What do you know? I have to say Vinson and Eiger sound stupid, but the Ozark sounds pretty cool to me. I live at the southern end of the Ozark Mtns. Even if its just a little 250, I bet some bonehead around here will buy one just for the name!! My only beef is that they didn't call the 250 the vinson and the 500 the Ozark. I also wonder how many folks living in Ozark, AR will be buying one.

 

Well, I don't live anywhere near the Ozark mountains, but I plan to buy one. Not for the name, however, but rather because the feature set seems very competative to similar models.

I've been keeping an eye out for a machine my oldest son can move up to (he's already pushing his SP 90 to it's limits) but I don't want to get him a sport quad. The 200cc range and near 400lbs max weight are two important criteria to me. I want a machine powerful enough that he can keep up with my Cat (for the most part) and yet not TOO powerful or heavy to tax his abilities.

I HAD boiled the list down to the Bayou 220 and the Recon. When the Bayou switched to a 250 for next years model, it seemed a shoe in (even though I don't like the single A-arms up front.) But then this Ozark appears. Not only is the name and styling pretty kewl, but the features as well. Double wishbones up front as well as DISC brakes, 244cc shaft drive engine, it seems to fill all the requirements and is still priced LESS than the Recon (which, I think is an excellent machine in it's own right). Unless something more tempting comes along (always a possibility), I'll be adding an Ozark to my stable as soon as is possible.

My only mistake was showing a picture to my son, he's allready drooling over it.

 

Dang it! Why does a 250 have to look so freakin GOOD? Everyone was saying how the vinson looks great and all... well I don't see it, and the Eiger looks OK.... but the Ozark.. that looks PERFECT! I don't like quads that are adopting, or already have (ie Polaris), the plastic bumpers. I think it looks sloppy and weak. I have always liked the look of the 450 Foreman just because of the huge metal bumpers over the lights. That looks tough and good.. but now it seems the new wave of designs are all sporty and plasic. I mean the Rincon.. really now! I thought Honda of all makers wouldn't stoop so low! That is just my opinion, however and I DO NOT intend to put down anyone elses quad. The only thing that matters is that you like the quad you own. All I can say is that the plastic isn't for me.

 

Andy-
How are ya man? How's that Griz holding up these days-put many miles on it yet? I agree with you on the name thing-I don't know where some of these guys come up with this stuff. Course, looking at the automobile industry-it stands to reason we'd end up with some stupid names in atv's as well, only a matter of time. What ever happened to "Suburban and Blazer" anyway, now we've got Denali, Tahoe, Trailblazer- (ooh, really out did themselves with that one!) Those names aren't that bad, but the principle of the matter-what gives? Some of those suv's though, man, what the hell were they thinking? Eiger and Vinson-same thing-sounds like some frankenstein movie or something, definately NOT atv material. The Outdoor channel did a special on both new Zuki machines the other day. The looked nice, but again, the trails they put them through and the "severe mud holes" were nothing more than an average walk in the park or leisurely casual trail for the stuff I'm used too. Couldn't tell much from that.

Newf-
I couldn't agree more! I hate plastic bumpers/racks-what the hell-a utility machine should be steel! Big beefy bumpers, strong useable racks, something that looks as tough as it is. Plasitc is definately NOT for me either. With the trees I frequently run into and over, those plastic bumpers would be gone in no time and with the stuff I carry, the plastic racks wouldn't hold up more than a day or two at best. My cousin just bought a '02 SP400-yellow. not a bad looking machine, but again, plastic-I don't like it! He hauls hay bails around and some logs and has already broke a small chunk off the rear plastic rack-what a crock! Guess I better pipe down before I offend somebodies plastic bumpers/rack assemblies. Don't mean too, but again, plastic sure ain't for this guy. The AC plasitc skid plate though-that's a different story all together-that thing IS tough, I'm definately impressed with it, that's for damn sure.

Best of Luck,

Mike

 

I have to agree with the rugged styling and the steel racks thing. I always was partial to the Kawasaki Bayou 400 for that sheer purpose. Hell, thats why I bought the Arctic Cat. Its different now with all the massive engines and long travel suspension that is available. I'm still thinking I should have made a post back in 98 titled "How to build a better Honda- Arctic Cat 500" Probably would have gotten slammed though from then 450 owners. It still struck me funny though, as those were my exact thoughts the first time I saw a new 500 on the showroom.

 

Well, I've seen teh Vision and Eiger in person and didn't like the looks at all. I was impressed with the way Suzuki is starting to handle there added features tho. I feel that they failed big time with the Eiger tho. The cheap "flip switch" to engage 4wd is so pathetic, the suspension is VERY stiff, no room on the left side for your feet on the automatic model, stiff seat, and just weak looking. The oil cooler is only 3.5x12". The Arctic Cat 375 with the same motor has a 12.5x12.5" oil cooler.

I like the Vision's new suspension (softer, and the swing arm will make it more sporty-- but I would rather the semi-IRS), park feature (I like how they did it without changing too much, but I feel that the end result will not be as good as putting it in the transmission instead of the rear axle), electronic 2wd/4wd (just added a motor on the front diff basically), soft seat, good floorborads (but could use alot of support in front of the pegs), and the fact that Suzuki put alot of work and time into this bike to make it better.

The 250, I think that thing is AWESOME looking from the side. I wonder what the front looks like? I see 2 things with Suzuki Coming out with this model. One being that suzuki is going straight at Honda in the 250 class. The specs are VERY alike, yet better. And two, I think Arctic Cat might put that motor in an ACT chassie for all those people complaining about the motor being so far rearward on the 300 and 250 models. Well, thats my hopes.

 

Yea that Ozark looks cool but can't help comparing it to A/Cat, It comes up short when you do, less suspension, no Hi-Lo range & no shift indictor lights.

 

Well, I dunno...comparing it to the AC 250 2x4...

The Ozark as a little more clearance (8.3 vs 8.25) but an inch less travel on all corners at 5.5. It's tires are an inch shorter on the front and two inches shorter on the rear (they're the same height on the Ozark). The AC has fully independant rear suspension, the Ozark a swing arm. Neither has a speedometer/odometer (it's optional on the AC). The AC has a larger fuel tank. ONLY the AC has the low range. But, and this is why I consider the Ozark over the AC for my son, the Ozark weighs 142lbs LESS than the AC. Since they use the same engine, it's likely the Ozark has a higher top speed even with the smaller tires. It certainly should accelerate quicker.

It's apples and oranges though here. The AC is designed as a workhorse, even in the 250 range. The Ozark is a trail/play machine with some (limited) work ability.

 

That advantage in ground clearance adds up to like a fingernail.

 

Yep, Andy, I know. Allow me to correct myself...


The Ozark has a MICROSCOPIC advantage in clearance...

Wait...now that I think about it, cancel that. Since the AC has an independant rear, and the Ozark a swing axel...and since the clearance measurement is most likely taken at the center of the chassis and not the lowest point...I would actually give the clearance advantage to the Cat. It's 8.25 clearance likely goes all the way through the chassis, while the Ozark's clearance probably drops down to about 5 or 6 at the rear axel.