$800 difference and all I can spot is one has 25" tires and the other has 26" yet the cheaper Kodiak has nicer alloy rims. 2016 Yamaha Kodiak 700 EPS SE ATVs Its kinda of like the 450 Sportsman vs the 500 . They were so close in specs you ask, what was the point.http://www.atvreviewnetwork.com/enth...2=251431&go=Go

 

There are also differences in brakes, suspension, and possibly chassis. The Kodiak is aimed more at the user that wants something a little simpler and reliable. More like the guy that buys one to take hunting a few weeks a year or farm/jobsite use where the nicer spec of the Grizzly is just added expense. Grizzly is aimed more at the recreational rider, the ones looking to ride harder and maybe push the machine a bit more.

 

From what I've read, the biggest difference is the clutching of the transmission. The Grizzly has a much more aggressive clutch that gives it a stronger bottom end than the Kodiak even though they have the exact same engine. I suppose you could simply buy the Kodiak and put a clutch kit in it and get the same results. The Grizzly apparently has a nicer, softer seat but again you could probably just get a Grizzly seat for the Kodiak as well. The wet braking system most likely doesn't provide the same stopping power as the Grizzly braking system but I'm sure its still more than adequate. I guess Yamaha has apparently adopted Kawasaki's strategy of only having to build 2 engines for their entire utility quad lineup. Just tweaking the clutching of the transmission makes one of the engines "feel" more powerful. But if you can buy a Kodiak 700 base model for about the price of the formerly available Grizzly 450, I'd definitely rather have the 700 over a 450 any day even if its growl is muted a bit by a mellower transmission.

 

Ok I just notice the front has a Slight more (1/2 inch) rear seems to be the same and a single disc rear instead of twin. I guess that and tires could add up to $800 rather quickly.

 

you didn't read the post above yours did you tlc? there are more differences then just tires! not only are the tires different, the Kodiak has a sealed rear brake instead of 2 regular discs found on the grizzly. the ecu programming is different, the clutching is different, the seat height is lower, the bars are different and more. plus on every Kodiak but the SE model they have a 4wd lever similar to the Honda rancher 420's and no diff lock.

 

I looked at the clutching, exact same Parts number in "every" component (Secondary,Primary and belt) but for weight that are worth $2.

I kind of like the single enclosed wet disk brakes over the exposed to the mud dual rear disk brakes. The front brakes and engine braking do most of the work anyways.

 

I like the enclosed wet brake too, supposed to last the life of the machine with no maintenance

 

Hope your right because my 350 has a rear wet disc.
Like I said I seldom need to use the rear brakes. My rear disc is not that strong anyways since it mechanical not hydraulic. Between the engine braking and two front hydraulic disks I never ran into a place where I need more braking power.

 

Engine braking is a good thing. I have seen some machines that had almost too much of it though. On my Grizzly, it definitely slows down the machine but its not an abrupt stop. Its similar to just moderate pressure on the brake lever. Its not like you grabbed them as hard as you could to lock up the brakes. It defnitely does save your brakes though. I have heard the wet braking setup on the Kodiak doesn't provide quite as much stopping power as normal disc brakes but its still better than the crappy drum brakes Honda used to offer. And being sealed, it should be well protected from mud and water or any other crap that might get lodged in there. So it should be pretty maintenace free. I still think Yamaha is going to offer a more powerful Grizzly within the next 2 years. The new YXZ 1000 proves that they're finally stepping up to the plate with performance. Why not do it across the board? V-twin engines for everything. Grizzly, Viking, and Wolverine. Keep the 708cc engine as a base model. In fact, why not even use this same 3 cylinder 1000cc engine. Polaris did it with their Prostar 900 engine. They just detuned it for the 50" Rzr, Ace, Ranger 900. Yamaha could easily detune it to produce say 90 hp for the Wolverine and Viking, still would be right at the top of the utility side by side hp. Perhaps a smaller v-twin for the Grizzly. Probably an inline twin like Polaris to be narrower to be more comfortable because you have to straddle the engine in a quad. Something in the 850cc range and about 65-70 hp would be nice.