Good point four, and I have an 88 Suz. that I would put up againts any Rancher 300. It is as reliable as can be, and only has had regular maintainence over the years, and a new starter and 2 new CV's. It also has foot and a half wide rear tires! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

Well from reading this thread I see there are still some guys trying to give polaris the credit for SUZUKI's innovations so I'll go ahead and burst their little bubbles. It was Suzuki who built the first quad with IRS and true 4WD. The Quadrunner 4WD (King Quad's predecessor) had these features as well as selectable 2/4wd when it was introduced in 1987. The sportsman came along in what, 1996?

John

 

Zukimoto,

While it is true that Polaris didn't exactly invent the IRS system on quads, they were the first ones to make it work. Unless you consider 3 whole inches of rear suspension travel and the rear wheels that change camber every time they hit a bump to be successful. Not to mention a quad with lousy brakes and one so slow it has to be practically timed with a calendar in a 300 ft drag race.

 

The King Quad has rear suspension travel of 4.9" not 3. The IRS works very well on the King Quad and since it's intended use is off road, the caster change is not an issue as it would be on a car like say, a vw. Suzuki was smart enough to set reasonable limits on the suspension travel so the rear u-joints could survive. And they were able to keep the ride height and center of gravity low. As for the brakes, they're just fine. They have good stopping power and mine lasted over 1800 miles. A mag review which had both the King Quad and Honda's 300 put the Suzuki ahead in the power department.

John

 

My 88 Suz. 250 Quadrunner gets up to 50, and its stock. The tires don't matter buch, since usually a change like that will benifit you offroad by letting your tire more conform to the terrain. Stopping power is good, just make sure your brakes have been bled.

 

Zukimoto,

As far as the rear U joints, the reason they have so much travel on the other makes is because they use two (2) U or CV joints on them. Single A-arm rear suspension (sans sway bar) really isn't and hasn't been the hot ticket. Caster change isn't an issue unless you decide to ride faster than a leisurely walking pace. While the center of gravity is low on the King Quads, so is the ground clearance. If you have 15 forward speeds (three gear ranges / times five gears) and three reverse you you really think the engine makes that much power? I personally have ridden over a dozen of the King quad types (includes the LTF 250 4x4) and none of them have very good brakes. Most of those quads would have been totaled long before I rode them if it wasn't for the low gearing and compression braking. Sorry, we're talking 80's technology here.

Every one here KNOWS Suzuki is more capable of building a better quad than the old KQ series (witness the Z-400, Eiger, Ozark and Vinson series). Even Arctic Cat gave these designs a new lease on life with longer travel suspension and dual A arm rear suspension. Frankly, your observations just don't wash. The magazines never gave IRS it's due until the Sportsman series came out.

 

Rincon, Pr650, Grizz660 or Sp700 - put 4 different drivers on any of these machines and the best driver will win. Put 4 equal drivers on the 4 machines and the results will be extremely close. For the 95% of us that don't drive as good as we think we can, any of these machines will do the job.
Just one comment on the Rinny - I can overlook the features it doesn't have, but why in the world wouldn't Honda put a lower ratio first gear in it. It defies logic. It's an off-road ATV w/o a low range, it doesn't need a first gear like a Civic. What Rincon owner wouldn't want a lower 1st gear, if they're being honest? Better for the mud, stronger holeshots,etc. And at no cost!

 

The KQ was quite a marvel of engineering...for it's day. So was the 250R.
Somebody has to be first, and Suzi was really ahead of the curve for a while...weren't they even the first on 4 wheels?
I wonder if the slow economy in Japan that has been going on since the late '80s or so has had something to do with the 'bold new graphics' improvements we have seen for quite some time. Seriously, when all you could get were Japanese quads, they evolved only so far, and from about 89 through 94 or so (give or take) all they really did was tweak around their proven designs. It wasn't until the Sportsman caught them ALL sleeping with their pants around their ankles did the next big push for improvements begin. Otherwise, as long as they were selling quads, and making a profit, they were happy. However, going from zero ATVs to being #2 in the marketplace in a little over 10 years took some real doing.
Also, even if the Rincon DIDN'T win, doesn't make it bad. Imagine if you got a date with the first runner up in the Miss America contest. Would all you do is whine that there was one gal prettier than her, or would you be happy for what you got?

