Mattracks EZ ATV

A third option, sold direct

Camso and Kimpex reach ATV buyers through dealers, and both publish a table you can look your machine up in before you talk to anybody. Mattracks does neither. It sells the EZ ATV itself, prices it on its own product page, and answers the fitment question through a form that a person replies to. The shopping order is inverted: with the other two you arrive at the counter knowing the part number, and with this one the first conversation is where the specification comes from.

It is also the clearest case in the category of three manufacturers measuring the same things on three different bases, so the figures do not line up even when they look as though they should. Every comparison below is between figures each manufacturer publishes itself.

The shape of the thing

The EZ ATV is the small end of the Mattracks line and the only one of the four EZ models published for a quad. An aluminum frame, 13” all-terrain tread, road wheels published as 10, 2 rows, and an assembly weight of 121 lbs— under the sheet’s footnote that every figure on it is per corner. The series climbs from there through a UTV unit to steel-framed models for side-by-sides and small SUVs.

Two decisions define it. The first is that there is no suspension in the unit — the specification sheet puts N/A in that row, and the product page calls it None (simple + low weight). The second is that all four corners are published at the same tread width.

Mattracks puts an hour on the install:

SIMPLE BOLT-ON — Converts most machines in an hour, no major modifications requiredmattracks.co/tracks/ez/, read 2026-09-26

Rated by vehicle weight, not by displacement

The EZ Series specification sheet has one row where the other manufacturers in this category put an engine size. For the EZ ATV it reads:

TYPE OF VEHICLE — ATV. RECOMMENDED MAX GVW — 2,500 lbs.mattracks.co/specs/ez-series.pdf, read 2026-09-26

Camso bounds the same question with displacement: its ATV T4S page publishes 300 to 1000cc as the machine rating, read from powersports.camso.co on 2026-09-26. Kimpex bounds it with neither — the Commander WS4 product page published no displacement range at all when it was read the same day, only the line Applications: ATV only. The 300–1000cc figure that circulates for the WS4, including in retail listings, is a retailer taxonomy rather than a Kimpex-published rating.

Three manufacturers, three different indexes into their own products, and only one of them is a number you read off the machine rather than off the shroud. Displacement is a property of the driveline; gross vehicle weight is a property of the loaded machine, and the two diverge most at the loaded end of ownership — a mid-size quad with a plow on the front, a passenger on the back, a full rack and a loaded trailer tongue is a different vehicle from the same quad bare.

Mattracks publishes a recommended maximum rather than a method: nothing on either page says how to arrive at the figure for your own machine. Your owner’s manual carries a dry weight and usually a load capacity. Add the rider, the rack load, the box, the fuel cans, the blade and anything on the hitch, and take that total to Mattracks.

Nor is there a per-machine application list. Camso publishes an application guide with a row and a part number for every machine it covers; Mattracks publishes a request form, which asks for vehicle type, make and model, an optional year and an optional maximum operating weight, and then puts a person on the answer. So there is no published Mattracks fitment to check before you make contact, and no Mattracks row to hold against a Camso row. The one illustration of the machine class on its own sheet is a frame Mattracks captions as an Arctic Cat 500.

The footprint figure is a third measurement

Mattracks calls its footprint figure ground contact surface area, and publishes it twice — once for hard ground and once for soft — alongside a contact length on the same two bases:

GROUND CONTACT SURFACE AREA — (Hard Surface) 728 in² / (Soft Surface) 2,360 in². GROUND CONTACT LENGTH — (Hard Surface) 14” / (Soft Surface) 45”. TRACK TREAD WIDTH — 13”. * ALL SPECS ARE PER CORNERmattracks.co/specs/ez-series.pdf, read 2026-09-26

The compare table on the product page carries only the larger of the two, 2,360 in² — written there as square inches rather than with the unit symbol — so that is the figure most people will see first. It is the soft-ground number, per corner. On a frozen two-track the published figure is the 728 in² end of the pair, and the contact length running from 14” to 45”is the sheet’s own statement of how much belt comes into play as the machine sinks.

Camso publishes approx. 2000 sq. in. under the name ground coverage. Kimpex publishes 1.32 m² / 2045 in² under the name flotation surface. Camso is not internally consistent about it either: its own R4S sheet calls the same row ground surface.

Four figures, three names, two of them split by surface condition where the others are a single number — and none of the three manufacturers publishes how the measurement is taken, whether it is a static contact patch or a projected area, at what load, or at what track tension. Mattracks alone says which of per-corner and total it means, in a footnote. A per-corner figure multiplied by four is not the same quantity as a published total, and a soft-surface figure is not comparable to a number published without a surface. If flotation is the reason for the purchase, the thing to ask each manufacturer for is the basis.

Nothing sprung inside the unit

The sheet publishes N/A in the suspension row. Camso, by contrast, describes the T4S hardware as a redesigned mild steel anti-rotation single rate spring and progressive damper — a spring and a damper, named as such, read from powersports.camso.co on 2026-09-26.

