KVF, KLF, Brute Force, Prairie

Two lists, and they are built backwards from each other

There is one machine and there are two ways of writing it down. Camso publishes a displacement figure, then a three-letter designation, then the marketing name. Kimpex publishes the marketing name, then a displacement figure, then the trim. Search either way of writing it and you find that manufacturer’s rows and not the other’s.1

• Every Camso machine row for this make opens with the displacement figure — all 13 of them — and carries the designation immediately after it.
• 10 of the 13 Kimpex rows open with the marketing name instead, and 3 open with the designation — and those are confined to one model year, 2024, so the same manufacturer uses both conventions inside a single year of the same make.
• 10 rows in the catalogue carry no designation at all. An owner who knows only the designation cannot find those, and an owner who knows only the name cannot find the rows that lead with a figure.

Neither list is wrong. They are two indices of the same machines, built for two different lookups. The practical consequence is that a search which comes back empty on one wording may be full on the other, so try both before you conclude nothing is published for your machine.

What the designation prefix settles

The prefix separates some of these machines and not others, and which is which is readable off the rows:2

• KLF appears beside one name only — Bayou — so on this make the prefix and that name are interchangeable as a search term.
• KVF appears beside 2 different names: Brute Force and Prairie. Knowing the prefix therefore does not tell you which machine the row is for, and knowing the name does not tell you the prefix.

What the letters stand for is a question for Kawasaki; neither application list says. What follows is the strings the two manufacturers print and the values the catalogue records on the same rows — which is enough to find your machine, and not enough to decode it.

The letter that tracks something, and what it tracks

Inside the Camso convention there is a second layer: some titles carry single capital letters between the designation and the name. Grouping the rows by those letters is what makes them tell you something.3

Every letter in that table resolves to exactly one rear-suspension value and exactly one sprocket pair. The displacement figure at the front of the same titles does not: the figure repeats across rows that carry different values. So on this make, of the two things printed in a Camso title, the letter is the one that moves with what the catalogue records and the figure is the one that does not.

10 Camso rows carry no letter at all, so the observation above covers part of the make rather than all of it. Those rows are in the table further down with their own suspension values.

Here is the same point from the ordering side, and it is the one most likely to cost somebody a return. 2 kit references in this make appear under more than one row title:

• 650 KVF A / D / E Brute Force (2002-2014) and 700 KVF A / B / D Rear Rigid Axle (2004-2007) — one reference, 2 systems
• 650 KVF G / H / F Brute Force (2006-2014) and 750 KVF Brute Force / EPS / SE / LE / CAMO (2005-2025) — one reference, 2 systems

Those pairs carry different leading figures and the same reference. Treat the displacement as the thing you are ordering against and two rows read as two products; the catalogue records them as one. So when a kit is quoted to you, ask which reference it resolves to and whether another machine name shares it — that is the answer to hold on to, not the figure at the front of the title.

The two conventions side by side

Grouped by the name on the machine, these are the rows each manufacturer publishes for this make, in that manufacturer’s own words. Where a column says no published application, it means exactly that: nobody has published a row under that name on that side of the catalogue.

1 row carries none of the marketing names above and is therefore not in the table: 700 KVF A / B / D Rear Rigid Axle (2004-2007). Worth a look, because that title namesno machine at all — where every other row carries a name, that one carries a rear-suspension description in the name’s place. If you cannot find your machine by name, that row is where to look next.

The Bayou rows come from Camso only; the other manufacturer publishes no row under that name. No published application is exactly that: nobody has filed a row. It is not a statement that nothing fits.

The Prairieis the sharper case, because both manufacturers publish the name and they do not publish the same machines under it. Camso’s Prairie rows carry the displacement figures 300, 360, 400; Kimpex’s carry 650, 700. No figure appears on both sides. An owner searching that name alone gets results from one manufacturer or the other depending on the machine, never a list of both, and nothing on either page says the other half exists.

How many machines each manufacturer reaches here

Both manufacturers publish for this make, and how much each one appears to cover depends entirely on what is being counted. Records and machines give two different answers, and only one of them is the unit an owner is in.4

Read the Camso lines first. The 2 Camso systems publish identical title sets for this make — the same machines, row for row, under both system names. So counting Camso records counts every machine twice, and the 26 against Kimpex’s 13 is a comparison between two kit lists and one machine list. Both figures are real; the comparison is not.

Counted as machines instead — one row per distinct published title, which is the unit an owner is actually in — this make holds 13 Camso rows and 13 Kimpex rows. They are equal.

Against the rest of the catalogue: of the 8 makes both manufacturers publish for, 2 have more Camso records than Kimpex records — CFMOTO and Kawasaki, while not one has more Camso machine rows than Kimpex machine rows, this make included. 1 holds equal numbers of the two — Kawasaki. This is the only make in the catalogue where the two manufacturers reach the same number of machines, and they do it by completely different routes.

What that is worth to you: equal totals are not the same machines. The table above is where to check your own name and displacement, because on this make one manufacturer publishes rows the other does not, in both directions.

The rows carrying a published condition

2 of the 26 machine rows for this make carry a published manufacturer condition, and both come from the same side of the catalogue.5

Kimpex publishes no per-application condition data at all: every Commander WS4 record in this catalogue has an empty remarks field. The absence of a WS4 entry below means nobody has published a condition for it — not that none exists. Camso is the only manufacturer here that publishes these flags, so this page is necessarily a Camso view of the catalogue.

Camso defines those flags in the legend printed at the head of each page of its application guide:6

B* Suspension lift kit required
C* Temporary body parts removalCamso ATV/UTV Track System Application Guide, August 2026 revision, read 2026-09-26. The guide’s own spelling is kept.

What the legend does not say is which body parts, or what the lift kit has to clear, or whether the parts go back on afterwards. Camso publishes the flag and the definition of the flag and nothing further. An owner reading Suspension lift kit required and Temporary body parts removal on one row is being told that a part has to be bought which is not in the track kit, and that something comes off the machine to fit it. Which part, and which something, is not published anywhere — so those are the two questions to put to the shop before the machine is booked in, along with whether what comes off goes back on.

One pattern in the flagged rows: both of them record the same rear-suspension value, Independent rear, and no row with the other value carries a condition. That is a co-occurrence in the published data as read on 2026-09-26, not a mechanism: Camso publishes nothing connecting the two. It is still worth knowing which of the two values your own row carries before you ask.

The flagged rows also sit exactly where the volume is. The machines the other side of the catalogue publishes most heavily for this make are the same family, and their condition field is empty — not because nothing is required, but because that manufacturer publishes no condition data for any machine at all. An empty column is an absence of data, not a clearance.

What to write down before contacting anybody

The designation and the model year, in that order, and the rear-suspension type if you can see it. A marketing name and a year is ambiguous across this make in at least three ways: the name alone finds one manufacturer’s rows and not the other’s, one name is published against non-overlapping displacements by the two of them, and the figure at the front of a row title can repeat across rows the catalogue treats as one reference. The designation plus the year is not ambiguous in any of those ways.

Every published row for this make — title, year span, sprocket pair, rear-suspension value and the conditions attached to the rows that carry them — is at Kawasaki track applications.