It wasn't my intent to find out which one's KQ would wheelie or not. I used the wheelie statement to demonstrate the KQ's lack of low-end since wheelie's are indicative of raw low end power. My KQ seems to be getting quicker with break-in but I still believe it lacks the low-end punch that big bores should have. The hesitation from 0-4 mph is sooooooooo annoying. I have a winch installed, I wonder how much of a difference it would make if it were not on there.

Overall though, the quad is excellent. The EFI, ergonomics, smooth ride, 4 wheel drive capability, top of the line IRS system and mid-range/top end make this quad one of the best around.

I've been asked which one I prefer, the BF or the KQ. That is an extremely difficult question to answer. The BF's power is intoxicating. There's simply no utility quad that can match it. But that's the only advantage it has over the KQ. However, I'm the kind of idiot that places great importance on power, so it's very hard for me to rank them. If I were pressed to pick one, I'd choose the KQ but just by a hair. If Kawasaki would improve the IRS and add EFI to the BF, my choice would most surely be the BF.

 

I had a Brute Force on order and CANCELED it the next day after giving it a more serious thought?No EFI,poor front engine protection,engine sputtering,delayed engagement of the 4x4 system[seen this first hand MYSELF!]accuator problems ect?

So far,im extremely happy with my KQ and could care less if the BF is faster.I really wanted my next ATV to have EFI and the capability to go more than 65 miles on a tank of fuel.

I enjoy this quad more/more each time I ride it.

 

I have been pretty impressed with my King so far. If comparing it to sport quads then sure it isn't that fast but comparing to other utilities I have ridden (mostly Honda) then there is no comparison. I have not ridden a Brute Force so I have no real opinion at all. I do know that I was about to buy the Brute, but once sitting on it I noticed it just didn't feel "right". I then proceeded to sit on the King Quad and it felt just like a Honda...perfect fit. It was something about the Brute's seat that felt high and...not as cushy(my butt felt right at home on the Zuki). I felt as if I was sitting on top of the Brute rather than "in" the quad. The King just felt as if it would be the more stable of the two.

 

camo650...weight might be a small factor, but lots of small factors build up to a loss of performance. Me, I'm sad to admit..I'm going to do a few things to the KQ that will tame it even more then stock form, 26 inch itp589's (heavy), winch... maybe new front bumper, a rear bumper, heaverier skids on the cv boots. These will change it quite a bit for me I'm sure. If it slows it down too much I might look at the power commander deal when it comes out...or I might just leave it alone...it could be a non-issue. Great quad so far!

 

Suzuki compares the KQ to the prarie, not the BF which should be compared to the polaris 800 that is really only 760cc.

 

I'm CAM650 at work. I have to RESPECTFULLY disagree with KegCan. The Suzuki does compare with the KQ with every other big bore available. In addition, the consumer views the KQ in the same category with the BF. Every ATV publication considers them as competitors as well. The SP800, SP700, arguably the SP600, KQ, BF, P/TP700, Grizzly, Rincon and the Quest/John Deere 650 are all considered big bores and should be considered as competitors in the same class.

I really like my KQ as well. I'm fairly confident that an aftermarket company will remedy the low-end situation soon. When that happens, in my view, the KQ will be the most complete big bore ever made. I'm adjusting to the lose of low end and learning to appreciate the KQ more and more every day.

 

I would really like to know why so many are placing so much importance on speed and off the line wheelie capability. Why did they buy a utility quad in the first place?
I know most of the utility quad riders probably average about 15-30 mph and occasionally get a chance to open it up either off the line or on a straight. So when you spend your time doing that, good handling becomes much more important.
The KQ is a really great bike, climbs well, goes down well, takes the bumps , rocks, tight corners and in short - is a great bike to ride. I tried mine out on the weekend and was very impressed. I did not have the courage to hold it open for very long because the trail conditions will not support that kind of speed.
This is a utility quad that is meant for the trails, not the drag strip.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

 

I'll second that opinion.

 

Sullivad and Kingrider,

Would you not agree that low-end power is the very foundation for utility quads, especially big bores? When you trail ride do you ever have to wheelie over a log or other object? In rivers or extremely muddy conditions low end is essential. Even when using the quad in a true working situation such as pulling, etc., low-end is essential.

When I complain of lack of low end I'm not complaining because I can't out drag another big bore. Simply stated, low end is essential and the fact of the matter is, the KQ has poor low end. I own a KQ too, so it's not my intent to offend you concerning yours. Many KQ owners resort back to the "well who needs that much speed anyway" comments when they bought a KQ because it is a big bore and it's supposed to be fast. If they didn't care they would have bought a Kodiak 400 or something along those lines. The truth is, most guys that have utility big bores want the fastest big bore 4x4 they can get, regardless of whether they admit it or not. I've also heard, "well get a sport quad if you want to go that fast". Well, that argument doesn't hold any weight either because sport quads don't have four wheel drive so they are useless to the utility crowd.

I'm just calling a spade a spade. The KQ's low end blows. Everything alse on the quad is top notch.

 

I love low end power and my KQ has it. I can pull the front end up at will and I have over logs or small ditches. Maby your quad just runs different than mine. I'm sure there are differences in all bikes but with a bike that runs by wire I am sure it can very more due to all the sensors. If my bike keeps the reverse gear in it I will be very happy.