 

Mike Chero,

Suzuki calls their IRS a diagonal swing axle assembly. You say it's not the hot ticket but then where does that leave all the solid axle swingarm designs? I ride mine at a faster than leisurely pace all the time and believe me the caster change is not an issue.

The low center of gravity is more advantageous than massive ground clearance in situations such as off-camber trails, steep hills, etc. It's something I value as much as ground clearance and the Suzuki makes a good compromise

Glad you mentioned the Suzuki's 3 gear ranges. It's another outstanding Suzuki innovation! I didn't say that the Suzuki is a powerhouse. You had implied earlier that the Suzuki was slow. I only gave an example of what a magazine had said about the power comparison between it and the Honda 300, which again was that the Honda felt slower in comparison.

I've already mentioned the brakes but I'll say it again: My experience has been that the stopping power is good and they are not troublesome.

Suzuki's new lineup isn't necessarily better. The Eiger for example is a very different quad than the KQ. It has no super-low, locking diff, or IRS but does have a bigger motor and more suspension travel. For some that is better, others would rather have the KQ's features so it's better.

I do like the Arctic cats but you can't get one with a locking ft. diff. Still, I'd put them in my top picks behind the Suzukis.

Frankly it's your observations that don't wash. I originally posted that polaris can't get the credit for the IRS innovation (nor for true 4wd or I believe selectable 2/4wd). That is a fact. Suzuki had a working and successful IRS quad long before the sportsman. Early magazine articles did praise Suzuki for it.

John

 

John,

Solid axle designs, believe it or not, are still the hot ticket for Sport machines. Mainly because of the fact that you get less body roll with them than a IRS design (yes, even one with a sway bar like Polaris, Yamaha and Honda use). Not to mention they are lighter.

A low center of gravity is nice, but wider is better (I sound like a commercial here). Take the 250EX my kids have. No one will doubt that it has a lower center of gravity, but it is still tippy on side hills. With a wider stance you can have higher ground clearance and a low center of gravity.

Don't get me wrong. I like the King Quad. It is more refined than any of Arctic Cat's models (and I both like and recommend the ACs). I like the range selection and all of those levers up near the tank where I can get to them in a hurry If I need to, but the design is dated. Suzuki seriously needs to update this machine. 4.9" of suspension just won't cut it any more. Some 25" tires have more "give" than that. Probably the reason that the Eiger and Vinson don't have a triple range transmission is because they have the power to turn dual range transmissions and don't need a third range. I seriously doubt that the KQ can tow something the Eiger can't.

Partly the reason to the switch to more serious braking (discs) is due to the higher output of the new machines motors. Drums just don't cut it in the age of 650-700cc monster quads, no matter how advanced they are. While the drums on your machine are fine on your machine, it doesn't mean they would work on a machine that is 300 to 400ccs larger.

The locking differential is just about a moot point to the vast majority of quad riders. Some people (like you for instance) are not afraid to take your quad places where most people wouldn't walk. So a locking differential for you is a plus. For the rest of the buying public, 4x4 is merely a marketing ploy. Uninformed people naturally assume that you need a 4x4 to ride off road because they wouldn't want to take their 2 wheel drive cars in the woods. I honestly wish I had a dollar for every person I've ever seen while out riding, go around a mud puddle on a 4x4 because they are afraid to get stuck. IMHO Honda should have at least put a locking differential on the Rincon simply because it is their top of the line model. People who spend that much money on a quad, generally are pretty die hard off roadists. You may get the occasional rube who buys one (more than likely because he wants the biggest and the best) but more often than not, most buyers are former quad owners are looking for something better because they know the limitations of their old machines. But I digress...

O.K., so the King quad is right for you. You must understand that the quad was made in the eighties. When a 350 or 400 was actually considered a big machine. I'm probably not going to change you're mind about trying a bigger (and some might consider better) machine if you are happy with the KQ. How about we both agree to disagree on this one? That's the wonderful thing about America!

Merry Christmas!