Armada ARV 96 vs. Faction ct 2.0

2.0s or 3.0s

Ct 2.0

I am in quite a similar position like you, I’m also debating between an ARV (the 106 tho for me) and the CT 3.0. I personally prefer the Armada skis yet I have heard more quality issues with Armada than about Faction. I don’t wanna drag armada through the mud or anything but I’d suggest you do some research and make up your mind accordingly. Both are amazing skis and you cannot go wrong.

I'm also trying to make a decision for one of these two or the Black Crows Camox. I think that I will go for the Black Crows. Where are you skiing the most?

Don't take my word for it since I haven't felt or ridden the 2.0's but from what I can tell the 2.0's are more of a all-mountain ski than the 96's. Anyways I have the 96's and they work wonders especially in the park, but carving on piste is no problem either. Only thing I've noticed is you need some force to get them on edge but that problem might come from me center mounting them. They have medium flex and are quite playful imo but I haven't skied woods with'em though.

Both these skis and the camox which was mentioned above are great choices for what described.
I ride the camox as my daily driver.
Handles slopes amazingly,chops through crud well and holds its own in fair amounts of powder. However out of these skis this is probably the least park orientated but doesn’t mind a lap or two.
The 2.0 is a sick ski. My buddy rides them and i’ve hand flexed them for reference.
Widest in the list so they handle pow a bit better however have fairly similar rocker profile to the camox. Handle well on groomers however will struggle a bit on speeds and crud that the camox would be better suited for. Loads of fun in the park,soft-ish flex so butters and ‘s~w~e~r~v~s’
Arv96 is also a sick ski. Same width as Camox but is a fairly different ski.
More of the traditional park shape with true(?) twin. Softer than camox and more similar to the 2.0 in flex.On piste performance is good however not as crud smashing as the camox but maybe more stable than the 2.0 in crud and chopped up snow.

GrabfateDon't take my word for it since I haven't felt or ridden the 2.0's but from what I can tell the 2.0's are more of a all-mountain ski than the 96's. Anyways I have the 96's and they work wonders especially in the park, but carving on piste is no problem either. Only thing I've noticed is you need some force to get them on edge but that problem might come from me center mounting them. They have medium flex and are quite playful imo but I haven't skied woods with'em though.

I've definitely found that you have to put in a little work carving the 96s but once you find the sweet spot they're really nice. I have mine mounted at factory recommended (-3.5 cm from true center I think) for reference

hootsquadI've definitely found that you have to put in a little work carving the 96s but once you find the sweet spot they're really nice. I have mine mounted at factory recommended (-3.5 cm from true center I think) for reference

Yeah, I have no problem carving and after getting the feel of them they feel really stable. I would choose my race skis on piste any day though.

Thanks for all the info guys, I think I’m leaning toward the ct 2.0s. They seem pretty good for what I need them for. Can anyone speak to their quality and durability, specifically the top sheet?

Ski307Thanks for all the info guys, I think I’m leaning toward the ct 2.0s. They seem pretty good for what I need them for. Can anyone speak to their quality and durability, specifically the top sheet?

I’m also looking at the ct but the 3.0 or the arv 106 having skied Them both id say the faction is going to ski more solid they just feel consistent all over the mountain. Where I’d say the armada definitely feel A lot more playful still solid.. but not as solid as the light and stable feel of the factions. Curious what you ended up going with!