Wow I thought they were more. Maybe I will go with that over the swt.
Same price-
swt 800 with 1200 miles on it. Proven. Over the grace period now.
expedition. 600 $9650. plus $800 or so in shipping.
What would you choose.
Hmmmm
Vote now please.

SWT hands down, but that is JMO! With the loads you seem to like to pull and what you have in mind, get that big track on the ground and in deep snow and you won't even think about getting stuck. Triple sleds, etc. Not saying the other machine wouldn't go, but after running machines that weren't wide tracks, I know that NOTHING will replace a WT or SWT for that matter when it comes to pulling and not getting stuck with loads.

Good luck with whatever you choose!

Family Trapper that is the SPORT Expedition he is talking about for $9650 not the long track. The long track is more money. That 800 is probably a good machine but is lots heavier than the others if weight matters.

I'm guessing warranty isn't a real big deal for you in St.Mary's as you'd have to get it back to Anchortown anyways. But a snowchecked machine gives you that extra warranty.
If the prices are comparable I'd go with the ACE. As for hauling (that Shrek is so concerned for you about), I've hauled a few ox on mine, and I didn't even notice they were there. Now I realize it was gutted, so not as heavy...but it was cake, going up and down hills.
AND LASTLY: that ACE weighs a lot less than that Skandic SWT 800!

I just can't figure out why skidoo went with the 15" track on the expeditionrenegade and not the 16" like on the Grand Touring.

Oops I confused myself for a minute there.

Ty says the sport model has the 154
Also a 16 inch wide track

No yellow?

I'm a little confused that one on the left looks more like what a 2012 GT looks like because of the 2-up seat?
Must be changes from the 2012 models to 2013.

No real changes to the 2013 model according to the dealers I talked to. A little more white on the panels is all.

Tom- Seat pops off. Anyone who I know that has one, doesn't have the extra set on....ever (want tippy, add another rider).

the 15" track is what I have on my Renegade (like you,not sure why they went there...), but on the others it's 16". The footprint of the expedition with 16"w and 154" long...is NICE. I dont' see this EVER getting stuck. I stuck mine on purpose in willows, just got off, gave it gas and with the low gearing it just walked right out. It engages so early that it doesn't spin the track like "power" machines. I'd definitely look to change the skis on the Expedition, and probably manipulate a front skid plate with Ptex.

Bdave you can get online and still see the 2012 specs and compare to the 2013s

Alaskan they make those big ski skins that should fit the skis on the Expedition. They are like 9 1/2" wide and look kind of like clown shoes but should float like a boat.
edit: oh you've got the renegade, which means you might need to do a complete ski swap in order to get the clown shoes to fit if the renegade came with the short skinny skis.

Yeah, I got online and looked...also asked two dealers. Everyone said same sled for 2012 and 2013.

What are you seeing that I'm not?

Tom the Grand touring doesn't have the 1.5 inch charger track.

I would go with the super wide much more sled for your buck. I think the wide track expedition is closer to 12 grand. Wolverine Bait has a great thread on Doo Talk about the 600 ACE.

Probably nothing Dave you just had not mentioned checking online, you only mentioned the dealers is all.

Fish what's the charger track?

gotcha...had me worried...grin.

Sorry FT. I am thinking tundras. The tundra sport has a short track. That is a pretty good deal for that much track. I have a set of the 9 1/2 inch skis skins. They float well and should fit on most of the Skidoo models. They don't make the tundras much less tippy though.

Tom it is a single ply track, which makes it substantially lighter. The touring I think has a regular track on it with smaller lugs.

Hey Len,... I'll throw my 2 cents "vote" into the pot here too. Some of this I mentioned to you at the Fling, but will repeat it again for everyone else. There was some wrong info posted here about various models, and maybe it's all corrected now,... not sure,... I just got home from an 18 hour oil spill drill out of Valdez,.. so I'm only half awake.

