154 vs 174 3" Pro's and con's

[pistoncontracting]

I tried a half ass'd search, that didn't come up with much, so feel free to push me in the right direction. Otherwise-

What are the real life results showing, in comparing the 3" versions on the XM's? Depending on the day I can go from being very impressed at the tractoring capability of the 174's, and then the next minute I find myself amazed how little difference there seems to be to my 163 2.4....

Now I'm in no way trying to bash anything- I'm looking for a reason to stimulate the economy . So with that being said- let's hear the honest good and bad, without turning a rape into a murder.
My biggest question, is how the sleds handle while on edge. Due to the terrain, I tend to spend most of the day on one side or the other, and control is important while on either side. I like having the ability to go up, down, or straight. The pro works well, but I find in deeper and a little steeper, it lacks what's needed sometimes to push forward hard enough. And before we all jump on the turbo wagon, I have no interest in a turbo.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Bnorth]

I find it tough to follow the t3 174 on my non t3 163 3" when it's deep and steep. I will be poaching his track or sidehilling earlier to gain more ground speed. The concern I have about the 174 is making everything too easy and only having fun on the deepest of days. The 154 T3 is playful as hell and always hanging the skis, great for hooning around but not nearly as effective on a tougher climb where the 174 keeps the front end down much better. The 174 also sidehills a lot flatter. That extra track keeps the back end up better which helps with the skidoos tendency to want to go up instead of across. The t3 is very forgiving on edge and has a huge balance point and I don't feel this is affected at all by track length.

 

[pistoncontracting]

The 174 also sidehills a lot flatter. That extra track keeps the back end up better which helps with the skidoos tendency to want to go up instead of across. The t3 is very forgiving on edge and has a huge balance point and I don't feel this is affected at all by track length.

This part right here. That's what I was curious about. Many thanks for the honesty

 

[AGGRESIVEZEBRA]

I personally have not ridden a 174 but people that i ride with have and said on those deep days there is nothing better. the flotation and climbing abilities can put you in places way past your comfort zone. but on those days where there isn't much fresh snow you can tell the extra length and weight of the sled.

 

[neilsleder]

I have a bit of time on a t3 174 and in the super deep it's awesome. Very forgiving and just plain works really good. But with saying that I wouldn't buy one. I don't get out lots so those super deep days are not every time. I had a 2014 163 x xm and I really liked it but I missed my 154 sled. The 154 IMO is the best and funnest all around sled to ride. I can only imagine the 154 t3 would be crazy fun!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iceman5689]

174 climbs effortlessly, when you think you are done it still chews. Can't really say anything negative about that length but it isn't easy to toss around like they advertised as the 163 or 154.All depends on you're riding style, personally the 174" is too much sled for myself day to day, and have a lot of fun on my 154.Just nice to have a buddy who you can trade off if you feel the need to billy goating a face.

 

[kakwa climber]

I got a 174 t3. I don't really know what I want anymore. I really liked my 163 turbo pro. I like to climb but also want that fun factor. I guess the only solution is to own both


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Diamondledinc]

I got a 174 t3. I don't really know what I want anymore. I really liked my 163 turbo pro. I like to climb but also want that fun factor. I guess the only solution is to own both


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't tell me that a 163 3" turbo pro won't climb as high as a 174 doo.

 

[Complexd]

Can't tell me that a 163 3" turbo pro won't climb as high as a 174 doo.

He never said it was a 3", but a few guys in my riding group have turbo 163 3s and boy do they rip. Still think a 174 would out do it though.

 

[pistoncontracting]

Can't tell me that a 163 3" turbo pro won't climb as high as a 174 doo.

I don't think he tried to tell you that, at least not in his post.

