Need help on making decision.... speed, how they do in mud, frequent problems, sportiness, etc.

 

Are you refering to the King Quad?====BILL

 

the kingquad are not sport and have bad suspension
everything else on there would be great for mud and utility work

i wouldn't mind one

 

Ask Bill about the brakes on a Kingquad vs. mud.

 

Don't know about A/Cats 400 but I like my Suzuki King Quad 300. It's not a racer but it will get you through some soft mud, 1/2 tire high, most hill climbing, no problem. New, it would do 50 miles per hour on a flat. Yes I have fallen off... But not because of the suspension. Did I mention, it's not a racer?
I use mine for recreation and plowing snow in winter, around the house. If there was one thing I would like to change, it would be the height between the top of the foot pegs to top of the seat. If you go to your local dealer, sit on the Suzuki, then sit on a Polaris Sportsman. What a difference. Bill, can tell you more.

 

It depends on what you are looking for. I have an Arctic CAt 400 and it has far more sporty suspension than the king quad, also more power. But the three ranges and ifferential lock is nice. The 400 will pull more, but the 300 is better for crawling and diffrential lock is nice.

 

Hey Cowboy8, I can't provide you with any help on the Artic Cat. But I have a 00 King Quad.
It does ride stiff, and the stock tires are useless in mud. However, I put a set of Vampires on mine, one size bigger than the stock tires.
Simply amazing, it will swim now. I got it in too deep the other day, water was over the seat. She plowed on through it...It churns through mud. I haven't had a problem with my brakes yet, and it stays under water. Good Luck.

 

Suzuki's have single arm,"bump steer" suspension. Not Good. They are also dimensionally small, like most Jap ATV's, which makes them tippy and generally puny.
Arctic Cats have great suspension (double A-arms instead of single) other than the body roll. If Artic Cat could just come up with an anti-sway bar they'd have it all. The Suzuki motors are great. Silly Later ,,,Fourlix

500 ArcticCat Auto, Polaris 425 Expedition, Polaris 325 Magnum 2by.

 

Cowboy,there's not much sporty about the KQ.This quad is mostly utility.I owned a 87 and my brothers 97 stayed here at my place,as I did all the maintenance on his quad.

In 1987,I was looking for a 4x4 quad.I chose the smaller 250cc KQ over the larger 350CC Honda 4x4s because I beleived if you drove a 4x4,all 4 wheels should provide power while in the 4x4 mode.At the time,the KQ was the only one that would fit that bill.

My 87 KQ provided me with many yrs of enjoyment.It is a great worker,has tons of pulling power,and is a good CASUAL trail rider.It has a very dependable engine.

Hit the trails hard and your in for some work.The suspension is just not set up for hard riding.The turning radius is currently the worst of any 4x4 quad on todays market.The brakes will do you a good job until you decide to make it a day of riding in the mud.I have never seen a 4x4 quad with worse sealed brakes than the KQ.Stay out of the serious mud and you will be ok.

The KQ is also a very dependable machine.The engine is underpowered when playing on the huge hills with the big CC boys though.Stock tires suck.Install some mudders and watch this quad turn into a traction beast.Best of luck on your choice,===BILL