The Tundra LT & the Expedition Sport have the exact same tracks & rear suspensions,... 154" x 16". When I bought my Tundra LT 600 ACE last year, I didn't realize that the Expedition was virtually the same machine, just with a wider ski stance than the Tundra. Overall, I like my Tundra LT as a trapping rig now that I have set up as it is,.. but if I had to do it over again, I think I would go with the Expedition. I'm like you,... when I'm on the trail, I'm constantly looking around,.. eyes going everywhere except where they need to be all the time,... on the trail. And when I'm just riding back on the trail at the end of the day,... I would like to be able to somewhat relax and just have an uneventful return trip,... but in fact, this is when I've had some of my worst "tip-overs",... because with a machine that is about 11 feet long and only 32" wide, you just cannot ever be complacent,... you have to stay on top of it all the time. And the truth is,... I really don't have even one spot anywhere on any trail that a 32" wide machine could squeeze thru, but a 38" or 40" couldn't. But I really do like that telescopic strut front suspension,.. I think this is the 4th machine now that I've owned that has it,... and after well over 20,000 miles total on them all, I have had zero problems and zero damage. One of the best things is that it's completely protected by the ski,... trying to straddle rocks, stumps, chunks of ice, etc you will never hit anything other than the tub itself,... but I've bent alot of swing arms, sway bars, trailing arms, shock mounts, etc from those same things on more conventional front ends. They may not have the best ride, or the most travel, but for a trapping rig,... I'll take it.

With that being said, the SWT is a whole different animal, and really for most people, it's a sled that may not really be needed. The first thing you'll notice on your first ride, is that it's like riding a horse,.. the tub & seat are 24" wide, so you'll have to have your legs spread apart farther than you've ever ridden before. (I found that quite awkward at first). Mine is an '07 with the 550F, and I think it's about the lighest one made, which is why I went for that one (just a tad over 600lbs). I have had several wide tracks, and because I trap in some of the deepest snow country anywhere in Alaska (lower Copper River country is just east of Thompson Pass, which has had close to 1,000" in a winter already,... over 80 feet), I really do need something that can go thru bottomless snow,... and there are always times every winter when we'll get 4'-6' (and occ even more), in one dump, and I cannot go even on the flat with a WT right after that. But to this day (knock on wood), I have yet to have snow conditions that my SWT couldn't go thru. I can say that there is as much difference between a 16" wide track & a WT (20") as there is between a WT and a SWT. As I told you at the Fling, just a couple weeks ago, I took my SWT and broke a trail out on the creek behind my house, and ran over it 4 times, back & forth twice,... and 3 days later after setting up at -28°, I couldn't walk on it on foot without punching thru,... which showed just how light-footed that thing really is. And this winter with our record snowfall, I had many days when I couldn't go with my Tundra LT on the flat either,... this sort of thing was a non-stop ordeal,...




Now as for the 600 ACE,... I have about 4,000 miles on mine so far and almost couldn't be happier with that engine. The extra fur that I have shot with that sled because it was so quiet and I came right up to things on the trail that never heard me coming has probably paid for by now the difference between it & a 550F.






(Just don't drop screws down the dipstick tube,... ). I say "almost", because I have been disappointed with the gas mileage mine gets, at least as to what was advertised. All last winter, I very carefully measured & kept track of almost every trip on every day,... and under the best of conditions,... (hard trail, mild temps, moderate speed, no load), the best I ever got was 18.8 mpg, with an average of 13-16 under regular trapping conditions. That's still double what my older Skandics got, but it's no where near the "29 mpg" that Ski-doo was advertising last year. I have heard that the Expedition 600 ACE does a little better due to slightly different gearing, but I wouldn't bank on it, altho it would be welcomed.





Finally,.. the power. Everyone says don't get the 600 ACE in a SWT,... not enough power. But I don't remember anyone saying don't get a SWT with the 550F,... not enough power. I guess I'm going to stand in the corner all by myself & disagree with that. Here's the math,... the 503F was rated @ approx 55hp,... the 600 ACE is rated @ approx 60hp,... and the 550F is rated @ approx 65hp. I have a feeling that almost everyone who says the 600 ACE doesn't have enough power for a SWT probably don't have any hands-on experience for that conclusion. I'm not sure how many 503 engines I've had,.. probably at least 10,... and the 503 in a WT was just fine! I never had a time where I couldn't go somewhere on my traplines because the 503 was too gutless. The 550 in my current SWT has all the power I've ever needed to this point,... and I can't imagine why it would suddenly become inadequate. But, maybe the thing most convincing to me was when I was able to compare my Tundra LT 600 ACE to an exact Tundra LT 550F, side by side. Let's just say that if you're a betting person,... be careful before you put your money on the 550. If a person is getting a SWT for trail grooming, or hauling heavy loads, then you don't even want speed anyway. It would not be possible to power-out a 600 ACE in a WT or SWT in low range. For the trapline,.... I think it's great. (that might be 3¢ worth,... )