the Axys 2.6. Having spent some time on a 3" track in what should have been the worst possible scenario for the track, I found it did great. Given the choice, the 3" would be my choice... for days like these:becky:

907dan · Aug 27, 2015

I went from a 12 assault to a 13 assault and noticed a masive increase in throttle response so might be more motor than belt.

2XM3 · Sep 8, 2015

I went with the 2.6 track, figured the 2014 track worked really great and this ones a bit bigger, we ride all kinds of snow up here as well. Ive had 3" on a few other sleds and all have problems with running hot on the way to the deep stuff. We will see :face-icon-small-coo

steepndeep800 · Sep 8, 2015

To each there own of course.
I had a 3" on my pro. Loved it for the most part, but last year rode alot of harder wetter snow, switched back and forth from a stock 2.4 to my 3" many times. the 2.4" made the sled alot easier to ride in those conditions but I did miss some of the hook up a few times.
Then I rode a cat 2.6 on one of those same days back to back and that was the best of both worlds it had all the bite if my 3" and ease of throwing the sled around at slower speeds of the 2.4"
That ride made me a believer in the 2.6" Cat track and from people Ive talked to that rode the polaris 2.6 track they say it bites better than the 2.6 track on a cat so.....
I chose a 2.6
Could be right or wrong time will tell but it seems like the logical choice to me but that's me. to each there own.

Timbre · Sep 23, 2015

I think it is interesting that 81% of those participating in the poll think that the 2.6 track is the "best all around" and ONLY a handful of people have even ridden this new sled with that track.

I chose the 3" based on past performance of the 3" i had on the 2014 sled. It was superior in EVERY way to the stock track. This 2.6 is only 1/8" taller, and i am supposing there are other small changes, but i can only imagine that compared to it, the 3" will again be superior in every way.

kmo · Sep 30, 2015

Sheetmetalfab said:
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.

You reasoning is dead on with mine.

assault11 · Nov 3, 2015

The 3" works great! Hooks up good on the hard pack too! And cutting down the 3" to 2.6 won't be the same because it's 3" pitch

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ynotride · Nov 23, 2015

Have they figured out the perfect pitch and paddle size for every riverboat steamer yet? Or is there a difference based on the use of each ship size and river condition? :juggle:

I don't ride hard enough to wreck $#!^. So I went with the 2.6, belt & a color i won't wrap

kmo · Nov 24, 2015

Sheetmetalfab said:
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.

My thoughts exactly....

Jbgough123 · Jan 11, 2016

I'd have to say the 2.6" between the rotating weight loss and dual derameter track you aren't ganing much if any track speed with the 3" even in deep powder compared to the 2.6" and i'll never go back to the chaincase setup after 2 seasons ago on my rev blowing the chaincase out the side and locking the track up in the mountains and having two sleds literally struggle to tow my sled out with a locked up track as far as they could and ended up having to come back in with parts to do trail side.....not after seeing my buddy on his 2014 pro rmk blowing a quick drive belt in close to the same spot last season and just changing it on the spot. no more chaincase fluid or mess or dealing with any of that jazz for me. The only way i would even entertain a 3" is if they can do it in a belt drive. i've even seen guys ride out on these quick drive setups with half the cogs missing and still make it home. with a good tensioner and proper break in these belts my dealer said are goign 5000+ miles for some people. even if every 2nd season i had to put one on I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.

Pretty sure far as i heard and know the tracks are pretty much identicle minus the extra .4" and the 2.6" being dual derameter. I could maybe see a advantage if it was a softer less cut out deep snow powder track but the tracks on this polaris's are almost like hillcimb/comptetion tracks in stiffness compared to other brands tracks like my dad's new xm( track is so soft even new you can bend the lugs right back with a finger) Personally i like the stiffer lug track. There are always gonna be a few days of the year no matter what you have you're gonna get stuck but I can count on one hand how many of those day's we have were we live and coming from a 136 2" 600 ho track machine this 155 2.6" track to me is just a whole new level of crazyness

kmo · Feb 20, 2016

06redrevx said:
I think the 3" is too limited for being an all around all condition track. 2.6 gets my vote

You wouldn't think that it you had a 3" and rode with guys that had 2.6 tracks. The 3" is not at all limited but shines in areas the 2.6 does not.

J-pp · Feb 22, 2016

3 and cut the lug to 2,6 :spider:

EarthPoundin · Mar 6, 2016

I've been really impressed with the 3" this season in all types of snow conditions. Even rode ~75 miles the other weekend on low snow / river trails to get to little pockets of snow here and there. With the scratchers down and jumping off whenever bits of snow showed up, I never got over 135 deg and usually ran around 128 or so.

The grin factor when the snow gets deep is totally worth it to me

TRS · Mar 6, 2016

3" from here on out. Hands down the 3" out shines the 2.6".

FatDogX · Mar 6, 2016

How about.....get the 3" and cut it to 2.8"...ha ha :face-icon-small-ton

xmk1080 · Mar 6, 2016

FatDogX said:
How about.....get the 3" and cut it to 2.8"...ha ha :face-icon-small-ton

How about just cut the outer lugs to 2.8?

TRS · Mar 6, 2016

FatDogX said:
How about.....get the 3" and cut it to 2.8"...ha ha :face-icon-small-ton

No need to trim with the drop and roll. Pro without D&R with 7 tooth drivers needs the trim.
Haven't looked under the skirt of an AXYS to see if it needs a trim or if it is already gone commando. How's that for funny.

milehighassassin · Mar 7, 2016

Stroker Customs said:
Lets start a poll on the new 2.6 track and the 3" track. Which is the best all around mountain track.

Not sure on how this is even a poll. Polaris themselves will tell you that the 2.6 is a better all mountain track and that the 3" will be better in the deep deep snow.

Time for a poll

What is the best all around track

2.6"

3.0"

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Life Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Life Member

Moderator: Premium Member

Similar threads