I have a '99 King Quad and am looking at a '91 160 Quadrunner for my wife to ride. Two of us on the King Quad is OK, but doesn't work real great for all-day trail rides.

I'm not familiar with the 160. Was it a reliable quad? Is the chain drive high maintenance? Any indication of top speed? If we ride through mud and other tough stuff will I spend more time pulling out the 160 than riding? A local Suzuki dealer told me the 160 was an awsome machine.

The local Artic dealer has the 160. It's in great shape and runs excellent. He wants $1350. Is that a fair price for this quad?

If I get any answers that this 160 is going to be high maintenance I might look at a new Ozark. Has anybody ridden both of these and can you comment on the differences? I'd just as soon get into a 2nd quad for $1350, but if there's drastic differences maybe the extra money would be worth it.

Thanks for the help. I turned to these pages when I bought the King Quad and found this very helpful. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

 

i had a 160 it is very manouverable and predictable. It has lots of power it will blow away the king quad it goes around 45mph. the only complaint i have is that the suspension is not the greatest for jumping and things like that. The engine is very reliable andwill never break down. Ground clearance isn't great but wjhen i get iot stuck in a rut i just lift it out.

 

I bought a 91 for my son last fall. I paid 1440 cdn but had to rebuild the top end of the engine. Cost about $100 but was well worth it. The machine is very reliable and good for a light rider. The downside is that it has not the best braking system for a new rider compared to newer utility type machines. Chain is not a problem. Keep in maintained and it lasts forever. Machine will go about 45 mph so it will keep up. 2 wheel drive will get stuck a bit if you are in deep snow or on slippery slopes, but it is so light that is not an issue. Hope that helps.