P.S.....by the way....the KQ took the quad of the year award long before the transmission issue was known about. Theres about a 3 month lag time between when the test was done and when it appeared in print (if not more). The only way the magazine testers would have known about the problem was if it had blown up on them during the test, and even at that they would've dismissed it as a fluke unless there was a previous report of a history of that failure or their replacement machine had blown up too. They would've applied the same standard in reporting to any brand of an ATV. So the standard of performance and quality that they rated the KQ at is only applicable AS LONG AS IT IS RUNNING!!!! I doubt that a two hour drive under somewhat ideal conditions other than a couple of hills is enough to qualify any machine and rate it competitively in terms of durability or longevity against a manufacturer's competition. Had that been the case the Suzki engineers and field staff would have certainly been aware of the problem before they brought it to market. So what I'm saying is don't confuse the issue of it being rated as "ATV of the year" with its actual durability. It appears to be a great machine once this issue is taken care of .....but with the transmission problem considered it's title should be revoked until their repair has been proven to be ligitimate....and before more customers put their hard earned money on the table and pay to be a part of Suzuki's field testing staff.....