• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

165" - 2.75" VS 163" - 3.0"

turboless terry

Well-known member
Premium Member
Jan 15, 2008
5,556
6,739
113
Big Timber, MT
2.75 climbs on top and goes. 3 digs down and augers a little. Thats my experience. Comparing series 7 on a 155 and 2.75 on a 165. Not a completely fair comparison but that is my experience for our snow in Montana. 2.75 is also 8 pounds lighter i believe. That is a win in itself.
 

mtncat1

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Oct 19, 2008
2,356
655
113
south jordan ut.
165" - 2.75" VS 163" - 3.0"
Is there a lot of difference between these tracks can someone elaborate?
there are some serious issues being reported with the 165 tracks stretching and braking drivers , i think they will have a upgraded 165 by next season ,but are all back ordered right now . so thats something
 

bjd68

Well-known member
Premium Member
Jul 22, 2012
322
130
43
Abbotsford BC
Anyone with experiance with both 165 2.75 and 163 3" Im going to order a new 2022 slash matryx but having trouble deciding between the two on a khaos ? Only ride deep B.C snow so was leaning towards 3 inch and for being more durable.
 
R
Nov 24, 2014
74
31
18
I went with the 3 inch, I rode the 2.75 quite a bit and compared to my 2.6 it just dug. Our snow sucked this year but if I dont like it im going to get a 2.6
 

Wheel House Motorsports

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
29,932
5,966
113
34
SW MT
Anyone with experiance with both 165 2.75 and 163 3" Im going to order a new 2022 slash matryx but having trouble deciding between the two on a khaos ? Only ride deep B.C snow so was leaning towards 3 inch and for being more durable.
I have a number of buddies that spend all winter in Revy and ride polaris sleds. They have had just about every variation of polaris to be produced and the 2.75 has been there go too track. Just extroverts/anti stab and you dont have to run them so tight.
 

rulonjj

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Apr 15, 2008
1,730
1,088
113
capitol town, WY
I can't say much about the 2.75, but comparing the 3 to the 2.6 is a huge difference. The 3 digs way to deep and doesn't seem to go as far. It just trenches too much. I would stick with the 2.75 out of the 2....
 

Wheel House Motorsports

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Nov 27, 2007
29,932
5,966
113
34
SW MT
Don't forget to post riding experience. The Polaris 3" is misserable in any sort of sugary or non suportive powder, for example, central ID/MT and further south in WY/UT/CO type snow. Its a really bad track, but further north and more coastal where the snow is wetter and more supportive it works a LOT better.
 

Teth-Air

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Premium Member
Nov 27, 2007
4,549
2,777
113
Calgary AB/Nelson BC
www.specified.ca
I have the 165 x 2.75" and a sled with the 174 x 3" and I had a 2016 that had the 163 x 2.6"

The Series 8 track works fantastic but the drivers do damage it and keeping it banjo tight robs power. If you want most durable go with the 2.6 or 3" but I don't like the 3" unless it is in a 174 version or it trenches too much. The 165 x 2.75" is great if you get extrovert drivers. The 2.6 series 6 wont disappoint if you get a deal on it.
 

TRS

Life Member
Lifetime Membership
Dec 1, 2007
4,094
6,225
113
67
Cody, WY
The 3” gives up. To soft, it lays over when you really need it to shine. When it cannot evacuate the snow from the tunnel, it folds over. Cut it to 2.7, it shines.
 

bjd68

Well-known member
Premium Member
Jul 22, 2012
322
130
43
Abbotsford BC
Well after lots of debating to myself Ive decided to go 3" over 2.75" I am in B.C. and the conditions I ride in here our 90% of time is denser snow and deep which in my experiance the 3 " always outperformed my budddies 2.5" to 2.75" tracks. very rare we see the sugary lighter snow conditions where the 2.75" would shine.
 
Premium Features