Yeah, where are you TLC?

 

How big really is the difference in the center of gravity between a SRA and IRS? You have relatively few pounds difference when compared percentage wise to the hundreds of pounds of weight of the quads. It seems to me that if 2 ATVs are the same height and nearly the same weight that it wouldn't matter much if some of those extra pounds are a little higher.

Whether it makes a difference or not I still need IRS for the comfort I feel compared to the one SRA quad I owned. I went from IRS to SRA and back to IRS. And the axle isn't what limits the ground clearance on most SRAs, it's the sprocket and brake disc. Even when the IRS squats a little bit it's still a lot higher than the typical SRA. I once came across a Banshee with small tires on it that had about 3 inches of clearance, if that, and with my fat *** on my Sportsman I had about 3 times as much clearance.

 

IRS has 3 advantages if your talking 4x4.
Not just ride comfort over bumps and Ground clearance but on Utility ATV all SRA have mechanical drum brakes where as IRS all have disk brakes on the rear.

I really did get to compare the two because I had both a SRA 2007 350 Grizzly and now have 2007 IRS 350 Grizzly.
They IRS just has a much better ride way more Ground cleance and a stronger stopping rear disk brake. There is only 30lbs difference between the two and when your talking about a 550lb ATV that's really nothing.

I don't have the sag problem because I added HD Springs on my 500 and the 350 seems pretty good and the not clicked to the stiffest setting ,with 3 stiffer settings left.

All ATVs have IFS on the front so if SRA is so great why not have SFA on the front as well. I did see it on a few very old ATVs from the early 80s.

In snowmobiles, defending SRA is like defending boogie wheels over slide rails or leaf springs skis over the new IFS set up.

 

I didn't think of the brakes. Good point.

 

Sorry to say this but you're wrong about the SRA brakes. I have two SRA Yamaha Wolverines (years before they went sport model) and they both have rear disc brakes. My Kawasaki Prairie 700 SRA has a sealed wet brake which just happens to be the best rear brake in the industry. Thus it was copied by many other makers and utilized in both IRS and SRA designs. It lasts for tens of thousands of miles, no maintenance required other than oil once a year, doesn't fade, doesn't get junk in it, and doesn't have brake line hanging down near the wheel. Absolutely brilliant design.

Also, the Kawie rear swing arm is made of aluminum and weighs significantly less than any IRS steel a-arm design. Plus it's self contained, and centralized for balance. Mechanically speaking, it's MUCH more advanced than any IRS. (Notice I said "advanced", not "complicated". There is a difference.)

 

So how much does the praire 700 weigh? A Rincon and grizzly both weigh in at about 650 wet. I doubt the kawi is any lighter. Rear arms are just one part of the equation. In general the early kawi v-twins were headaches and will likely cause more problems in 10 years than a reliable IRS atv. Let's consider everything if we are talking maintenance and price. My Rincon is 10 years old (bought new) and also has never been touched in the rear end. In fact, only a thermostat sensor and 2 batteries have ever gave me a problem. I plan to replace some bearing and bushing but not because it really needs it, but because it deserves it.

 

Boy, I'm starting to understand why this site only gets a couple dozen hits a day.....


We were talking about IRS and SRA, not about overall brand reliability or price. But since you ask, my Prairie is spec'd at 605 lbs. Lighter than the Grizz or the Rinny. And that's with a TWIN cylinder engine of 697 cc. The Wolvies are/were spec'd at 412 lbs if memory serves. In any case, they are/were the lightest 4x4 utility atv's ever made. Honda had a model which was close, but I don't remember what it was now. It was also an SRA but had drum brakes in the rear.

Oh, and as far as reliability goes, I've had to do less to my Kawie (burned out tail light connector) than you've had to do to your Honda, and my machine is also ten years old. My Yamaha's are 15 and 17 years old, and the newer one needed a new stator this year. THe other one, nothing. Not bad.

Oh, and by the way, I have three family members and one friend who own 2002 thru 2004 Kawie Prairies. All of them have been treated much harder than mine, and they've never had a problem. One in particular was really beaten to death and he's literally had not one minutes problem other than he's had to bend back his racks a few times!

 

The prairie is spec'd at 605 DRY. Add 5 gallons of fuel, a battery, coolant and oil and I'd say it would be about the same if not a little bit heavier than the Rincon and grizz. In the sport quad world, The kawi kfx700 was heavier than the 700xx (by 50 pounds) despite the SRA vs IRS.

I only bring up brand reliability because if one is going to consider cost of ownership, repair and maintenance then they may as well consider everything - not just what's convenient to bring up. Why would you need 2 cylinders, 2 pistons, 2 cams, 2 carbs and 8 valves anyway? Only more to go wrong right? Not to mention that all that weight sits up high, a lot higher than rear suspension components.

I have a few Atvs with both types of rear end so I don't think I am biased on this subject but, maybe you are?

 

Sounds like you and I are cut from the same cloth. I use to rock a well set up 400ex. I loved the sra and having the ability to drift through every corner.
IMHO SRA vs IRS is more about riding style. The trick with getting a sra quad places was nothing but momentum and the amount of risk you were willing to take. Obviously with a sra quad the faster you go the smother the ride. So mach 1 on every trail was the norm.
Now I have sp 500. I like the IRS even tho it feels like a marshmallow in the corners. It did take some getting use to. I felt like I had to learn to ride all over again.
If you know how to ride both set ups are more than capable and everything just boils down to preference.
For riding in the Moab I would hands down take a SRA quad. When riding they feel much more stable and for lack of better words connected to the ground. If one of your tires came off the ground, even for a split second you could immediately feel it. You could also feel what the terrain was like. Every little pebble you rode over was felt. With the irs you dont feel the size of the rocks that you ride over. In technical places like off cambers and when 3 wheeling that disconnected feeling with the IRS makes it harder to find your limits.

 

Kick start, got any pics of the SRA quads rocking the hard trails?
This is my little sp 500.