16"x2.5x154 camo extreme VS stock XP 163
- Thread starter CUSO
- Start date
takethebounce
Active VIP Member
I haven't tried the tracks side by side, but when moving, lug profile in deep snow should come out on top of shorter lug.
On the ground there is about 4" difference of track.
I've noticed a big difference with the camo 2.5/154 so much so that I think it would benefit from the same gearing as the 163.
- Thread starter
- #3
flabbajabba
Active VIP Member
The guys I ride with have two 154's one did the non-ported 2.5 and its way better than the stock 2.25. I have a 163 and would say it would be close he has higher track speed than mine did (with his 2.5) but I did the 2.5 so we can't compare it to the stock anymore. (Mine has been bent most of this year so we haven't had a 154-2.5 to 163-2.5 show down yet). I had to rent a M8 thur and traded sleds for a while and his 154-2.5 sure felt the same as my 163 used to.
Depsnolvr
Active VIP Member
cant speak for the 154, but two 163s one 2.25, one 2.5 with me on both sleds and the 2.5 was like the sled had a turbo.
Im totally pissed that I cant afford one?????
Im totally pissed that I cant afford one?????
mxz800x
Active VIP Member
do you have to change the drivers to fit the 2.5 track. looking to change track from stock 2.25 ported track to camo extreme 2.5
flabbajabba
Active VIP Member
Nope just put it on and ride:d
maxwell
Active VIP Member
i would highly reccomend the drivers although not required factory oens are junk..same with WAHL.
anyway. i wish i had some data for you but i havent compared the 2. i can tell you that flotation is a big factor here. my best guestimate ( i realize your looking for real life info LOL) is that the camo extreme 2.5 ONLY IN 3.0 PITCH would be similar to the 163 stock cheese grater. however if in any seriously deep snow floatation may win over. either way you wont be dissapointed witht her performance in the switch. just please please do not buy the 2.86 pitch version...the 163 handles very well IMO but a big cost to extend.
anyway. i wish i had some data for you but i havent compared the 2. i can tell you that flotation is a big factor here. my best guestimate ( i realize your looking for real life info LOL) is that the camo extreme 2.5 ONLY IN 3.0 PITCH would be similar to the 163 stock cheese grater. however if in any seriously deep snow floatation may win over. either way you wont be dissapointed witht her performance in the switch. just please please do not buy the 2.86 pitch version...the 163 handles very well IMO but a big cost to extend.
Sleeper700
Active VIP Member
Is there that much performance difference between the 2.86 and the 3 pitch?
maxwell
Active VIP Member
in my opinion..yes.
losing 1" of paddle width over the length of a 154/163/174 track is big surface area
the 2.86 spacing is not the issue
some will claim higher track speeds because it doesnt rub etcetc.
there is no rubbing on any of the 2.5" 16 wide paddle tracks ive installed if the alignment is correct.
losing 1" of paddle width over the length of a 154/163/174 track is big surface area
the 2.86 spacing is not the issue
some will claim higher track speeds because it doesnt rub etcetc.
there is no rubbing on any of the 2.5" 16 wide paddle tracks ive installed if the alignment is correct.
teeroy
Active VIP Member
I went with the 2.86 because of the clearance issue. my stock track was rubbing the sides of the lugs, but never when lifted to check it out. I think running the track so loose with the extroverts allows the track to walk side to side under lateral loads. but i agree with the loss of paddle surface area, added up it must be quite a bit compared to the 3.0 pitch.
maxwell
Active VIP Member
its not huge but every bit counts right.
i had minor rubbing on my stock track aswell for the first few rides. once it found its groove it never got any worse LOL.
i do like the amount of clearance on the 2.86 but i just dont feel performance is effected with the 3.0.
still better than a 15 wide track though you get the floatation at least
i had minor rubbing on my stock track aswell for the first few rides. once it found its groove it never got any worse LOL.
i do like the amount of clearance on the 2.86 but i just dont feel performance is effected with the 3.0.
still better than a 15 wide track though you get the floatation at least
Last edited:
teeroy
Active VIP Member
for sure, just like 16" w tracks did. everyone said "meh....what's an inch?"
a lot....lol
Caper11
Active VIP Member
Maxwell is right. The 2.86 pitch is not worth it if your replacing the stock 2011track, the 3.00 pitch is the way to go. 2.86 pitch is not a full 2.5 inch lug and it's 2 3/8 and the paddle is narrower. The only gain your going to see with replacing the older XP tracks is the non porting. my buddie put a non ported camo extreme on the 154 and he loves it. I put a 2.86 pitch on my 09 163 and it's a definate improvement over the 09 ported track.
takethebounce
Active VIP Member
My 2.5/2.86 is a full 1/4 taller than my stock 2.25 was....
on the 3.0 vs 2.86 sure you lose a bit but its not on the full length of the track in reality as 1/2 your track isn't contacting the snow.
I was advised to not bother with the 3.0 pitch as there were complaints of vibrating tracks. So why bother spending money on new drivers when the 2.86 has been an awesome upgrade for minimal cost.
on the 3.0 vs 2.86 sure you lose a bit but its not on the full length of the track in reality as 1/2 your track isn't contacting the snow.
I was advised to not bother with the 3.0 pitch as there were complaints of vibrating tracks. So why bother spending money on new drivers when the 2.86 has been an awesome upgrade for minimal cost.
Caper11
Active VIP Member
HUMM I measured mine numerous times on different lugs, because I thought I was seeing things, and was disapointed to see only 2 3/8.
maxwell
Active VIP Member
weird..teeroy can you take some measurements? also on your photo it looks like your outer paddles are tapered on the top of the lug from inside to out? i very well could be seing things LOL
takethebounce
Active VIP Member
I hear things always are smaller in the Cape.... :d
I'll have to get a photo of mine with the tape measure sometime this week. (since we are comparing sizes and all!)
teeroy
Active VIP Member
well sonofagun....went out and measured, 2-3/8" is the measurement of the lug height. room for heat expansion maybe? lol....
here's a couple more pics of the lugs from the back, the lugs aren't tapered but do kinda look like it in the pic. I measured the inside edges, and the center paddles....all are 2-3/8"
drop the hammer
Active member
Nice to see some extra side clearance with that track. It will wildly outperform the stock track. A few of my buddies are running it and amazing results.
Similar threads
