I use to involve in sport racing atv's back 7 years ago and always ridden suzuki product and has never let me down. Now approacing 40, i'm interested in purchasing a 4x4 quad either the 500 or the 700 suzuki of course. What are the goods & the bads about these two quads ? Thank you very in advance for your input greatly appreciated. Gaetan.

 

There the same ATV just one is a 700 and the other is a 500. Both motor are reliable.
The 500 costs less hand has all the power you will ever need.

 

Agreed my 500 is a workhorse, I use it on the trails, in mud and pulling my trees I cut down. Has never left me stranded or wanting more.

 

If they're half as tough and reliable as my old '96 250 4x4 quadrunner then they're good.
Mike

 

thank you for the feed back. Any problems tho like frames cracking, premature cv boots or cv joints failling, drive belt getting wet and slips, engine over heatng, since the 700 has the same frame as the 500, you would think the 700 would over power and torque and premature stress on all components.

 

they are both awsome. the 700 has an overabundance of power making it feel very light and nimble compared to some utility quads. change the tires to something agressive. big horn 2.0, mudlites, etc. and ride the crap out of it. no big issues to speak off. cdi box doesnt last forever. oh and make sure to replace the filter with a new foam one such as a uni filter and get some k and n filter sealant to put around base of the filter and the box to seal it. had issues with sand getting through and smoking motor. trust me i know from experience. u can also use vasolene if u dont have k and n filter sealant. other than that awsome quad. will tow a 4000 pound flat bed trailer in low 4wheel drive easy.
hope that helps
paul

 

Cool.... Thanks for all the input...yes I took down the notes. lol. got to go shopping soon.

 

For what its worth, I sold off my mothers 2wd Rancher and bought a 2008 King Quad 450 to replace it. Deal was pretty good, so I figured I might as well upgrade while I had the chance to do it cheap. Basically cost me $1500 to upgrade a 2006 2wd Rancher for that 450 with 630 miles on it.

Anyway, I'm going to imagine the 500 Suzuki is comparable to this. The 450 was a smaller motor in the same body as the 700. For comparison sake, its solid all around. As far as power, fuel injection is evidently a godsend. This 450 will hold its own with my 2002 Grizzly 660 that is jetted with an HMF pipe. It won't outrun it, but it won't get left in the dust either. Any carburated 450/500 from back in the day would be utterly smoked by that 660. The KQ 450 hold its own in a drag and the 660 slowly pulls away from it. I can't even imagine what the 700 with fuel injection would do, but I'm going to guess that the 500 will have all the power you need unless you just want to be at the front of the pack. Myself, I would get the 700, but I would not be unhappy with the 500.

 

The 450 KQ and 500KQ are the same ATV and motor.
All Suzuki bores the 454cc motor from 84mm to 87.5mm and left the stroke the same at 82mm.
That made the 454 into the 493 they have now.
With a top end bore job you can make your 450 KQ a 500kq anytime you like. I do not think your will notice much of a power increase though. The 454 is a strong motor.
2007 Suzuki KingQuadŽ 450 4x4 ATVs

A 660 is rated at 42hp and the 500efi is 35hp. Efi does not increase hp,it depends on what the carb size was. There no hp increase over a SP500H.O carb and sp500efi, sp700 carb vs sp700efi and 750 Brute force carbed and 750BF efi.
Efi is just a different fuel delivery system. A 40mm carb gets the gas to the motor as well as a 40mm throttle body.

In this 2010 450 motocross the only carbed bike was the ktm and it handed it to all the efi bikes.http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/178/53...omparison.aspx
There just no replacement for displacement. Both the 500 Outlander and 680 Rincon are rated at 40hp but the 500 does not or will ever have the torque ft/Lb stump pulling grut of the 680.

 

Yes, I know a good bit of this. Thats why I said the 500 should be comparable. I wasn't expecting there to be any great world of difference between the 450/500. Case in point the early 454 Arctic Cats bored to a 493 for the Arctic Cat 500 in later 1998 and also used in the Suzuki Quadmaster 500 of that time, most likely evolving into the Vinson when it came out. There was a difference between those two quads side by side, but not enough to matter. Those are not new engines by any stretch of the imagination, though there are definitely differences. I had a 1999 500 Arctic Cat, my cousin had a 98model Arctic Cat 454. Same engine block of course, but not the same engine. We would test them against one another by starting from a standstill in 4th gear and see which one could pull itself out the quickest. The fuel delivery will indeed make a difference. None of those older carburated quads would even come remotely close to running with that 660. This fuel injected 454 motor will. Granted the newest version of that engine I had ridden would be a 2003 AC500, but for going from a standstill to top end, there is no comparison with the 450 with EFI. When I said a smaller motor, I wasnt expecting to be required to word that perfectly as smaller displacement. I think the vague term does a good enough point to illustrate the point, which is that this 450 is a lot quicker than comparable sized quads of 10 years ago. Thank you for the lesson though.