Personally, I have mixed feelings about the "SUV styling"... Too “soccer mom”… To me, though, the new Foreman and Rubicon look better than the Rincon.

Switchable 2wd/4wd to me is a big deal. Though you can add a Warn 424, it would still be nice to have a switch on the handle bar.

The two biggest things that keep me from looking at used Hondas are disk brakes on the new ones, and the resale that people seem to get on the used ones. I’m not willing to get a machine that is already several years old with no warranty to save only a few hundred bucks…

 

I was in the same boat looking for a new ATV. I had my heart set on a 2005 Rubicon and waited for them to come out. However before just running out and buying one I hit every forum I could find and contacted as many dealer and riders as I could. As I got closer I kept moving away from the Honda and looking more towards the Vinson and Kodiak. When the rubicon came out I went and looked at it and drove it. It jusy wasn't what I was looking for. Wanting to go Honda I started looking at the Rancher AT. While a nice machine It just didn't impress me as much as the Vinson and Kodiak. I got a lot of recommendations for the Kodiak for all the options it gives you. After looking at it and driving it my decision was made so I went with it. For "me" it gave me what I wanted. A small compact machine with sport features. IRS, Automatic, optional high and low range, 2X4 and 4X4 plus the locking dif. I have not driven it extensively but have put it through the paces and it is absolutely outstanding. It shifts effortlessly from high to low range, 2X4 to 4X4 and lock the dif and it will climb anything sttep enough not to through you over. I also find it not to be very complicated. that was one of the things I did not like about the Rubicon. To many bells and whistles. End the end it has to make you happy. For me I am glad I went with the Kodiak.

 

Spot on about Rubi's in showrooms. My local Honda dealer has only the new Foreman on the floor (the Rubi is very similar though, transmission notwithstanding).

I agree with the comment about the older Honda's being expensive too, however, I may be willing to pay a couple hundred bucks more for a used Honda vs anything else due to the reliability. Also, I'm not sure if I would buy any used ATV from someone I didn't know. Machine history is very important in ascertaining whether or not it is a good deal financially.

Tracker12, I really like the Kodiak too for all the reasons you listed and that's why it's on my list. However, to date I've only sat on one and never ridden it...something I have to do soon.

JT

 

I think the resale value on used Rubicons should be telling you something here.... I haven't ridden the 05, but I suspect it will not be far from the old one.... with relatively minor changes made. When I got my 04, I was able to get a factory discount of $1200 off retail... I was orignially going to get the Kodiak, but the deal was too good to pass up. I am quite pleased with the purchase decision.

The Kodiak 450 is an excellent machine too. If you think you have the need for IRS. They are different, requiring you to make adjustments in your riding style.... and take some getting used to.. But I have to admit that IRS tends to have a lot more traction available under certain conditions... sometimes too much so be careful at first.

Enjoy your ride.

 

i think they are worth it, we have two honda rubicons, both 500cc. they run good and you dont really have to put a lot of money into them. we have tooken them in about 2 times is all in the last 3 years weve had them.

 

Honda 4x4= 3 wheel drive


why pay for four when you only get three.

gotta love positraction[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv



case and point.

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: mechanicock

Honda 4x4= 3 wheel drive





why pay for four when you only get three.



gotta love positraction[img][/img]







<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkM8ls4F8wA&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=honda%20atv%204x4%20system&um= 1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iv
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...F-8&sa=N&tab=iv
</a>




case and point.</end quote></div>

I understand 100% the advantage of differential lockers, but with this mentality any 4x4 truck or SUV that doesn't have front and rear lockers is inferior to those that do. So all the Chevy, Ford, Nissan, and Toyota trucks and SUVs out there are inferior to the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, Dodge Power-wagon, and Mercedes G-wagon. So how many of you guys are driving trucks and SUVs without front lockers? Or rear lockers for that matter?

 

Comparing trucks to ATV's is an unfair comparison. The Chevy, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, and Dodge Trucks & SUVs don't spend a majority of their time in mud up to their headlights, atv's do.

The trucks that are used for mudding DO have lockers. For the record, ALL atv's have locked rears.

I think everyone posting on this thread need to agree to disagree because no one will change their opinion, and move on to another topic.

 

+1 It doesn't matter how many years the thread goes on people will stiil think whatever they already do.

As for trucks, some of them (like Chevy) do have rear lockers as a factory option, and you couldn't steer them worth a darn if the front was locked too. But trucks aren't designed to be off-road vehicles and ATVs are, so it's a moot point.

 

You're right. Most trucks and SUVs are not designed for off-roading anymore. Some of them are flat-out pathetic. But vehicles like Jeeps are. I've driven my Jeep up and through things that an ATV could not follow without winching. The biggest reasons being wheel base, tire size, break-over, and horsepower.