I'm a Vinson owner that may trade up but only if I find I can live with the IRS. If not, I'll have to keep the Vinson a little longer. Besides I can go anywhere the bigger quads can so why spend the extra $$$.

 

I have a Grizzly and a Brute Force. I believe some mention was made that the KQ engine braking (mechanically like a Grizzly) would perform better than the Brute Force, however I can tell you by real world experiences that the Brute Force’s engine braking is noticeably better than the Grizzly’s. The Brute slows down well whenever you back off of the throttle and slows down quicker than what the Grizzly does. To me the Brute’s engine braking feels pretty much Rubicon-like, and the Honda Rubicon (with full time 4WD) had the best engine braking feel of any automatic quad that I’ve experienced so far...

 

So I guess I'll have to take another Suzuki because I've road all you mentioned with the exception of the BF and my Vinson have as good if not better engine breaking.

 

i think the brute has the best engine braking of anything out there so far.

 

Nyroc,

Here's a question for you, a statement to start then the question. Once upon a time you stated that the Yamys clutch was not very good because of the Sprague system. This is my observation on the Sprague clutch. I have witnessed nonclutch engagement in deep mud with people who have installed larger heavier tires on their Grizz and 400's. According to torque numbers and horsepower readings on a dyno these type of clutches loose in excess of 30% mostly they were not designed for the bigger tires. There is a way to recover at most 15% of lost power but is this enough for the people who have bought the this clutch system. I know if I have a nice expensive machine in the mud and I can't turn the tires I am going to get pretty choked. There are advantages to every system I just remember your disgust with having to work on your buddies clutch system on his Grizz. I agree there are a number of qualities that make Suzi interesting I myself have had two Suzi's in the past although they were standards.

Here is the question. Would you seriously look at the Suzi knowing the down falls of the Sprague Clutch??

Here is another thought, this is speculation but time will tell. I am not sure if there is a Bombardier dealer around you, if you can take a look at an Outlander take a look at the IRS system they use. Now this is my dream IRS machine by far only it needs a larger engine. This is my opinion only because I have ridden with all the IRS's out there and so far the Outlander format is the best. Why you might say because of the trailing link suspension. It has the same suspension that stadium trucks use. On all IRS suspensions there is a problem with climbing steep hills, the front end wants to lift up. On the Outlander it pushes down on the front in fact the more throttle you give it puts more pressure down on the front plus the clutch system is like a sleds with a helix in the driven clutch. Some of the speculation about Bomb is they will have a twin cylinder Rotax engine with a displacement of 700cc. It wont probably be out till 2006 that doesn't help for the IRS buying public now.

I think the Sprague Clutch will be the one factor that will keep me away from the Suzi. I had an old 300 King Quad loved it and would probably still have it but the motor was to small it didn't have enough wheel spin to keep the tires clean. Now of course things have changed. I will wait to see when someone else has one with bigger tires to see if they will turn in the deep mud plus see if it will want to flip over backwards going up hills that will be my deciding factor!!!!

 

I am open to discuss it. I don't claim to know everything about it. I don't think there is really a difference in a sprag and a rubber clutch as far as transfer efficiency goes if they were tuned optimally. They work on identical priniciples.

I am 100% positive that a sprag clutch tuned similar to a belt clutch (kawi) system will loose exactly the same power. When clutches are slipping, they do convert some of the power to heat. That is the whole point of a belt clutch or a sprag clutch. When we use red springs, our clutches can do what you describe too.

If an engine can't crank the flywheel fast eough, Alltoys, it will sit at the slip rpm and waste energy whether it is a sprag or a belt. If the engine has the power to spin faster than the clutch lock speed, the clutch locks up solid and loses 0%. It is just a matter of tuning. Rubber clutches can be tuned just as bad.

When I had 28" mudzillas, I always have excess power (unlike a griz) down low and I could hold my engine rpm at a speed where the belt was not slipping. My griz friend had to use more throttle and sometimes could not get the engine over the slip speed, so he got a clutch kit and it raised the sengagemment rpm, applied more power but stayed slipping.

If the KQ doesn't have as much low end as a P700 or BF, it will be more susceptible to that condition due to lack of low end torque, imo, not due to the sprag.

I don't want a rude fight, but if you know something we need to know, spit it out. Keep talkin.

 

I haven't been following this thread too much but it seems to be getting interesting...althought i'm looking to purchase a KQ I want to hear all educated disadvantages to it's various systems as well as strengths...I like to know what I'm getting into. From experience, I know of and have ridden Grizzly's with large tires and clutch kits that have not had the described problem...in fairness most had power mods as well. Keep up the debate as I'd like to know as much as possible before the purchase.

Jesse

 

After owning both the Yamaha Kodiak 400 with sprag clutch and the P650 I can honestly say the spraq clutch is superior in every way except tunability.

The sprag clutch is maintenance free. "no belt deflection to worry with"
Has better engine brakeing and more durable
Wont start slipping with normal wear

I ran 27x12x12 Vamps in back and 27x9x12 589s up front. I bogged it down once in thck clay mud to where it wouldnt turn the tires but the belt never slipped.

Since I have owned both, I can say from personal experience the clutch/belt setup on the Yamaha/Suzuki KQ is a better design for 99% of the general riders.

nyroc, when you get your KQ700 you will see what Im talking about.

 

KOD, you reminded me...had a 2001 Kod with 27' Blackwaters...clutch kit(just weights), power kit and it spun them in every situation with no bogging or slipping of the belt. Only time that belt ever slipped was when wet and that was my own fault(and poor stock snorkle design in my opinion).

Jesse

 

You are dead on Kiss.....I long for the days of my Kodiak in regards to not messing with the belt.I went 2500 miles and did NOTHING.I always thought the engine braking was much better than on my Prairie........with this said then I opne the throttle on the Prairie and all is forgotten[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]
02 650 camo