I have a 2000 Suzuki 300King Quad with only 1,700Kms on it. Already the U-joint is gone, differential seal in the front is gone and both wheel bearings in the rear are gone. In addition none of the brakes work (I had them serviced last week went out a day ago and went in to water half the depth of the tire and they don't work again).

In any case, I am seriously considering buying the Honda Rancher 4x4 standard shift (not big on the ES). The dealer is offering $4,200 for my Suzuki (payed $6,200 before tax in 2000)on the trade.

I would appreciate any thoughts and opinions on my situation.

Regards,

 

It shouldn't be a matter of leaving Suzuki for another brand, rather you are leaving a quad that was the best thing going over a decade ago for a newer, better design. I used to have a KQ and even though I loved it's go anywhere ability I had many of the same problems that you list. On the KQ, the U-joints will go out, the drum brakes will loose their seal and fail - it's just a byproduct of an old design. At least the newer KQ's have disc brakes up front.

You will probably be very pleased with the Rancher, however, you should also check out the Suzuki Eiger and the Kawasaki Prairie 360. The Eiger is availavle in 5-speed or automatic and the P360 comes in automatic only. All three are great bikes, much, much better than a KQ. You will not be disappointed with any of them. All three are close enough in overall performance that price or trade-in price could be the deciding factor.

Jaybee

 

The Prairie 360 is a nice bike. Disc front brakes, a sealed wet disc rear brake, selectible 2WD/4WD, great power, engine breaking, & rides great. I like the Prairie 650 also. It cost more, but it is well worth it. Suzuki and Artic Cat are offering some great bikes as well. In my opinion, you should not buy into that Honda reliability thing. I agree that they are the most reliable, as a total machine, but they are behind in features. Hondas, for the moment, are outdated. I have had better luck out of Kawasaki engines, & they are really giving a great effort with their new quads.

 

You should check out the Vinson, its fully up to date and the Suzuki dealer might cut you a better trade in. With the Honda you do get a proven design, but a little too proven if you get my drift.

 

From what I have read the Prairie 360 looks like a good choice. They are all so different. I do have a Rancher 4x4 ES and do enjoy ridding it alot. Its fun to ride and I do like the ES model. I like the extras that come with it, instumentation and full floor boards. It is also nice to shift when clinbing steep hills and need a lower gear, a flick of the thumb is easier and quicker that pushing with your foot, at least to me. Drive-em, buy what fits and maintain it.

 

I thought about the Vinson, but, to be honest with you the one thing that turned me away is the fact that it is belt-driven. One of the guys in our club bought one and does it ever 'roast'. Very nice looking bike. Also, I think I have been 'soured' somewhat from Suzuki because of my bad experience with the KingQuad. Good point on the trade value. I would think that a Suzuki dealer would be a little more generous on one of their own bikes. I will look at the Eager.

Thanks for your reply.

Cheers!

 

I will be making a trip out to check on the Prairie. I guess I'm leaning towards Honda because of the reputation of reliability. I agree that they are somewhat outdated with respect to features (ie. ability to switch between 2 & 4 wheel drive...) . Are there other things that you were referring to when you said they outdated? One thing is for sure (as was mentioned by some of the other reply's) the KingQuad is seriously outdated in its design. Would make an excellent utility machine (ie. working around a farm etc.). However, it really is not designed to be taken out for recreation that includes muddy trails and generally rough terrain (I'm sure I will get some reponses to that statement).

Anyway, Thanks for your reply.

Cheers!

 

I place my bet on the Prairie. Better take a truck. You will want to bring it home!

 

So the King Quad is outdated eh? What a loaf! It still has more features pertinent to what it was designed for than anything in it's class! It was so far ahead of the others when it first came out that it still hasn't been caught up to yet. Only recently have other manufacturers begun to offer Full ind. susp. and locking ft. diffs. King Quad is still the only one to give you a 3 range subtrans with superlow with the exception of the arctic cats which are just King Quads for those who must buy American.
I wouldn't count fluff lke digital instrumentation to be some big leap in quad design. King Quad has the advanced type of features that really matter off road. Honda's redesigned rancher can't hold a candle to the King Quad. Compare the features of the two and any thinking individual can see that the Honda is the one that's outdated. Just because the King Quad has been around the longest doesn't automatically make it outdated. The King Quad was ahead of it's time and it still holds it's own perfectly well. Look how the others are copying SUZUKI's innovations. What took them so long?

My 93 King Quad was built before the upgrade to boot covered u-joints and I still haven't had any problems with them. I didn't have to change the front brakes till some 1900 miles. My rear brake looked great at about 1800 miles with approximately 50% of material remaining.

John

 

Is the King Quad a great machine - you bet.
Is the King Quad outdated - absolutely.

While it is true that the KQ was the innovator in many features - it was ATV of the year after all, it is the nature of the business to take a ride and make it better. Even bikes without all the 'features' of the KQ can surpass it in performance and real world usage.

IRS is the best thing going for things like rock crawling. But compare IRS with 4" of travel to solid axel with twice that and you'd be hard pressed to find one with a real advantage. Even in mud - a bike with the ability to spin larger tires combined with more suspension to give better ground clearance will make it through many places that could high center the KQ.

A 3-speed sub transmission is great, but only if you have 282 cc's pushing it. Toss in the extra 100 to 400 cc's available in todays 4x4's and those extra gear ranges are not needed.

While there are always exceptions in reliability and longivity to be found, the bottom line is that the u-joints on the KQ will wear out and the drum brakes will loose their seal and wear prematurely. Honda seems to have mastered drum brake technology and other manufactures are moving more and more to disc brakes. Both are a superior system to the brakes on the KQ. I know that my '95 had reached the point where the rear brakes would be almost useless with less than 100 miles on a brake job - the first mud puddle spelled the beginning of the end.

Don't get me wrong, I rode a KQ for many years. It always got me there and back. Even though I loved it, I always wished for more engine, more suspension, less weight and tighter turning. I replaced it with an Eiger - considered by many to be a basic bare bones bike. In comparing the two, I know that I can do more and go into and out of more places with the Eiger than the KQ. Overall, I would rank the KQ better in the area of slow rock crawling. The Eiger better in mud (yes, even without the dif lock) and the Eiger scoring far superior in trail riding, comfort, fun and ease of use. I believe that newer styles of bikes, like the Rancher and the P360 will fare the same in a comparison with the KQ.

So yes, even though the KQ is still a fine machine and may be just the right bike for some, sadly, it has been passed on by the developements of the last 13 years. This is good for us - the ATV riders. We have an amazing choice of what to ride. Every segment finally has enough choices to please everyone with whatever brand loyality or feature requirements they have.

Jaybee