 

[ssjrmk]

I love these track talks. I have been riding in the mountains 30 years now. I have ridden everything out there. back 15 years ago everyone was looking for a bigger track so they could get into the better riding areas. Now people are wanting to stay with the smaller tracks because they are more fun. It is sure funny how things have changed. Personally I enjoy the 174. I find I can have lots of fun on it and I don't get stuck near as often so its less exhausting. It all depends on your riding style. Its just nice to have a choice. The only problem now is that you need to have a few different sleds to match the conditions for the day. Its like women with shoes. Lol

 

[ferniesnow]

Troy, I have seen the 154 3" perform and they are a fun sled. The other day, I told you that the 174 needs muscle to have fun on and more muscle than the 163. The same would be for the 154 and with the shorter track, much more flickable. More suitable to your style of riding.

 

[pistoncontracting]

Troy, I have seen the 154 3" perform and they are a fun sled. The other day, I told you that the 174 needs muscle to have fun on and more muscle than the 163. The same would be for the 154 and with the shorter track, much more flickable. More suitable to your style of riding.

I was hoping to bait in your good friend, from the sadly missed era, see if he could enable me a few minutes to compare the two...

 

[snopro]

Troy, I have seen the 154 3" perform and they are a fun sled. The other day, I told you that the 174 needs muscle to have fun on and more muscle than the 163. The same would be for the 154 and with the shorter track, much more flickable. More suitable to your style of riding.

I was hoping to bait in your good friend, from the sadly missed era, see if he could enable me a few minutes to compare the two...

HaHa! You don't need my opinion Troy. Doug hit the nail on the head.

 

[pistoncontracting]

HaHa! You don't need my opinion Troy. Doug hit the nail on the head.

Maybe the stars will align, and I can figure out a way to score some seat time on them, or at least see just how much I'd be gaining from the little Pro that could

 

[snopro]

You're welcome to try mine if I am riding where you are riding. Its far from a stock T3 174 anymore though.

 

[catrutt]

I went from a 2014 154 to a 2015 t3 174 the t3 is a far better sled very good in the trees witch is where we ride . Fix the heat problem with ski scratchers and extra wheels .I will never go back.

 

[kakwa climber]

Can't tell me that a 163 3" turbo pro won't climb as high as a 174 doo.

Well I had a stock pro with a Silber turbo. In the deep and steep the t3 would probably out do it. To much wheelie and spinning with the pro. Completely different sleds.

That's my point. The 174 3" is fun in the deep , what its built for. The 163 2 1/2 with a turbo was crazy fun in the trees and meadows.

I think a 180-200 horse 163 3" would be ideal. But I want it to burn premium and only need oil. We can all dream.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fredw]

Been on all the track lengths over the years and always thought the answer would be a three inch 154 with a strong skid.. Easy to throw around and still good traction..

when I went to the 163 you could tell it took more effort.. But still very fun

but i gotta say the 174 has been pretty fun as well, it felt harder to turn because of the extra track but not many stucks anymore.. With the turbo it's like a match made in heaven, get your self out of anything.. after driving one last year in a stock fourm, it was fun, but could have more hp I thought

dont think I would go bigger thou, since this is allready taking me up climbs I maybe should be not on..

heard today the new 17 doos are comming with a 3.6 inch lug on a 15 wide track and Max length is 162.. Keep weight down with out sacrificing traction.. We will see soon

 

[Diamondledinc]

Been on all the track lengths over the years and always thought the answer would be a three inch 154 with a strong skid.. Easy to throw around and still good traction..

when I went to the 163 you could tell it took more effort.. But still very fun

but i gotta say the 174 has been pretty fun as well, it felt harder to turn because of the extra track but not many stucks anymore.. With the turbo it's like a match made in heaven, get your self out of anything.. after driving one last year in a stock fourm, it was fun, but could have more hp I thought

dont think I would go bigger thou, since this is allready taking me up climbs I maybe should be not on..

heard today the new 17 doos are comming with a 3.6 inch lug on a 15 wide track and Max length is 162.. Keep weight down with out sacrificing traction.. We will see soon

3.6? Wow.