Recent content by jpgmtech

Winter of 1986 for me. Wow time flies. Great thread and some of you have had so. many. sleds. Always scrapped my iron together, never was the highmarker but never was left behind either. I'll just leave this here. You can date this photo by the hot pink gloves...

Condolences to friends and family.

Condolences to family and friends. Such a difficult loss.

Just to add my observations, the new 6.2 (and even the 5.3) in 2014 are way ahead of the previous years with direct injection. The 6.2 is a beast and it gets pretty decent economy. The 5.3 is definitely better than the last one and gets surprising economy. Of course, once you hook onto a...

In my experience, boost any XP or XM and it turns into a rodeo to ride. As it is my stock 800 with 163x3 was crazy until I pulled in the limiter, and even now it's on the edge of too much tail walk. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmm... this is taking me way back but a '79 Super Sonic (or Blizzard) with a cut tunnel, 521 Rotax transplant, and a 124"x16" track was the machine to beat.

Personally I would lean towards the new T3, if only for all the other subtle details that the engineering group put into it. As was mentioned before, coolers, skid position, rear swing arm position, front suspension, etc. etc. have had changes and tweaks. As for TSS, I have a strong feeling...

Again, I agree on most points - maybe I should have qualified that 'turbo' remark. I'm thinking in the 6lbs boost range, with the smaller tracks and in deep snow - not hard set stuff. I've actually filmed a bunch of sleds trying to break out of a bowl in neck-deep powder and the 174x3 stockers...

I agree actually. A 163 TSS sled is a 16 wide track, and it's a TSS... I was talking about lesser tracks primarily, and sometimes lesser riders.

We have already been doing this for years. Not only do they have enough power, but they will outclimb (or at least trade marks with) many a turbo rider running 154x15x2.5 and sometimes 162x15x2.5 tracks, especially in the mega-deep snow. It's always been about putting the power down to the snow.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure that a 174 with flex-edge and t-motion will help immensely in minimizing that 'locked into the hill' feel of a 174 on an XP. I'm also really liking the work put into the suspension mounting and pivot points. This group of engineers is really getting it, in my opinion.

I practically shed tears of joy to see both 3" tracks available. My Polaris buddies will be crying tears of shame... I've ridden both tracks on XP's extensively. I love the 163 on the XP just for the fun factor as the 174 seems a bit locked into the track it makes. 174 is super-stable...

Noticed that detail too. Nice when the engineering team gets into fine-tuning the product. Also may allow for better snow evacuation in the tunnel. This may be the first sled I literally do not touch other than clutching/suspension tuning.

Does this mean that you have neither and you are looking for advice?

This is the real deal guys. I've run a 163x3 for 2 years now, and have run 174x3 with other sleds. There is absolutely no substitute for track when the powder is neck-deep. I'm stoked and in a bit of disbelief that they are actually building the sled I want instead of the sled I need to...