SuperKing,
You have a PM.

 

how did the testing go ???????

 

For data on testing...see previous replies. Kingme is coming over tomorrow to give his opinion on his machine and obtain more data. I will post that also.

 

You guys can slam me all you want , but if "suzuki" planned the low end lag, problem, whatever you want to call it, then it doesnt seam to me that it would be has hard for them to fix as it seems it is. If they planned it that way they would know what they did to retard it and thus would know what to do to fix it, there wouldnt be a need for alot of testing. if i built a bike, and put in a certain part that i eventually thought should be replaced with something that would hold back some of the power, then ide know exactly what part to replace when i got complaints that it was too slow.im just skepticle, with the other problems the KQ has had, is everyone here 100% sure it was planned that way, or they rushed to get it out and had more probs than they thought. If it fixes it great, but if as stated the new ecm removed most of the low end lag, or low end lag was less noticable, then im questioning the earlier theory that if they planned it that way they would no exactly what to do to fix it, there wouldnt have to be a lot of testing. now after market ecm companies may have to do a bit of testing mainly because they didnt build the bike, they may not be exactly sure what was done to retard it. thats my story and im stickin to it.

 

RAZOR KQ....Great thread. It's about time that some of the critics could be silenced. however, there will always be critics. However...this is good news!

 

Maybe they just want to lesson the lag and not take it all the way out for liability reasons and ridability reasons I still think the KQ is the best quad I have owned so far And I hava had a few 87 warior 87 banshee 3 87 zillas 87 lt 250 2 87 trx 250r 2 99 banshees 04 raptor 04 grizzly 04 yfz 05 brute force 05 king quad 06 trx And a few more

 

Suzuki didn't do a bit of testing. They knew EXACTLY how to fix it. NOW they are deciding, apparently, that it can be changed without risk of lawsuits and they are letting select owners try the new ECMs out. Ask them at atv.dnsalias.com if you don't believe me under the KingQuad forum.

 

Alright guys we did some testing on my king and this is what we found.

Quad = 05 king quad with 25" bighorns ( they are a little heavy)
Surface = hardpack ( same place razor did first testing about 500 ft )

Old ecm in 4 x 4
run 1 49 mph @ 9.3 sec.
run 2 49 mph @ 9.2 sec.
run 3 49 mph @ 9.4 sec.

New ecm in 4 x 4
run 1 49 mph @ 9.2 sec.
run 2 49 mph @ 9.5 sec.
run 3 49 mph @ 9.2 sec.


Old ecm in 2 x 4
run 1 49 mph @ 9.6 sec.
run 2 50 mph @ 9.5 sec.
run 3 49 mph @ 9.5 sec.

New emc in 2 x 4
run 1 50 mph @ 9.8 sec.
run 2 50 mph @ 9.3 sec.
run 3 49 mph @ 9.8 sec.

My times didnt see much difference between the new ecm and my old one. However I could feel a difference between the two. I felt like the lag was cut in about half with the new ecm. What I mean by that is, the lag would be there until about 4-5 mph instead of 9-10 mph. You know how it feels like hitting a turbo around 9 mph? It felt the exact same only it came on earlier.
As far as pulling wheelies it would make it easier but you are not going to have any trouble keeping the front end down.

Overall I was a little dissapointed with the difference that it made. Im with Razor in that I would not spend $300 for what it did. I am one of those who are bugged by the lag and will have no problem dropping 500+ on a yoshimura module if it will give it the hit I am expecting. But I do not think this is the big cure some of us are looking for.

 

Hey boat, were any of those machines retarted or would they flip mover backwards????????[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-blush.gif[/img]

 

I will have to say some were slugs ,warior,1 of the zillas,the lt 250,and 1 of the banshee's