I am sure this may sound like a dumb question, but just what is a utility quad? I feel certain that my Suzuki King Quad is one, but then there is my Lakota. Kawasaki says it is a utlity sports quad, whatever that is. there is a wordl of difference between the two machines. About the only thing they have in common is both have front and rear racks and a 300 cc 4 stroke motor. The Lakota has chain drive and a single rear shock. It does have reverse and an electric start, as does the King Quad, but it does not have independent rear suspension, or four wheel drive. The Lakota weighs in under 500 pounds, whereas the King Quad tops 700. If I want to run a moto-cross track, I prefer the Lakota, but if I'm out in unchartered trails, or difficult terrain, give me the King Quad.

One way to tell between the two may be whether it would be appropriate to put a winch on it. I can't imagine anyone with a soprts quad installing a winch on it, and in the same vein, about anyone with a utility quad would love to have a winch.

Probably, there is some better distinction. Got any idea?

 

You might say that a sport utility would be a bit lighter than a regular utility quad, but still a good bit heavier than a true sport quad. It would also have a reverse gear. It would normally have racks as well, but would have a quicker engine, sportier suspension, and maybe a bit higher gearing than a Utility. Some may even have a chain drive. I would call the Explorer 400 a sport utility solely on the basis that its 2-stroke and chain driven. Two of the worst characteristics of a true utility quad, even though it is fairly heavy and looks just like a sportsman cosmetically.

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*

 

sport utility is for you young guy's utility is for the old guy's.COB

 

What about qualifying anything with a single range transmission a sport or sport/utility machine and anything with 2 or more ranges in the transmission a utility machine?

I'm sure there are some machines that would fall into the wrong category, but which ones?

------------------
Kevin Staton
Y2K Polaris Magnum 325 4x4
<a href="www.korrnet.org/watvclub">Windrock ATV Club</a>

 

So the Honda 300s and 450's are sport quads?

 

Before stating what a “utility” quad is, or is not, it behooves to first consider the definition of “utility”. My Webster’s New World Dictionary lists the following:

Utility n. 1. The quality or property of being useful. 2. The greatest happiness to the greatest number.

Utilitarian adj. 1. Stressing the importance of utility over beauty or other considerations.

Keeping the meaning of those two words in mind, it would seem that transmissions, gear ranges, racks, weight, and speed do not in and of themselves delimit a “utility” quad. I think it is far better to classify a utility quad as a general purpose machine. One which may not necessarily excel at any one thing, but one which will perform credibly across a broad spectrum of tasks.

A US Supreme Court justice, whose name I’ve unfortunately forgotten, once said of pornography, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it!”. This could also be said of utility quads. No one would argue that a Yamaha Banshee is a utility quad. And no one would argue that a Yamaha Grizzly is a sport quad. Yet in a pinch each vehicle could perform some of the tasks routinely associated with the other, just not very well.

The same metamorphosis that occurred in the truck market, is now occurring in the utility ATV market, i.e, the utility quad is becoming less Spartan and more capable.

Consider this, 26 years ago when I bought my first pickup truck, a ’73 Ford F100, it had metal floors with plain rubber mats, no air conditioning, a hard cloth covered bench seat, no padding or noise attenuation material anywhere, an AM radio, wind-up windows, a 3-speed manual transmission, and plain steel wheels with dog-dish hubcaps. It was loud, noisy, uncomfortable, hot in summer, cold in winter, and it had a ride that harked back to the horse-drawn buckboard. It was a purely work-oriented utility vehicle in every sense of the word.

However, in the mid ‘80s things began to change. With the demise of the station wagon, the traditional station wagon buyer and others needing the capabilities of a station wagon, but finding they were not available, began to turn to pickup trucks to meet their needs. Most were rudely shocked at the poor amenities and rough-edged demeanor of their new purchase, but they were a vocal bunch and they didn’t hesitate to let the truck manufacturers know of their dissatisfaction. Slowly things began to change.

Now, fast-forward 24 years from the early 70’s to the late ‘90s. My ’97 Ford F150 has not morphed into a Corvette, but it is a far cry from my ’73 F100 which was little changed from its predecessors of 40 years earlier. My ’97 has plush carpet throughout. It doesn’t just have air conditioning, it has “climate control”. It has six-way adjustable bucket seats, and AM/FM/Cassette, power windows, power locks, map pockets, make-up mirrors, 4-speed automatic transmission, shift-on-the-fly 4-wheel drive, fog lights, 17” alloy wheels, a two-tone metallic clear-coat paint, and not one piece of bare metal is visible anywhere in the drivers “cockpit”.

My ’97 F150 is far more capable than my ’73 F100, and its way more comfortable to boot. This same trend is now making itself felt in the utility ATV market. Purely work-oriented machines, like the Suzuki King Quad and my own Kawasaki Bayou 400 (not offered by Kawasaki for 2000) are gradually fading away, or are morphing into the new category of “sport-utility” quads like the Kawasaki Prairie for example.

Today’s “utility” quads are far more capable than their predecessors of just a few years ago, and they’re more comfortable too. As a result the characteristics that define a “utility” quad are broadening. As such we need to look beyond the old limits of transmissions and gear ranges in order to define today's utility quad.

The quad that does the greatest number of things with passing competence probably defines today’s utility quad. And while that is not a perfect definition, it’s good enough for me, because just like the US Supreme Court justice, I know a utility quad when I see one.

Army Man

 

One of the reasons I asked this question is that the Board has 2 topics, one for utility quads, the other for sports quads. There is no middle ground, no "utility sports quads," etc.

I think that a Lakota would be a sports quad, if it didn't have racks. It is very similar to the Mojave. The two models look very much alike, and I think they have the same plastic. The Mojave has a 4 stroke 250 cc motor, whereas the Lakota has a 300 four stroke engine. The Lakota has electric start, whereas the Mojave is kick start. The mojave does not have reverse, but the Lakota does.

I have driven the Lakota on a motor-cross track. It is definitely better suited for that track than my Suzuki King Quad, or Kawasaki Bayou 220. But, I certainly wouldn't dare take it to some of the places which the King Quad can navigate.

Maybe, Armyman is right, but I wish I knew whether my Lakota was a "sports quad," or a "utility" ride.

 

I think I found the answer. If it is green, it is a utility quad?

 

So the Kawasaki Majiao (spelling) is a utility quad?

 

Yeah and so was the tecate. What kind of answer did you expect to get with that?

------------------
Andy Bassham *(1999 Arctic Cat 500 4x4, 1989 Honda 300)*