What that difference is worth is not published by anybody. Neither manufacturer publishes a ride measurement, a shock travel figure, or any comparison between a sprung unit and an unsprung one, so the trade is stated here as what the two sheets say and no further: one design carries a spring and a damper at each corner and the other does not, and the parts a spring and a damper add are also parts that can seize. Nothing read on 2026-09-26 quantifies either side of that.

Thirteen inches, front and rear

The EZ ATV publishes 13” of tread at all four corners. Camso publishes 11.5 in front and 12.5 in rear for the T4S; Kimpex publishes 292 mm / 11.5 in front and 330.2 mm / 13 in rear for the Commander WS4.

Read that as three published geometries rather than a ranking. The EZ is the only one of the three whose front and rear figures are the same, which means a front unit and a rear unit are the same width of belt — worth knowing when a set is on a rack and the labels have gone.

The published EZ ATV figures

What Mattracks does not publish

Four absences, each one a question to put to Mattracks directly if it bears on how you ride.

No speed figure of any kind. Neither the EZ Series product page nor the specification sheet published a speed loss, a maximum speed, a maintained-speed fraction or a speedometer-error note when both were read on 2026-09-26. This is the one figure both other manufacturers do publish: Camso publishes the T4S as keeping 2/3 of the vehicle's original speed, and Kimpex publishes speed loss of 35% for the Commander WS4. What an EZ ATV costs in speed has no published answer.

No lug height. The sheet publishes tread width and tread style, and no profile height at either end. Both Camso and Kimpex publish front and rear lug heights, so there is no published figure to set against 1.125 in and 1.25 in.

No installed system weight. The sheet publishes an assembly weight of 121 lbs, under the footnote that every figure on it is per corner — and it gives a single figure where it splits front from rear for the EZ UTV in the next column. There is no published total for an installed set. That is a category-wide absence rather than a Mattracks one: Camso publishes per-unit weights plus an approximate mount-kit weight, Kimpex publishes per-unit weights explicitly without the mount kit, and nobody publishes the number a trailer or a storage rack actually has to carry.

No warranty term. Neither page carried one when read. Camso publishes a two-year limited warranty valid only when an authorized dealer installs the system; Kimpex publishes a term that disagrees with itself depending on which of its own pages you read, which is set out in What Nobody Publishes. Get the EZ ATV term in writing before you order.

The list price, and why it is not a comparison

Mattracks prints a price on the EZ Series page, openly and without a form. For the EZ ATV it is $5,418, read from mattracks.co/tracks/ez/ on 2026-09-26. It is quoted here with three warnings attached.

It is not comparable to a dealer price.A manufacturer list price and a dealer’s price are different quantities arrived at by different people. Subtracting one from the other produces a number that means nothing.

It is not comparable in contents either. The three manufacturers do not sell the same unit of purchase. Camso ships a kit as four track systems together with the mount kit adapted to the vehicle. A Kimpex Commander install is ordered as separate line items — the track kit, then the track adapter for the machine, then front and rear anti-rotation kits — so the kit alone does not put tracks on a quad. Mattracks publishes its specifications per corner. Three different bundles behind three different figures, so the question to ask any of them is what a complete, fitted set on your machine consists of, item by item.

It is a figure read on one day. The specification sheet carries its own disclaimer, and it applies to the price as much as to the dimensions:

ALL SPECIFICATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS WITHOUT NOTIFICATIONmattracks.co/specs/ez-series.pdf, read 2026-09-26

Buying one is a conversation, not a lookup

Mattracks runs a Track Finder rather than a published fit list. It is four steps: the machine (type, make and model required, year and maximum operating weight optional), what you use it for, what you want from them — recommend a system, pricing, confirm fit, talk to a salesperson — a purchase timeline, and then your contact details. What comes back is a person:

Your information has been sent to the Mattracks team. We'll review your machine, intended use, and fitment requirements and follow up with the systems that make the most sense.mattracks.co/find-my-tracks/, read 2026-09-26

Go in with four things ready: the loaded weight you worked out above; the year, make, model and trim; what a complete fitted set on your machine consists of, item by item; and the warranty term in writing. Those are the four the published pages do not settle.

The trade-offs, as the published record states them

Every line below is a figure or a sentence one of the three manufacturers published on 2026-09-26. None of them is a recommendation, because the comparison that a recommendation would rest on is the one none of these documents supports.

• The rating is a weight, not a displacement. The sheet publishes 2,500 lbs as a recommended maximum GVW and no engine size at all. That is a figure about your loaded machine, and it is one you have to work out rather than read off a badge.
• There is no published fit list. Camso publishes a row and a part number per machine; Mattracks publishes a request form. Whether a given quad is covered is answered by Mattracks and not by a document — which is an absence of published fitment, not a statement about any machine.
• The unit carries no spring and no damper. The sheet says N/A; the Camso page names a spring and a progressive damper. Neither manufacturer publishes what that is worth on any surface.
• The price is published and the contents are not. $5,418 is on the page, which the other two ranges do not do — and what a fitted set on your machine comes to is a separate question the page does not answer.
• The speed figure does not exist. Camso and Kimpex both publish one. On the two Mattracks documents read, there is nothing to compare them with.

If the weight rating is what brought you here, the other first-party answer to the same problem is the Polaris OEM route, where the company that built the quad also publishes the fit list.